I'm choosing between Clark and Dean. Close the deal.

[Skinner]

Washington, DC, has a totally insignificant "nonbinding primary" next week, which the party, the media, and almost all the candidates are planning to ignore. However, I am excited by the opportunity to cast my vote before the Democratic primary race is a foregone conclusion, and I am still struggling with my decision.

I have mentioned in the past that I was considering Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry. Even though I like him a lot, I never gave serious consideration to Edwards, because I just don't think he is senior enough to get the nomination yet, and so far the campaign seems to have confirmed that. But I do think he would make an attractive national candidate at some point, and maybe even as VP in 04. Kerry's lackluster campaign, in which he squandered a commanding lead, is a clear sign to me that the man does not have what it takes to win a General Election in the fall. He seems like an honorable guy, and I respect his record, but as a campaigner he stinks.

So that leaves Clark and Dean.

To be clear: I believe that both of these men would be formidable candidates against George W. Bush. If either of them wins the nomination, I think we've got a shot at winning. And whoever wins the Democratic nomination will have my full support in the fall -- No hard feelings; No bullshit. I am a loyal Democrat, period.

Briefly, here's how I feel about picking a nominee.

For me, it's all about who can win. Notice that I did not say "electability." I believe that the term "electability" is too passive, and does not take into account the ability of the candidate to shape his own destiny.

Based on a simple "electability" standard, I believe that Wesley Clark would be the obvious choice. These days, National Security is the number one issue, and having a General as the nominee would be attractive to voters. His resume, his intelligence, and his southern roots would make it easy to position him as a moderate to non-partisan independent swing voters, and a credible alternative to George W. Bush. Clark is the the "electable" choice, who is guaranteed to not offend pundits, the media, or swing voters. He could be competitive nationwide, even in some parts of the South. A vote for Clark is the "safe" vote.

However, when I ask "who can win?" I believe that Howard Dean offers an extremely formidable package, which is perhaps more devastating than what Clark has to offer. Howard Dean has run such a truly awesome, take-no-prisoners, aggressive campaign that offers a glimpse of what he can do to George W. Bush in the fall. Like Clinton (and unlike Gore), Dean will not sit back and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" when the Republicans attack. He is a fighter. He has raised piles of money, and I believe he could raise a war chest of $200 million to rival Bush. Because he has declined public money, the law will not require him to stay silent while the Republicans try to beat the crap out of him during the summer. And perhaps most importantly, he has mobilized an army of enthusiastic supporters -- the type of ass-kicking grassroots organization that Democrats are supposed to have but which the national party has failed to organize. On the downside, Dean has made some "gaffes" and will likely make more, he has no foreign policy experience, and he has been caricatured (unfairly, but perhaps permanently) as a loopy liberal. A vote for Dean is the "gamble," but it is a gamble I am prepared to take.

That's where I'm coming from right now, and I suspect there are many more like me on DU right now.

I'm not impressed with empty smears against candidates; I'm not impressed by hyperbole; I'm not impressed by the "your guy sucks" - "no, your guy sucks" back-and-forth that sometimes passes for "debate" on this message board. I think insulting people is a bad way to support your candidate. I'm not swayed by appeals based on who shares *MY* opinions on the issues, but I do care how a candidate's issues will sell to the American people. I'm the ultimate cynical pragmatist; I think George W. Bush is a fucking asshole, and I want a candidate that can win.

So here's your chance to convince me, and to convince all the other Democrats who are in the same position I am. Should I support Clark or Dean?

[Renew Deal]

1. Locking

Flamebait

:crazy:

[Skinner]

4. LOL

Cute.

[Bread and Circus]

5. LOL

Thanks Skinner for being so up front.

Democratic Underground Rocks!

:yourock:

[deminflorida]

14. It's not a matter who can win, it's who can win and maintain the

current status of the U.S. Senate as much as possible. Clark and Dean can both win against Bush, hell with Bush's record, you and I could probably beat him. If we don't save those five Senate seats that are up for bid in the South, then the party in four years is going to be where Bush is today, defending tooth and nail the White House. Nope Dean wins and loses those seats, he's basically a lame duck for four years and just as polarizing as Bush is. No guarantees that Clark saves those seats either, but I believe he has the best chance. So for me, it's Clark, no doubt.

Plus - I like his tax plan, I believe the economy starts with the Middle Class, so did Clinton.

[Skinner]

28. That's one of the more convincing arguments I've heard on DU.

It's something to think about.

[slinkerwink]

51. the problem is that Dean also has a long-term vision for electing members

of Congress. Look at what he did recently with Congressman Boswell, and he plans to do the same with twenty other congressional races. Besides, the premise that Dean will lose those five seats is based on nothing but opinion, and it looks like Dean's doing well in the South to assauge those doubts since the last poll in SC had him in the lead there.

[worldgonekrazy]

336. Straight from Clinton:

"I'd also like to say that whatever it is that Howard Dean knows, or whatever it is that he eats for breakfast every morning, if I could give it to every other Democratic office holder and would-be office holder, we would immediately become the majority in the Congress and we would have about 35 governors. I have to tell you, I think a big part of it is just producing for people, actually doing what you say you're going to do at election time."

He said that of then Governor Dean in 1997.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. I'll take it even farther it is also who can win and govern effectively.

I know your main concern is winning, as it is for all of us. But we can't be blind to what will happen after the election. Dean has a history of not getting along with his own party in the Vt. legislature and we all know of the friction between him and the 'Washington Democrats'. Even if we do win, even if we do well in Senate and House races, the Republicans will be in a strong position in Congress and we need a united party to stand up to them. Dean so far has not shown himself to be a unifying force.

[CWebster]

105. But

He has a record of accomplishment.And if his reputation was so divisive why are so many of his political opponents now part of the Dean campaign.

On the other hand, Clark was fired his job--they wouldn't even wait the few months until his official retirement--and he has the criticism of many former military peers.

[trogdor]

130. Accomplishment sometimes requires pissing people off.

I'm sure both Dean and Clark understand that all too well.

Clark was fired for political reasons, not because of his job performance, which has been (so I understand) consistently superior. You don't get to be a four-star general by being an idiot; you EARN it.

I'm a Dean Supporter (tm), but I'd support Clark every bit as enthusiastically. I don't think either candidate is about to put up with even one iota of Bushit. Right now, it's Dean's organization that's taking the party by storm, and you need that before you can talk about what you'd do as President. Of the other eight, Clark is probably the most likely to gain the support of Dean people should he win the nomination. I think if Kerry, Gep, or Joe were to somehow prevail, they would find that it didn't pay in the long run to say such nasty things about Howard Dean while his half-million-plus active supporters were listening.

I fully understand why Skinner is up in the air about which of the two to support. My advice for someone who has yet to make up his or her mind would be to wait until after the New Hampshire primary to endorse a candidate.

Edit: Remembering that the admins live in DC, I imagine what Skinner is really after is help with the decision on which candidate to select in DC's non-binding primary. My knee-jerk reaction as a Dean Supporter (tm) would be to suggest Dean.

[dogman]

303. What?

Repeating over and over that Clark was fird doesn't make it so. Cohen was a Republican who wanted to take care of his friend Ralston who had been sidetracked for having an affair with a subordinates wife. He had to be promoted or leave the service. Because Clark was successful in spite of Cohens attempts to undercut him he was targeted for revenge. I think it's astounding how many Dean supporters will ally themselves with Milosevic a war criminal.

[CWebster]

392. Lame

Clark was fired, even if he can't bring himself to pronounce the words. You think they are roasting Dean now? You haven't begun to see what they can do to Clark. They can squash him like a bug. They couldn't even wait a few short months until his official retirement, after a long military career to can him, and he was fired under a Democratic administration. It. just. can't. get. any. worse.

[Cassandra]

412. Exaggerating perhaps?

"I think it's astounding how many Dean supporters will ally themselves with Milosevic a war criminal."
Bringing up Clark's record, regardless of the reasons, does not make anyone a Milosevic ally (except for Repukes).

[bearfartinthewoods]

60. something else to think about ..Edwards...the white knight on a dark horse

a verifiable liberal
southern
more foreign policy experience than dean
more domestic experience than clark
easy style, comfortable in his own skin
verbal skills honed to a razor's edge
doesn't need handlers to tell him what to say or what he believes.

the whole package rolled into one.
all we have to do is vote for him...

[bearfartinthewoods]

73. i forgot something...has the highest percentage of voting against bush

of any senator
has a 94% approval from the NAACP and the AFL-CIO.

[adamrsilva]

106. Dean has the money and organizing ability

to keep other Dems in office and help them win.

[flpoljunkie]

151. Trippi asked 2M people to send $100 when Dean gave up public financing.

Yet, how much was raised from that point until the end of the quarter?

Perhaps, the power of the Dean money raising machine is not quite as advertised.

[Hippo_Tron]

374. I completely disagree...

Look, Senate seats are important but unless we can muster up enough for a majority it won't matter. Even if we get 49 seats and get Chafee and Snowe to vote for the President's budget do you think there is any way that it will pass the House? Tom DeLay will simply not allow it. And as far as judicial nominees go, good luck. The GOP will block if we have 45 49 55 or 59 seats. We fillibustered, so they will too. Unless we can muster up 60 senate seats, I'm much less worried about the WH than the Senate.

[xultar]

17. Fine $25.00 to a candiate of your choice...I'll pay (that was good!) n/t

[Clark4VotingRights]

320. Good one Bleachers7

:)
Hee hee

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. $$$

nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. And...

[wryter2000]

37. That's it for me

I'd be happy to have either Clark or Dean. However, I think the candidate with the most money stands the best chance of beating Bush*.

[ithacan]

57. $$$ is absolutely crucial!!

it's gonna be ugly, and the repubs are gonna be throwing millions into the fray.

It's unfortunate that Clark limited himself in this area. I understand the principle involved, but you also have to be pragmatic.

I'd happily support either one, but the money issue is a real big one for me; we can't afford to have a candidate that is unable to spend in the crucial months after the primaries...

[neuvocat]

3. You want someone who questions someone's party credentials?

That sounds a lot like Bush questioning someone's patriotism, you know.

[Skinner]

7. I'm assuming that this is a dig against Dean.

I'm not easily swayed by campaign rhetoric. I am a former campaign hack, and I discount almost everything candidates say about one another. It's politics, and you gotta do what you gotta do if you want to win.

[mouse7]

6. Consider who has the best overall vision for the country

I'm not lobbying one way or the other.

I'm just suggesting that you consider the candidate that seems to have the best concept of a vision for the country.

I feel that the "who can win" question is linked very closely to the idea of where a candidate wants to take the country, and how well they communicate that vision.

Good luck with this thread. Hope it doesn't get too bloody.

[Skinner]

13. Ability to communicate a clear vision for the country is important.

I agree that it is central to winning. Whose vision for the country, and ability to communicate it, would provide the best alternative to Bush?

[robbedvoter]

45. I agree. Check this :

http://clark04.com/issues/turnaround/
Wes Clark has a Turnaround Plan to get America moving in the right direction again. And he is proposing five explicit benchmarks that the American people can use to hold him accountable for accomplishing his Turnaround Plan for America.
I, Wesley K. Clark, promise to show the leadership to achieve the following five goals by 2008, while reducing the budget deficit each and every year, and to ask the American people to hold me accountable for meeting these goals:


* The typical family's income will increase by $3,000.

* I will put in place policies that will prevent 100,000 premature deaths from environmental causes by 2020.

* 1 million additional students will enroll in higher education.

* 2 million children will be lifted out of poverty, bringing the poverty rate to lowest on record.

* 30 million people who currently lack health insurance will get it.

Every President should be held accountable for failing to improve the lives of American families, students, and children. President Bush has failed to lead - I will not. I will hold myself accountable and will provide the leadership and vision that will turn America around and get it moving in the right direction again.

[robbedvoter]

47. And this:

Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much
farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right
now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an
admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow
they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.
Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)
Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could
get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.
Maher: Good for you!
Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back.

[soleft]

8. I think we have to shoot the moon to beat Bush

So I don't think we should go with the "safe" choice, as attractive as Clark is. I've had a gut feeling about Dean since the spring of 2002, and despite all negatives, I think he's our best, perhaps only shot at removing the the PNAC from the executive office.

[regularguy]

10. WOW. If I was smart and literate,

I would have wrote that same post!
:hi:

[DancingBear]

11. DTH - are you out there?

DTH had a wonderful post up not too long ago concerning his reasons for supporting Clark. I'll wait a while to see if he's here and wishes to re-post it in this thread, or else I may (with his permission). It spells out the reasons in a clear and concise fashion, and does so far better than I could.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

112. You Have My Full Permission

Because I'm not entirely sure what post you're talking about. :-) But thanks!

DTH

[DancingBear]

155. Why, the one down below, of course!

:)

[Woodstock]

12. You've made a pretty strong case for Dean

and as for his gaffes & the media characterizations being a "downside" - check out this.

Here's the link to the editorital from The Nation called "Dissing Dean":

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040112&s=editors

...These politicians are acting like children throwing their marbles at the one who beat them. In this, they display their bitterness not simply at Dean but at the growing legions of Democratic voters who support him. In Washington, the pros worry that these attacks can only help Bush if Dean gains the nomination. But the energy unleashed by the remarkable Dean campaign will continue to grow.

And no matter who gets the nomination, the real question of the election will be whether voters want to fire George Bush or not. Remember, the last insurgent Democrat to win, Bill Clinton, was introduced to most Americans as a man who cheated on his wife, claimed he didn't inhale, ducked the draft and wore boxers, not briefs. Clinton won because voters wanted to get rid of George the First. And like Clinton but unlike his petulant opponents, Dean will at least remind voters clearly of why getting rid of George the Second is equally necessary.

[TexasSissy]

89. Almost all Dems. LIKED Clinton. That was major part of the attraction.

Appealing to the masses is very important. Even with all the bad things spread about Clinton during the race, Democrats and many Independents still just, well, liked the guy, you know? He was so calm, cool, always in a good mood, articulate. He just had "it." It's easier to forgive "mistakes" when you like someone.

A serious,but brief reply

I think Dean might have a clearer understanding of what he is up against because of one simple thing. He was at Yale at the same time as Bush was. There are similaritites between Ivy League schools and schools on the level of West Point, but there are also subtle differences. Since Dean was formed at approximately the same age in the same cauldron as Bush (Yale), I think this gives him an edge on some instinctive level that Clark doesn't have -- both in terms of understanding and in terms of this being a long standing battle. Dean's decision to become a doctor shows that he was already in disagreement with the Bush mentality a long time ago.

[douginmarshall]

395. WHAT ?????

The reason to vote for Dean is because he went to the same school as Bush?:crazy:

I went to the same school as the former MI Rep. Gov. and I still have no clue what makes him tick.

400. read it how you will

Actually, Clark is my second choice.
I think both Dean & Clark have much to speak for them in their positions and in being reformist.
The reason I gave is not my only reason for supporting Dean, I was just singling out a particular reason that I think has significance.

Cultural perceptions and understandings have a lot to do with how the general electorate votes unfortunately in some sense. Think of how even though the electorate was more aligned with Gore's positions than Bush's, Gore got such a bad rap in 2000 for being arrogant & elitist & a policy wonk, etc.; when Bush is the actual elitist. I think this had to do with Gore not understanding how to present himself and underestimating the aw-shucks demeanor of Bush. This field is what I was thinking of in my statement (may not have been clear). I think the same thing can be said for Clark,(edit for clarity - this thing being that I think Clark will not fall into the trap that Gore did) but to a lesser extent than Dean. Both of them have the advantage over the other Democratic candidates in respect to this, I believe. I think this has a lot to do with Kerry's not doing so well, even though he looks good on paper & is a very strong Democrat-- because he is perceived as elitist.

[OrAnarch]

15. You want someone who can win...

But is it a victory if the candidate can only win by appealing to Bush's America?


I want a candidate who will change America one mind at a time. Reach out and realign the political spectrum. I do not want a candidate who is "electable" based upon current "middle" America, cause thats not my America.


I do not believe Wes Clark can, nor needs to, reach out, as he appeals to the right allready, to Bush's America. Such a candidate would hold no potential vitory in my opinion. A different president, but the same ignorance would characterize our society. We would conform our views to the middle, while the republicans continue to conform the public to their views. The endless cycle of their erosion on liberalism would continue.


Finally we need someone that will break such an institution, that will realign the political spectrum, and pull people left....to change America back to what it was...to change the people themselves in favor of liberalism. Anything less is not winning.

[Skinner]

21. I am certain you are sincere.

And no doubt these comments will appeal to many people on DU.

But I am not swayed by this line of argument. I will never be swayed by the argument that there is "no difference" or "not enough difference" between Bush and the Democratic nominee. To me the differences are obvious.

[OrAnarch]

46. Thats not exactly what I meant...

Mark my words, there is a great difference between Clark and Bush, but would there be a great difference in the American people if Clark campaigned for the presidency? His "electability" factors are there directly because he appeals on certain right-wing characteristics. He is not challenged to reach out and change the American people by teaching them, etc. That is what I mean. He, as a president would change, but the people, who are ultimately responsible for electing their leaders, would not be taught or challenged, and brought closer to liberalism. We would have Bush's America with Clark the president. That is my point...I don't only want a presidentital change, I want a change in our society.


For example, if Hitler's germany had to choose between a general and a doctor, who would they choose? Thereafter, would their way of life, that of militaristic Prussia, be challenge? Would they be taught and changed as a society by making such a choice? Or would they simply remain Hitler's germany with a new leader, one who never neccessarily needed to reach out and change them. They would remain "an Army with a State".


The policies they choose could be better, they could become more institutionally liberlistic, but, the people would have the saem tendencies to support another Hitler if one came around, unless they were fundementally changed.


And thats my premise...and people may not agreee: Clark is the candidate for Bush's America, while Dean is a candidate to change America back to what it should be. A prerequisite to Dean's win is a signalled shift in our society, while no such shift is required for Clark to win. But alas...I did mention prerequisite.... :)

[Skinner]

50. I understand.

But to me, any argument that is based on the premise of "I don't care if we win the election" is not going to convince me.

[OrAnarch]

95. Obviously, the difference remains on how we define "victory"

:)

And thats cool, you know. I understand both point of views, and I was thinking more along your lines when this election started. I just strongly proritize a change of the society by ceasing to appeal and pander to America's worst in order to win. Some may or may not see that as what Clark does. Hence, I am sure my argument only goes so far, and may only work with those who think along the same lines. Im sorry I couldn't be of more help. Good luck with your choosing.

Everyday I am starting to choose myself. Ive figured out who I wont vote for, but have to figure out who I should promote to others.

[CWebster]

131. The obvious differences are shrinking

As the entire center shifts to the Right. So why bother to vote for a Democrat who, more often than not, subscribes to the Republican agenda?
When do the differences become almost irrelevant to strong party identity?

The difference is a Democrat who at least stands his ground psychologically for starters..

[tameszu]

217. Making the tax system more progressive by adding a new tax bracket

at the top tier makes him more Republican?

You know not of what you speak.

[Rowdyboy]

16. You simply must decide just how big a gambler you are....

I prefer to take the lower risk. Dean is riskier, mainly because of his unpredictability. He could cause serious damage down ticket if the gaffes continue and the "loopy liberal" image remains. Yes, he has money (and potential to raise more) but all the money in the world won't sell a product the people don't want to buy.

Clark won't take Mississippi; hell, George Bush would beat Jesus Christ here. But Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Florida and even North Carolina COULD be in play. Clark will also sell better in the mid-west. He comes far closer to representing "middle-American" values than does Dean (or at least Dean's stereotype). Money will be a problem for Clark but with enough help from Unions and independent committees and volunteers he can stay in the news. A national "whistle stop" could be done cheaply and to great effect.

Finally, Americans love an underdog. Clark is the underdog to Dean, and would be to Bush also. The giant-killer is a powerful image and has potential for Clark.

Regardless, you won't go wrong. I have great respect for both men. Good luck with your choice.

[jumptheshadow]

39. And picking up the gambling theme...

This is a more volatile election year than ever.

The capture of Osama bin Laden or a terrorist attack could change the General Election dynamics in a nanosecond.

In considering a candidate, please evaluate who will have better "legs" if something unpredictable happens.

[Walt Starr]

192. I see Clark as the biggest risk in the field

My reasoning is simple, he is an unknown political entity. No political record means we have no idea how he would govern or even if he is capable of governing.

The Republicans would hammer that home all summer and he would be bound by law to not produce ads countering such an attack. The "Clark is unknown" meme would be insurmountable after the convention.

[Melinda]

18. Peggy Noonan repudiates Dean.

Despite the fact that the rest of the GOP embraces him. What more needs be said? Choose Clark - you know you want too.

[Skinner]

34. If you are a Dean supporter,

why would you tell me to choose Clark? It makes absolutely no sense.

And how is it that you claim to know what I want?

[Melinda]

Let me find your "leaning toward Clark" post of a month or so ago

and then I'll post it to remind you. BBIAB with that one.

As to your 1st question -

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.

The DU I visit bears little resemblence to that described above. The 2004 forum is a veritable modge podge of conservative and right-wing opinion which goes on unchallenged day after day after day, until now such sources are accepted as commonplace authorities by those relatively new to this site.

All one need do is read the admiration of Peggy Noonan and her "opinion" that has been taking place for hours now... its on the front page of the 2004 forum. The have a look at the repudiation of Helen Thomas by "members" of this forum.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I do not know this DemocraticUnderground anymore.

[Skinner]

48. I think you read what you wanted to read in that post.

I hope you will "remind me" because in that post I pretty much made the same argument I'm making in this thread.

[Hep]

53. Don't mind that

respond to mine respond to mine!

:)

[Melinda]

63. I hope you'll take the time to read my edited response.

The baby decided to throw up on my shoulder as I typed the first one, so I had to cut it short.

[Skinner]

76. I just read it.

I kinda wish you hadn't gone and edited it after I replied, but that's cool.

[Melinda]

81. Sorry, but baby takes precedence over posting.

And I saw your response after I edited.

[dogman]

315. Your baby can read?

[Melinda]

330. Not yet, but he has projectile vomiting down.

Now, aren't ya glad you asked? ;)

[robbedvoter]

19. The guy who rallies beats the one who splits, the one who cuts taxes beats

the one who raises them, the guy who is solid on any W criticism beats the one who cannot raise several important ones for personal impediments.
Who will vote for Clark?
I wrote this last month:
http://www.forclark.com/story/2003/12/19/163542/91
he is the guy that can rally the anti-W vote. Dems may go ABB (although some are pretty bruised by the scorched earth primaries), but independents, Republicans against W, will vote Clark but stay home for HD. That will determine the outcome.
These are reasons that drew me to Clark
1. His personality(+ mind)
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/1/103242/1317
2.His mind:
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/22/204246/39
3. His heart
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/28/81836/095
4.His courage/lack of arrogance
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/1/103743/4163
His views (one example - preemption)
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58

5. His feistiness
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/20/12545/873

[Don Claybrook]

20. Regarding matching funds

How much will Bush's 200 million really help him?

How much will Dean benefit from not taking the matching funds?

How much will Clark suffer because he is constrained by matching funds?

I really don't know the answer to these questions. When I hear about Bush's 200 million dollar war chest, I think to myself that 200 billion wouldn't be enough to convince folks that he's been anything but a miserable failure on all fronts. But, I'm always surprised at the apparent gullibility of the American public (or is that a media-driven divide-and-conquer tactic?).

Presumably, lots of this cash will go toward broadcasting television commercials. How many people are swayed by, and base their vote on, slick television commercials? Maybe more than I'd like to think, who knows.

Here's my logical-conclusion question: all other things being equal, would Clark end up with a measurable drop in the polls when compared with Dean (and this is hypothetical and not measurable--only one of them will get the nomination, so we'll never know in a quantifiable way) based on the size of their comparitive campaign war chests?

[robbedvoter]

64. Clark has more money in the bank than HD:

Regarding "Wesley Clark has the Dollars and sense to Win," this is true on various levels.  It appears that the campaign has the following funds available:
October 1, 2003 money in the bank = 3.4 million.
Funds raised in 3rd quarter = 11.1 million
FEC matching funds for Sept., Oct., & Nov. = 3.7 million.
FEC matching funds for Dec. = 2.0 million
Clark's Total 3rd Quarter 20.2 million - 10.5 million est. expenditures = 9.7 million balance 1/1/04.
Howard Dean's money!
10/1/03 money in bank = 12.0 million.
Funds raised 3rd Quarter = 15.5 million
Dean's Total 3rd Quarter = 27.5 million - 18 million est. expenditures = 9.5 million balance 1/1/04

[Hawkeye-X]

75. You don't know that for sure.

Dean has been very frugal with his money, and we're constantly raising funds for him, day in and day out. You have to remember that once Clark his that 45M mark, he cannot spend any more money, and will leave him extremely vulnerable to Bush's war machine while Dean can continue to raise money beyond the 45M mark and continue to hit Chimpy where it hurts.

Hawkeye-X

[adamrsilva]

127. Dean has barely spent his money

EOM

[DoveTurnedHawk]

228. You're Wrong, See Post #64 (eom)

DTH

[Hep]

154. Clarks spending and fundraising limits over the next seven months will

result in quite a different set of figures, I'm afraid.

[arcos]

358. That is NOT true!! (or provide a link)

this is what I could find:

"Clark has used the theme to raise more than $15 million in three months, much of it from Hollywood sources who like Dean but like winning more. That makes Clark comfortably second only to Dean among the nine Democratic candidates in cash on hand."

Arkansas News Bureau, Jan 5th
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2004/01/05/JohnBrummett/101542.html

[11cents]

22. Clark *is* the shoot-the-moon candidate

He's the guy who, potentially, can not only win the election but realign the electoral map in the Democrats' favor. He's the guy who can take a liberal Democratic platform -- he's running to the left of Dean in significant respects -- out of the political wilderness of minority dissident status that it's been dwelling in since 1968 really, and make it the default platform of the American majority, what it was before Nixon and the "silent majority" backlash, before Reagan and "Reagan Democrats."

He's by no means a sure shot to win. Nobody is. And although I think Dean is very likely to lose, I'm certainly not going to claim that he's sure to. But if Clark wins it will be a *big* win, an historic win in terms of the political culture of this country.

[sandnsea]

23. Rethink Kerry's campaign

Dean has been the frontrunner. Dean has come under the microscope. That is the only way Dean's actual policies and past record was EVER going to get to the attention of the average voter. Through the media. It's been tough, but it's finally started to happen in the last couple of weeks. Kerry falling behind was the only way for Dean to get the scrutiny he should have had all along.

Dean has lost all traction. Has he truly picked up any increase in his polling numbers since October or so? Recently, he's been going down, not up.

Now it's to see if Kerry can pump it up in the home stretch. He's back in NH and we should see those numbers turn around as a result. His new ad in Iowa is terrific. He's got good numbers there and working people like him and support him, despite the "aloof" nonsense.

Choose Clark if you like, he's a great guy. But Dean's done. He's simply made way too many mistakes to get past the majority of Democratic voters. And starting his attack campaign on Clark is going to be the final nail in his coffin. People are finally going to see his tactics as they've been all along. Then I think they'll take a second look at everybody.

[mrgorth]

24. My take

Clark: Skinner, Wes Clark is my #2 guy so don't think I don't like him. I do. People talk about him as being more electible but they aren't thinking like Rove. Clark is about where Dean is or to the left of just about every issue. Thus, if they can paint Dean with the liberal brush they can paint Clark with it too. Clark has 1 big thing going for him, the uniform. I respect Clark for the uniform and his accomplishments but a)Rove is going to dig up or make up some kind of war crimes shit and b)Clark has no experience governing individuals. I'm not saying this makes Clark UNelectable, just that I think the electible thing is being overblown. I also think the national security thing is being overblown. I remember watching a voter forum thing on CSpan and this NYT woman was suprised how NONE of the voters mentioned national security as a concern. They were ALL worried about jobs, health care, and education, ALL OF THEM. THIS THING IS ONLY ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY IF WE LET THEM MAKE IT ABOUT THAT.

Dean: Well, you already kind of hit the nail on the head on Dean. He's got the right policies and he's been willing to stand up for them and he can sell them. He built a great organization and Trippi is the man. He won't let Bush frame the debate. He'll take it where he wants and, in the end, he can get a southern military type in as the VP where you don't need policy experience as much.

Good luck whatever you do.

[Democrats unite]

25. Why Wesley Clark is getting my vote...

During the attacks so far in the Primaries (which are to be expected), Clark has been well manered except for Bush, I can only imagine what Clark will do to him full throttle after the Primaries. Clark has been great in interviews on television, refusing to let reporters put word in his mouth. I see Charisma in Wesley Clark like I saw from Bill Clinton. Wesley Clark can say what he needs to say, and stay even tempered while getting his point across. I see hope for America with Wesley Clark, His 100 year vision sealed my vote for him.

P.S. It is safe to assume where the candidates stand on the issues, so I won't bother listing them, this is what I see in Wesley CLark the man.

[meti57b]

80. Clark can win the general election.

The electorate is in military mode. Clark is military AND has progressive values and positions.

Bush has gotten us into foreign policy problems that it will take some real talent and expertise to repair. Clark will be excellent at doing it.

Clark has charisma like Clinton and he is concise in expressing his ideas, where Clinton is not. This is a real plus for short-attention-span voters, of whom I have seen many.

[greatauntoftriplets]

100. I agree, even though he is not a true progressive.

Also, I think he will be less vulnerable to Rove's smear campaign tactics. They can get Dean on lacking foreign policy and securite experience.

[KoKo]

396. I for one don't want a candidate "In the Military Mode" though. We've had

enough of "Military" and we need to start working on repairing relations with our allies. I want America to De-emphasize military or we will be at war forever. Wes Clark has some connections with companies that don't sit well with me and his part in the "Military-Industrial" complex
can't be ignored by someone like myself who protested against the Iraq Invasion. But, if he's the Dem Candidate, I will have to support him.

So, Dean as the Nominee would be preferable to me and I am a Dean/Kucinich. Kerry would have been my guy if he hadn't had "that vote" and then imploded.

[slinkerwink]

26. look at your own paragraph regarding Dean

"However, when I ask "who can win?" I believe that Howard Dean offers an extremely formidable package, which is perhaps more devastating than what Clark has to offer. Howard Dean has run such a truly awesome, take-no-prisoners, aggressive campaign that offers a glimpse of what he can do to George W. Bush in the fall. Like Clinton (and unlike Gore), Dean will not sit back and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" when the Republicans attack. He is a fighter. He has raised piles of money, and I believe he could raise a war chest of $200 million to rival Bush. Because he has declined public money, the law will not require him to stay silent while the Republicans try to beat the crap out of him during the summer. And perhaps most importantly, he has mobilized an army of enthusiastic supporters -- the type of ass-kicking grassroots organization that Democrats are supposed to have but which the national party has failed to organize. On the downside, Dean has made some "gaffes" and will likely make more, he has no foreign policy experience, and he has been caricatured (unfairly, but perhaps permanently) as a loopy liberal. A vote for Dean is the "gamble," but it is a gamble I am prepared to take."

You have to remember that any "gaffe" will be blown out of proportion by the press, and if Dean is the nominee, this is likely to happen. Also with Clark, they'll be focusing on him tighter than ever.

I just came from Texas, where I had a Republican in my family that was disgusted with George W. Bush, and she wanted to get him out of office. I told her about Howard Dean and his fiscal conservatism. This really caught her interest, and when I told her about all the people he was drawing into the political process, she declared to me that she was on board with the Dean campaign.

The fact that there are Republicans like these that are disgusted with Bush tell me that Bush's stance on foreign policy is very weak, and we don't need a candidate to have an extensive background in foreign policy to win. Besides, Kennedy didn't have any foreign policy when he went into office, and when the Cuban Missile Crisis occured, he rose above the challenge because he listened to the differing views of his advisors, and did the right thing. Dean has done many things in office where he's done right by listening to the differing views of his advisors. This is why I'm not worried about him on foreign policy, because unlike what you say, most Americans consider the jobs, healthcare, and the economy to be their major issue in the 2004 election.

This is why Dean is the right candidate because he has a proven record and the right credentials to address their concerns about jobs, healthcare, and the economy. Besides, a recent poll showed that it was their top three issues, not national security.

[Woodstock]

40. Good point - Dean has been under the microscope

more than any of the others and has come out on top so far - not too shabby.

Any of the others emerge as frontrunner, and the heat will be just as bad.

[Hawkeye-X]

96. That is correct.

JFK: No foreign policy - handled the Cuban missile crisis perfectly.

Carter: No foreign policy - won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for the peace between Egypt and Israel.

Clinton: No foreign policy - soon to be a candidate for Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Ireland and is working on resolving the Kashmir issue.

Dean has no foreign policy, or rather limited foreign policy (he has worked with Canada because it's his neighbor), and have visited more countries than *.

This is Dean's foreign policy Q&A:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Foreign_Policy.htm

Remember, when it comes to Dean and Clark, you want someone who has more domestic policy than foreign policy because it's the United States of America, not the United States of Iraq we're talking about. If and when the Iraq issue is settled, it will only help Dean, and hurt Clark because then Clark won't have much to argue in terms of Iraq, and even if that happens, you have to look deeper to what Clark's six positions for Iraq before deciding he's "anti-war"..

Clark is not ready for the top job, and his questionable loyalty as a Democrat for only 3 months (He declared his candidacy for the Democratic Party as an registered independent).

If Clark wins the nomination, you can bet your bippy that the Republican Party will have more than enough ammo to flatten Clark, and do so with money while Clark has to be restrained for three months before he can raise money again. By that time, it will be too late, because the damage has already been done.

Dean, however, has ammo against the Republican Party while the Republican Party has weak ammo against Dean, if any. You can see how well he has been doing against other candidates. The more attacks Dean has endured, has given him the rise away from other candidates such as Kerry who was supposed to be the 'anointed' candidate, which is now suffering.

If Clark had opted out of the FEC funding, then the chances would have been much greater then.

Right now, I don't feel that Wesley Clark should be your candidate because of his shady past, but Howard Dean has been a loyal Democrat for more than 30 years, and has proven domestic record to back up his policies. Yes, he may "flip-flop", but people seem to forget that he is changing from local perspective to the national perspective, and that's why I admire Dean very much. He has attracted me since Gore's announcement, and I have stuck with him because I know he will bring the message and excite the base, and he hasn't been proven wrong, yet.

Remember, Americans want healthcare, jobs, and economic stability. Clark can't provide that without getting beaten down by * because Clark has no proven record of doing so. That's the top three issues that Americans are quite concerned about, not Iraq, surprisingly enough. Those push-polls about Iraq has exhausted the American's perspective on foreign policy.

Skinner, you said you were an IT professional like me (an web designer), but Clark hasn't answered the question as to why he said the following statement in 11/24/2003 Iowa debate:

CLARK: We want to be ahead of the software revolution. Let them do the software in India; we'll do other things in this country.

Hope this tidbit of rational comparsion has given you a chance to re-think a bit.

Hawkeye-X

[trogdor]

174. Recent comment from the Republicans for Dean weblog

Take it for what it's worth; I just thought it was interesting, and not the product of someone who is drunk on FReeper koolaid.

I really don't get all this "stop Dean" business among Deomcrats. What is with this party shooting its own? There is now a Dean-o-phobe blog by New Republic writer, Jonathan Chait. The common belief is that Dean is too liberal to be elected. Chait's beliefs seems to be that they the Dems need someone who is not a social liberal ( I guess gays are expendable) and who actually supported the war. But it seems then what they want is a pale imitation of Bush. To me this seems to be a losing strategy. I mean, if you put up a person who is like Bush, but not Bush, who do you think people will vote for? People want a real choice or as Barry Goldwater once said, people want a voice, not an echo.

As a Republican, I have been asked why I did not support someone like Lieberman, whose views might mirror my own. It's a good question. I'm not fond of Liberman. He ran to the right of the GOP maverick Lowell Weicker to get Weicker's Senate seat and seems rather oppertunistic to me. He doesn't seem inspiring. Dean and Lieberman are both moderates, but Dean is a moderate with conviction. You know where he stands on an issue and he doesn't seem to give a damn what others think. Lieberman seems to go with the prevailing opinion which to me means that he is more interested in being liked than he is in standing by what he believes.

I think for far too long Democrats and moderate Republicans have been afraid to show their social progressive roots lest the be targeted as pinkos or softies. And yet, it was this coalition that created some of the most forward thinking legislation in our nation's history. Democrats and moderate Republicans worked together to get many civil rights, health care and evironmental laws on the books. Why in the world should people be ashamed of that, especially when the other side has worked to dismantle some of these laws? Dean has been willing to revive this sense of pride and it might change the trajectory of American politics. It's too bad that the media and many Democrats are slow to pick this up.

[DemExpat]

27. You should support Clark, Skinner!

:-)

1) Because Bush is a fucking asshole, and the future of the world depends on American policy now, more than ever, a gamble vote is not smart IMO. I would take the "safe" vote....

2) Dean will not sit back and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" when the Republicans attack. He is a fighter.
Clark is also a fighter, and will do so with much more finesse and non-partisan candor, without alienating so many people on both sides of the fence....

3)Clark's 'following' is just beginning, so the numbers will swell quickly.

4) His more non-partisan, though very patriotic stance, along with his intelligent "big picture" view will do much to make America the example it was born to be, within the nation and internationally IMO.

This is a once in a life-time chance to get an intelligent, caring "uniter" into the most powerful office on earth.

:kick:


DemEx

[pmbryant]

29. Why not Gephardt?

My choice is between Clark and Dean myself, but whenever I hear more about or from Gephardt, I am impressed.

I have always wondered why he doesn't have more support amongst posters here.

:shrug:

Anyway, since I have the same quandary as you, I cannot help you make your decision, except to say, follow your instincts. Do not use historical analogies to any past elections. Circumstances are different now, and I don't think any such analogies are appropriate.

--Peter

[Skinner]

43. I have never found Gephardt to be inspriring.

I just don't think he has what it takes to inspire the voters. And I'm pretty doubtful about the ability of a member of the House of Reps to pull it off.

[pmbryant]

59. That's what I used to think

But during this campaign, every time I hear him, I get inspired.

:shrug:

I agree about the House of Reps thing, but if you (we) are considering Clark, who has never been elected to anything, why shouldn't you (we) consider Gephardt as well?

Just some of my own thought process, though I, too, am right now deciding between Clark and Dean.

--Peter

61. question regarding House of Reps

Has a member of the House ever been elected President? That is, someone who has only been in the House.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. He has been farily ineffective in his current job

that is my reasoning.

[TexasSissy]

111. I looked at Gephardt early on. " It's a no go"

Gephardt is a smooth talker and certainly a very experienced politician.

However, I looked up all the candidates national voting records (on those who had them). I discovered that Gephardt failed to vote more often than he voted. He didn't vote on the drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge bill, a biggie. So that made him a "no go" for me.

[tedoll78]

30. Dean.

First, the money issue is huge. Dean can fight all summer long, with other groups helping along the way. He'll also be more deftly able to bear the weight of fighting the air campaign on television for the last month of the general campaign when campaign finance limits kick-in.

Second, the supporters. We have the chance to change the party for the better, for good. An influx of new voters installed into the party for the next generation will pay dividends over and over again. Thousands of people who have never given to a campaign. 1/3 of all donors under 30. Veteran political journalists attending local Democratic events and finding the events swamped with tons of new people. Tons of MeetUp attendees who have never politically participated. There's a pattern in all of this. If Dean wins Iowa and his victory is tied to an influx of new voters, it's no longer theory - it's reality.

Third, I personally think it's easier to viscerally detect the fire that Dean has in his belly for the fight in Autumn. If someone were taking bets on which one would give Bush a pair of black eyes, I'd put a chunk of money on the Doc. The debates alone would be a spectacle to behold.

Fourth, Dean's run a really, really effective campaign. The publicity stunts that this campaign has pulled are excellent. A concert-style summer tour. A trick-turning terrier. A baseball bat taking the stage at just the right moment. Joe Trippi could become our 'Karl Rove to the Googleplexth Power.' And he seems to have a coat of Teflon on him - that could come in handy.

Those are the four reasons for Dean off of the top of my head. I've gone back-and-forth between Dean and Clark also. I started as a Dean man in early 2003 when he was at "*" in the polls, panicking over 'electability' for 2.5 weeks in November and jumping ship to Clark, and then running back to Dean when Clark failed to match that aforementioned fire that Dean has.

I have an electoral college map hanging on my wall from back when I was studying PolySci in college; I stare at it for loooong periods of time once in a while. Either of these two men can come-up with good plans for reaching 270. The Gore States (260EVs) are a good base; they're getting blue once again. And Ohio is ripe for the pickin'.

Both are really great men. It's a tough choice, and in the end, it looks like we'll get one or the other as our nominee. Either way, best of luck!

edit: grammar

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I would advise

watching some of the campaign events and town hall meetings archived at C-SPAN to get a better feel for each candidate.

One thing that has impressed me very much with Wesley Clark is the way he handles RW media attack dogs. For me, this is an indication of how he would handle similar attacks from the Bush/Rove machine.

You can watch many of those exchanges at:

[dsc]

32. Several reasons to vote for Dean

One Dean decided to participate in your primary. Clark didn't.

Two Dean is actually more electable than Clark. I have to laugh when I hear about all these Dean gaffes. Have we all gotten amnesia about Clark in early October. He put himself on both sides of the war, made hardly any appearence during his first 2 weeks of campaigning, and turned in a debate performance of "I have only been running for a week so give me a break". Campaigns matter and Clark started off very poorly. He has gotten better but who knows when he might revert back.

Three, Dean has shown he can win tough races. In 2000, he won a three way race after signing the Civil Unions Bill and Act 60. He had two opponents and needed 50% to win. His version of Nader spent 1/4 to 1/3 of what Dean did. That would have been like Nader spending over $20 million in 2000 and having a decent sized ad campaign. Yet Dean beat his next best opponent by 12 points and got that 50% of the vote. He did that by standing up for what be believes and taking it to the voters.

Four, I don't think any of our candidates are going to win many southern states. Neither Georgia nor Tennessee are trending to us. That leaves three states that we have any shot at. Any of our candidates can carry FL if we have honest counting. I will conceed that Clark may be slightly better able to carry Ark, and LA. But I don't think by much. Clark doesn't sound or act southern. Dean with a Landrieu or Lincoln could do as well.

Fifth, Dean's grassroots will carry him through. His supporters are invested in him. This isn't all being fed up with Bush. There are gay supporters who feel he won't drop us an anchor. There are anti war supporters who feel he was right when so many others were wrong. There are people who actually learned the lesson of the 1990's and think balanced budgets are important. There are people without insurance who like what he did in VT. We will call people. We will knock on doors. We will monitor the press. We will give money. We will make this man President.

[Skinner]

79. I'm not sure why Clark isn't on the ballot in DC.

But i decide to vote for him, I'll just write him in.

I agree with you about winning the South. I think Ark, LA, and perhaps a border state or two might be possible, but unlikely. I don't consider Florida "southern" and I think we can win it.

[dsc]

101. Presure was placed on the campaigns not to be on that ballot

due to it coming before New Hampshire.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

109. Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt & Lieberman Are ALL Off the Ballot in DC

Because Terry McAuliffe had specifically asked all of the candidates not to participate in DC, due to the District's desire to go before Iowa.

I know some Dean supporters might spin this as "traditional Democrats kowtowing to Terry McAuliffe, while Dean leads the way again," but frankly I don't see it that way. I see it as respecting the DNC Chair on what is pretty much a strictly procedural matter (as opposed to substantive issues where Democrats really need to be fighting).

Obviously, YMMV.

DTH

[dsc]

148. I wonder how the overwhelmingly African American residents of DC

see it. One very valid critism of the states that we use for early contests is the fact they have virtually no non whites in them. That is a little different this year with mini Tues but still two very white states get a very significant and frankly wildly disproportionate say in the naming of our nominee.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

222. It's Absolutely a Fair Point, But

1) I wasn't aware anyone was criticizing McAuliffe on grounds of race; and

2) If anything, I would prefer a state like California (diverse, powerful, very Democratic) to go first, rather than continue this trend of tiny states (or quasi-states) with demographics vastly different from the nation as a whole deciding who our nominee is.

DTH

[TexasSissy]

122. Yes, I saw an article that indicated the Dem. Party asked candidates

not to be on the ballot in that ....whatever type of election it is. Something about it not being a primary or caucus and interfering with the IA & NH primaries/caucuses. Even asked DC not to hold that at that time. Maybe because it is not binding and doesn't go toward electing a nominee? Not sure.

[cavebat2000]

33. You know I asked the same question

Except I specifically asked Clarks supporters to tell me why I should support clark. Some did and others told me I was tricking and insulting them. Since I am not a complete dick like those poeple I will give you a perspective from someone who doesn't know.

Why I like Clark.

I believe Clarks strongest argument that he is best for president is his resume. The guy when compared to Bush, looks like a God. That is important for people who dont think when they vote. That might get the "respect" vote and a good chunk of the swing voters, which could lead to better electibility.


Why I like Dean.

When I was first deciding what candidate I should support I watched Dean's video of his speech at the California Democratic Convention (something like that). By the end of the video, to be honest, I actually teared up. I was emotionally engaged. Dean had said EXACTLY what I thought the Democratic party wasn't saying. And he was angry. I think thats important. It shows me he fights strongly for what he believes in. Sometimes I find that Clarks very mild manner makes me wonder if what he saying is something he actually believes. Clark simply doesn't inspire me to fight for him, even though I will if he wins the nomination. I believe Deans emotion is what spurs people to go out and volunteer for his candidacy. It is not his website that people loved so much and fought for, it is his message, and HOW he gives that message.

I hope I have provided you with another perspective.

Clark-Raw "No DUh!" Vote (AWESOME Resume)
Dean-Emotionaly inspiring vote

[Crunchy Frog]

114. Skinner, I would advise you

to read the entire thread posted by cavebat2000. It contains a large number of excellent discussions of the merits of Wesely Clark. The summation provided above hardly does it justice. I think you might see some things there that you would find very impressive.

[grannylib]

35. I am leaning to Clark, although I have absolutely nothing against Dean

I too am looking at the best shot at winning, not only the national election but hanging on to Senate seats. I believe Clark is best capable of that, partly by virtue of being from the south and able to understand/articulate issues in a way that will be appealing I think (I hope!) I think he is also quick to think on his feet, and has been tested under pressure. I like the fact that he is not a career politician, although the lack of record of votes makes it somewhat difficult to gauge his views on certain things (and I think all candidates say things they either don't really mean, or can't pull off once elected, or whatever, so one must be cautious about believing what one hears/reads...)
The only negative thing I have to say about any of the Democrats is that I wish they would really truly limit their attacks on each other. What is so hard about: "I disagree with you/your position on that issue; here's what I would do." or something...
I just get so tired of the endless internal bashing.
Bash Bush, may the best Democrat win, and may we all line up 145% behind him/her when it happens!

[Hep]

36. Dean

Look, Dean's campaign is different from the others, from it's model to it's implementation, Dean's campaign offers something that no one else does. Freedom and power.

I know hhow cheesy it all sounds. But Dean's campaign is run by his supporters. How can Dean not have an office in NC, and yet still be able to get 10,000 verified signatures of registered democrats to put him on the primary ballot (if we have a primary). 3000 volunteers is how. We make our own copies, print our own materials, buy our own buttons, pay for everything ourselves.

Local supporter Lanya Shapiro called up the campaign headquarters and mentioned a supoer bowl house party, and BAM. It's a national campaign project. Someone blurts out People Powered Howard, and BAM it's a campaign slogan.

I go to meetups and people have these ideas for fundraising or getting Dean's name out, or getting out the vote, and THEY become empowered to take the lead on it. Suddenly, volunteers come out of the woodwork to help.

There is a festival in Chapel Hill, NC called La Fiesta Del Pueblo. It started out in a parking lot of a little school maybe 8 years ago. It has become so popular over the years that last year it moved to the state fairgrounds. A few days before it started a guy emailed our group and asked why we didn't have a table there. Our response was that we hadn't thought of it. So he threw in the $50 to get space, I rented a 10X10 tent, and another guy put out the word that we needed volunteers. Within 48 hours, we had enough volunteers to keep 3-4 people at the table, one of whom is fluent in spanish, the whole two day festival. The Edwards table was next to us and that was it. We got there early, stayed there late, had our table LOADED with materials in both spanish and english, and gave out hundreds of stickers and pins.

At our county working meetings, we're striving to make our county organized for the first time in decades. We're organizing precincts. We're training to be delegates. We're learning about political activism. We're working very closely with our party to get people energized again. Even if Dean loses the nomination, my city is better off for having his candidacy. And we have tangible proof of that with neighborhood policing programs, low cost loans in poor neighborhoods, job training workshops, and even members of the community helping out those who need it by mowing lawns, cleaning garages, etc. Even if Dean doesn't win, we're better off.

Clark is great. He'll make a good candidate. But his is just another campaign. Dean really IS putting the power AND the responsibility on OUR backs to change how our government works, and the change has already begun. You can support Clark and have a good candidate or you can support Dean and actually make a difference.

[Skinner]

87. This assessment closely mirrors my own feelings.

I believe that, in many ways, Clark's is "just another campaign." The awesome Dean organization is the wild card that could really cream Bush in the fall.

[Hep]

123. Yeah! Think about it

We're already manning the guns. Those Dean Defense forces that some Dean opponents have problems with is a huge group of volunteers who dedicate themselves to not letting the media get away with it's trickery a la 2000.

We're already making phone calls, writing letters, knocking on doors. The nature, the modelof this campaign is such that emphasis goes where it is needed. And we don't fall short on our goals in terms of getting people from all over the country to help people in far away states campaign.

I donated money to a guy who's running for senate in IOWA! WTF is up with THAT? Dean reminded me of how important it is for us to support all D's.

And Dean is doing that also by sharinghis campaign model with any D who wants the help. Any D running for office can go to Burlington and join a workshop dedicated to grassroots "concentric circle" campaigning. Dean's web campaign is open source and available to anyone who wants the help.

This is what gets forgotten in forums like this. This is about taking our party back, and not symbolically. We're becoming precinct chairs and delegates. It IS about taking our communities back and our country. Not just from the right wing, but from the disenfranchisement and the apathy that have decimated our ranks.

I feel like an ass when I talk about this. It comes out as so sappy. But I can't put a finer point on the fact that this is what it is about for us. It's about going out of your way to pick up a disabled person who can't get to a meetup otherwise. I've met so many interesting people that I can't begin to describe it. I've had conversations about Dean with former anthropology chairs at Duke, with authors like Joe Conason who I never thought would email me back, with Ariel Dorfman a Chilean author who was forced into exile when Pinochet came to power, even with Horton Foote, who won an oscar for his adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I've met people that look like they came straight off the farm, who talk to me about their doctoral dissertations about socialist thought in the post WWII era.

I honestly will never look at people the same way again. I've only just learned what WE can do. And whether or not Dean wins the nomination, I have him to thank for it.

[trogdor]

184. Joe Conason emails me back all the time.

I probably send him about one email a month commenting on one of his op-eds.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

156. Oh Skinner, Please Tool Around the CCN For a While

Because your impression is so at odds with those of myself and so many other Clark volunteers. There is a level of passion and dedication this man has inspired in me and so many others, it is all through the entire movement.

Seriously, if you check it out, I think you'll be VERY pleasantly surprised. There is absolutely no less dedication in Clark's camp than there is in Dean's. I mean hell, you see it here every day, albeit in less-than-constructive ways! ;-)

DTH

[Hep]

163. No less dedication

but your campaign model is completely different. It's a traditional top-down model.

I didn't mean to question the dedication of Clark supporters. I was just trying to tout Dean's campaign model which isn't revolutionary in terms of it's implementation, but is revolutionary now that the internet has been discovered politically.

Had Gary Hart or Dick Gephardt had the internet in the 80's they could have won.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

226. I Think We Disagree on the Nature of the Campaigns

I think Dean pays a lot of lip service to the "revolutionary" nature of his campaign because it obviously serves his interests to do so. But I also think that anyone who refuses to believe that Trippi and Dean and his inner circle are in charge are fooling themselves, honestly.

Clark also has rapid response teams made up of supporters. Clark also has local grassroots efforts that are largely autonomous and fight the good fight on his behalf. I ought to know, I'm a major part (if you'll excuse my arrogance) of one of those efforts.

DTH

[Hep]

285. Trippi and his inner circle are not in charge

As a volunteer I have never been told what to do or how to do it by the campaign. In fact, every time I register to do ANYTHING, I have to sign a deisclaimer that states that I am acting INDEPENDENTLY from the campaign, that the campaign has nothing to do with my activity. It's FEC rules.

[tameszu]

237. Traditional top-down model?

Please tell that to all of the other local area/Meetup coordinators who have been organizing house parties, letter writing sessions, and trips to New Hampshire on their own. Please tell that to the hundreds of unofficial sites who have sprung up on the Net to criticize smears about Clark in the media and even to criticize the official campaign. There are people in the campaign who think in the traditional top-down way, as there are in Dean's campaign, but I think the official campaign has figured out that releasing the power of the Internet is crucial to winning, which means that you have to do some open source to win.

[tameszu]

234. Clark's campaign is in no way "just another campaign"

Why do you think there's so many Clark folks at DU? Or so many Meetup participants? Even though Clark wasn't much higher in the national polls than the other candidates, his supporters--mostly through the draft movement and through Meetup--clearly have "gotten" the new politics. Why do you think there so much cross-polination between Dean and Clark groups? Why do you think that Clark raised more money during 4Q than any other campaign than Dean--$4 million over the Internet alone, and 2-3 times as much as the old school Dems?

The idea that Clark is just another campaign is an idea that's mostly generated by the media, who were embarassed to have missed the Dean phenomenon. Most Clark supporters DIDN'T miss that phenomenon--because we had been using similar tools to draft the General, and now the campaign is using and converting those tools into real support.

This idea that Clark supporters do the work they do for him because he is "more electable" is mostly again a product of a media storyline. I would not be typing this from an office in freezing NH (Nashua) and making hundreds of phone calls along with piles of supporters (who have been to a great degree connected online, by the way), if I didn't think that Clark had a distinctive vision to offer. And that vision is, for me, has two parts. The first is the idea of liberal multilateralism/internationalism. It is a foreign policy that wants to be engaged in the world and thinks that the U.S. should be active in solving world problems even using force if need be, but always in cooperation with other liberal democratic countries, and only going to war in the last resort.

The second idea is encapsulated by the New American Patriotism. The idea is to promote traditional liberal aims and values as continuous with heartland middle American values. So Clark argues that patriotism means more than supporting the troops and waving the flag (although they may certainly include doing these things); it also involved criticizing the government and participating in community service. And family values also must imply providing a solid environment to bring up your children, which means not just a commitment to faith and talking about morals, but also providing a strong health care and educational system.

Does that help you?

[douginmarshall]

399. We are all Dems.

I would think the organizations of all 8 will go to the winner. In Boston Dean would turn over his organizaton to Clark.

I am a county coordinator for Clark, will do the same for Dean if he is the man next fall.

[TexasSissy]

265. Correct in a way, but not completely correct.

Dean, by starting early and by being openly angry in tone captured a sense of the frustration going on at that time. But that won't work in the long term, IMO. And it won't get more moderate votes, which is what is needed. He rubs many people the wrong way, including many in his own party.

Clark was drafted for the Presidency, if you'll recall. He didn't seek it. I read an article that he had been planning on running for Arkansas governorship, when all of this came up. But thousands of voters started meeting in numerous states and sending e-mails in an effort to build a support base and draft him. They succeeded.

There were Draft Clark meetups going on long before Clark entered the race. I'd heard or read about them, though I never attended one. I did, however, attend a Dean meetup with friends, and decided to hold off on supporting him at that time, though I liked his message. There was something disturbing or unsettling about the anger at the meeting? The fist raising by everyone? I'm not sure. I was angry, to be sure, but this was .....something else. I think much of middle America will find it the same way.

Clark has energized a lot of people in the Democratic Party. I, for one, have been a registered Dem. for many years, and I always vote when I can. However, I had never given one dime to any candidate, even Clinton, whom I adored. I opened my pocketbook for the first time for Clark, as did thousands of other ordinary people (as well as some wealthier people).

Remember that he entered the race in September, so he has raised a remarkable amount of $$$ in a very short period of time. He will, no doubt, continue to raise $$$, and people will, I hope, continue to jump on board at the fast clip that they have been lately.

Let's not forget that while most of us Dems are incensed with Bush and his administration, many moderates are ready to vote for someone else but are not overly angry with Bush. They actually LIKE some of the things Bush has done (go figure). The angry thing works to get your support base energized and all, but it won't work for the general population, IMO.

You want the white male conservative vote? Clark's your man. I can see my brother (one of those deep south white conservative males who votes Republican) voting for Clark. I don't think he'd ever consider voting for most, if not any, of the other candidates. I'll ask him and see who he plans on voting for (I hope it's not Bush).

[JPJones]

38. Why I'm in Clark's camp

Personally, I am supporting Wesley Clark for these reasons:

1) Leadership - We are electing not only a President but also a
Commander-in-Chief. Wes Clark has the vision and experience to lead
our troops, to bring them home, and to repair America's reputation
around the world. Clark has also pledged to reduce the defense budget, who else good say that?

2) Intelligence - Clark, the Rhodes Scholar, impresses me with his
ability to speak extemporaneously. Certainly, he got off to a slow
start, but what was the date of the last Clark gaffe? (And the
skiing and VP comments were not really gaffes IMO)

3) Positive message - Wes knows what a failure Bush has been, but he
knows that a pessimistic outlook alienates many voters. Populism
and anger motivate some Democrats, especially when we are out of
power. But it just sounds like crazy talk to your average voter
(Nascar Dad, soccer mom, etc.). Remember, a majority of voters
actually LIKE George Bush. Wes is focused on the future, and this
will pay off in the general election.

4) Domestic policy - Wes Clark's domestic policies are rooted in
common sense. They are moderate and won't break the bank. He will
surely choose a VP who can work with Congress. However, isn't
working with a hostile Congress all about leadership? (See point 1)

5) That intangible quality - JFK had it, Clinton has it, Wes Clark
has it. It's the ability to inspire people and to give us hope for the future.

[madmax]

55. Good post JP

My thoughts exactly and welcome to DU. :hi:

I was a Kerry supporter until the Draft Clark movement. First time I've ever contributed to any candidate and continue to send as much as my budget will allow.

[leftchick]

86. I agree with everything and would add one more...

6) Media managing- Wes Clark handles the corporate owned, shill for bush* media like none of the other candidates. He is a marvel to watch as the whores try their best to bait him. That ability to control the message to America is ESSENTIAL for our Candidate and that is another of the many reasons why he is my pick.

[TrueAmerican]

41. Research and then go with your gut or vote for

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Too late for your non-binding primary maybe but

I think the next month may change your mind about Kerry as a campaigner. Elections are usually won or lost in the final weeks/days and I believe you are counting out Kerry too soon.

Your comments about Dean's campaign and it's formidable package -- he has been remarkably successful in this period prior to votes being cast and the GE, but the big question is, will his appeal translate to Middle America? I agree with you, it's a gamble. I don't think it is a gamble we can afford to take.

[maxanne]

44. Dean

One of the biggest problems the Democratic Party has is our consistant lack of vision. The Republicans started planning their take over at least 30 years ago. Think back to the social issues on the table 30 years ago. Civil rights, equality for women, war on poverty, education, housing, etc. How many of those issues are we still discussing? Yep - absolutely zero. The right dominates our discussion of social issues - and we've begun framing our discussions in their terms. We need to wrestle the controls away from them.

I don't think we'll do that by electing a man whose only claim to the presidency is his electablity on issues of national security. The Republicans did a number on us after 9/11 - they publicly questioned our patriotism. Electing Wesley Clark is a sop to those same nasty bastards who dared to quesion us. I don't believe for a minute that we should pander to the Republican party in chosing our nominee.

We need to go beyond winning this election, and think about where we want to be in 10, 20, 30 years. We need to think big picture. I don't believe that a man who joined the party in time to run for president is the man to begin our process of party redemption. Howard Dean is a long time Democrat. He's a pragmatist, he's smart, he's funny, he's feisty - and he listens to the people. He's recently signed on to the National Housing Trust - aimed at building affordable housing around the country. One reason he made that move is because a lot of homeless activists in NH worked to educate him. He listened to us. He is smart enough to listen.

Sure he doesn't always say the right thing. I kinda like that about him. He's managed to capture the interest of people who have never before been involved in the political process - my own daughter being one of them. We need to keep that interest and involvement alive - we need to eliminate voter apathy. Dean's worked to help other Democratic candidates - and I believe strongly that we need to foster much much more of that as a party. If Dean wins the nomination, his organization is planning to stick around here and work not only for him, but for other Democratic candidates as well - even the local canidates. Candidates like me. That is a positive direction for Democrats to be taking - to move our party, our agenda, and our candidates ahead in this angry Republican dominated country. For far too long, every election has been about just winning this time, about electing the lesser of two evils. We need to have a strategy and a vision for the future.

Dean's the man.

[TexasSissy]

49. I started off liking Dean, then transferred my support to Clark

when he entered the race.

First, I never really supported Dean, as such. Even though I thought he was better than the other candidates at that time, there was something about him that I couldn't put my finger on that did not persuade me to go all-out for him and give my support. I was angry, like he was. But there was just something that didn't excite me or persuade me. I know that would be hard for Dean supporters to understand, and I can't explain it. Was it the message or the tone of the message? I don't know. But I just held off on my support.

When Clark entered, as you may recall, there were great expectations of him. He did not quite meet those expectations, due in large part to his lack of political speech nimbleness, when compared with all the other candidates. However, he is apparently a fast learner and does pretty well in that regard now. From the start I was drawn to support him. Even though he was raw in the debates, when compared with the others, I thought he had a real grasp and a lot of substance behind what he was saying. It sounded like he had given a lot of deep thought to most of the issues (none of them have plans for ALL the issues). I was impressed and hoped he'd get better with the speech thing. He did. That showed me that he can adapt to situations.

I can only tell you why I decided to support Clark (with cold cash).

One of the things that incensed me about Bush was his donning military costumes and pretending he's a man's man full of bravery and courage. It was such a clearcut visual comparison between a true military man and a pretend one.

Second, I was impressed by his high intelligence. Intellect doesn't necessarily make for a great President of the U.S., but it helps in trying to grasp all the complex global issues that a President must contend with, w/o having to rely overly on staff. Since I suspected that Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were running Bush's show, this aspect of self-reliance meant a lot to me, and I thought other voters would see it.

Third, I saw Clark as basically an honest man with integrity. He made mistakes and then admitted them. But he hadn't lied once, that I became aware of. This will work very well in a GE. And so different from Bush and his camp. I'm not implying that Dean is not honest; it's just that Clark struck me this way.

Fourth, I came to believe that in order to have a chance of winning, we MUST get some Independents and even moderate Republicans to vote for us. There are independents & moderate Repubs out there who are dissatisfied (notice I didn't say "angry") with Bush. I thought Clark would appeal to this group more than Dean, while still not being Republican in his views (Clark is strongly pro-environmental, pro-middle class, etc.).

Fifth---he does seem to be able to take the pounding of politics with a little dignity, while keeping his resolve. Could be his military background or just his personality.

Sixth----- Bush looks presidential. He first started donning the "I'm President" outfit near the end of the 2000 vote fiasco in Florida. Bush's camp understood very well the appearance factor of looking more presidential than Gore. I thought Clark could compete in the looking-presidential area, when the time came.

Seventh----He doesn't seem to inspire dislike generally, and it's not because he hasn't clearly stated his positions or proferred plans to deal with issues. A lot of people seem to like Clark, whether they will vote for him or not, while some people in both parties dislike Dean (although many more in the party fervently love him). The latter situation is a problem. The Clark situation of likeability is more likely to transfer into votes, IMO. Also, I'm just ready to have a President that I like and that I feel I can trust. I don't need to know exact plans. Plans change. But a general philosophy, positions on issues, and a belief that I can believe what the politician is saying is critical to me.

So I went with Clark.

[Skinner]

102. I agree with most of this.

I think that Clark is clearly a less polarizing figure than Dean. Also, I think that his military experience provides a stark contrast with Bush, who is not a soldier, but plays one on TV.

I just worry that we would be foolish to throw away the incredible organization that Dean has built. I believe he may show us a new way to win.

[Walt Starr]

Skinner, I will go so far as to say, no candidate who takes matching funds

is capable of defeating Bush. A summer of constant hammering with no answers from the candidate being hammered will destroy any opponent of Bush's.

Accepting matching funds is the death nail in any Democrat's hopes of defeating Bush.

Dean's organization and methodology for raising funds is the only way to defeat the monetary advantage the Repubs have built out of their corporate nepotism.

[chimpymustgo]

135. Dean's organization should work for the NOMINEE!

That's the best of both worlds:

A fantastic candidate: Clark - bolstered by the incredible energy of the entire Democratic party - Dean's supporters, Kerry's, Edward's, Gephardt's, et al.

If we are throwing away that incredible organization by not nominating Dean - that is alarmingly telling.

Unlike Howard Dean himself, say it isn't so. I believe in the better angels of people. I think we will all get behind the best candidate to knock off *.

Vote Wesley Clark

[Hep]

146. Doesn't work that way

Dean's campaign model is not compatible with Clark's.

[Walt Starr]

149. Dean said it, and I'll say it

Many of his supporters are non-transferable. We are energized by Dean and will not be energized by any other.

Many will still vote for the nominee, but very few will work to support any other candidacy.

I, for one, will walk away from the Democratic Party and never look back if he does not win the nomination. I know many others who feel exactly as I do.

[TexasSissy]

239. There. A Dean supporter admits Dean said his supporters are

non-transferable and would not vote for another candidate. Whew! That was like pulling teeth to get a Dean supporter to admit that, even in the face of direct quotes.

Now, does that sound like someone who can lead the Democratic Party en masse to a win in 2004 and further to complete a long-term vision for the country (and the party)? I think not.

[Hep]

304. Not true, come on!

Dean said he can't speak for all of his supporters. Nothing more. A quote will prove me wrong.

[TexasSissy]

405. Quote for Dean's "If I don't win the nomination...."

statement:

I've posted this a couple of times before. I'm not going to dredge it up. Oh, well, here you go. Have fun.

FIRST STORY W/LINKS: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-29-dean-vote_x.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031228_1145.html

Posted 12/28/2003 7:17 PM
Today's Top News Stories
Dean: Dems doomed if he loses nomination
DES MOINES (AP) — Howard Dean said Sunday that the hundreds of thousands of people drawn to politics by his campaign may stay home if he doesn't win the Democratic presidential nomination, dooming the Democratic Party in the fall campaign against President Bush.
"If I don't win the nomination, where do you think those million and a half people, half a million on the Internet, where do you think they're going to go?" he said during a meeting with reporters. "I don't know where they're going to go. They're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician."


SECOND STORY W/LINK

Howard Dean Wants Democratic Party Leader Terry McAuliffe to Slow Rivals' Attacks
Link to story: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/politics/campaigns/29DEAN.html?ei=5062&en=9ea1ffc64c5e720d&ex=1073

By JODI WILGOREN

MES, Iowa, Dec. 28 — Complaining about the torrent of attacks raining down on him from his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean on Sunday criticized his party's national chairman, Terry McAuliffe, for not intervening to tone down the debate.

"If we had strong leadership in the Democratic Party, they would be calling those other candidates and saying, `Hey look, somebody's going to have to win here,' " Dr. Dean, the former governor of Vermont, told reporters trailing him as he campaigned through central Iowa. Referring to one of Mr. McAuliffe's predecessors, he added, "If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening."

Dr. Dean also implied that many of his supporters, particularly young people, might stay home in November if another Democrat's name ends up on the ballot.

"I don't know where they're going to go, but they're certainly not going to vote for a conventional Washington politician," he said.

Though Dr. Dean has repeatedly said he would back whichever Democrat wins the nomination, he said Sunday that support was "not transferable anymore" and that endorsements, including his own, "don't guarantee anything."

[exJW]

185. With all due respect

I think too much is made of Deans "incredible organization and campaign and fundraising and etc etc".

The internet was invented a long time ago by Al Gore. Howard Dean/Trippi simply saw an opening and took it. Good on 'em. But now it's politics as usual, ho-hum, what can I say to get myself elected. Blech.

There is nothing remotely remarkable about Howard Dean. Nothing.

The only good thing I can think of to say is that if Howard Dean wins the GE, it will be slightly less of a disaster than if he loses. But just slightly.

Sorry, that's the way it looks to this observer.

[Hep]

196. As usual

the skeptic tries to define the Dean campaign for everyone.

I can't blame you for not feeling it. But you can't claim it doesn't exist. I mean, you would have to be blind.

[exJW]

203. Oh "it" exist...

...no question about that.

But "it" is nothing to be awed by, and certainly nothing to chose the direction of the free world for the next 20 years by.

The method of campaigning may have some significance as to why the radical right has such a stronghold, but "it" is not the real problem.

You have the power? Fine. Whatever. A year from now, hopefully, one of two democratic choices for president will have the power. One of them would have more of that power, and use that power in a more sophisticated, compassionate and elegant manner than the other.

I'll leave it for the reader to decide which one that is. Personally, I think it is obvious.

[Hep]

210. If you're not in awe, you're not paying attention

People who know a lot more than I do are in awe.

[exJW]

218. Fine, be in awe

But don't confuse your awe with something akin to logic or selflessness or even patriotism.

I recently listened to a group of 30 something Texas men, probably mid to high level contracting/constuction types, sit around discussing the state of the union as they had lunch at a mexican restaurant I frequent. I was in awe of how intensly and sincerely they believed that George W Bush was a great leader, and how Democrats (allways said with eye-roll and disdain) were just totally brainwashed, clueless to the truth about Iraq, economy, anything really.

Yes, I know all about how a "movement" can inspire shock and awe. It can also inspire people to do very stupid things.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; your agendas will suck your brain dry.

[Hep]

317. Laughable

Trust me, if you think becoming more politically active in my area is a stupid thing, then say so. If you think anything that I listed above is a stupid thing, point it out.

[batman]

247. your right skinner, this is about choosing status quo over a pragmatic

revolution!!!

this may be our ONE shot to change america forever. to play by OUR rules, and not THEIRS.


think about that for a moment. ONE chance in your lifetime (probably in generations) to be a part of a "pragmatic" revolution. i say pragmatic because it's finally within our grasp!

additionally, dean has said he wants to break up the media monopoly. that is one major issue that many seem to overlook. this is a fundamental start in taking back our country - for good!

join the revolution skinner, and leave behind the status quo.

[FrenchieCat]

357. I have my priorities in order...

#1...defeat George Bush....

then maybe well get to changing America.

This election really can only be about 1 (one) thing.....

That's why I'm for Clark!

[Walt Starr]

52. Believe what you will about both candidates, but one has chosen

not to hamstring himself this summer by taking the matching funds and can fight back while the other is completely hamstrung and will be inneffective all summer long if he's the nominee.

[TexasSissy]

132. Unfortunately, in so doing....

the former candidate who went against the matching funds went against his prior stated position on campaign finance reform, which has hurt his credibility, IMO. When he states his position in the future, can I, as an ordinary citizen, rely on that statement? I decided I couldn't.

After being brazenly lied to by this administration, I really want someone who means what (s)he says. There are situations and circumstances where positions are genuinely changed for valid reasons, but I do not think that this was one of those situations. It's just that it was better for him at that particular point in time, so that's the way he went. Nothing wrong with that, for him. But I have a problem with that.

[Walt Starr]

164. The position is changed when you're staring at 400 megabucks

that can be thrown to attack ads all summer long whihc, by law, a candidate who chose to take the matching funds will be unable to answer.

[TexasSissy]

238. Exactly. That's the point. He changes his position when it suits

him. It has nothing to do with principles. He made his earlier statements on basis of principles, knowing full well that matching federal funds meant less funds.

Clark could've done the same, what with the entertainment industry backing. But he stood on his principles, knowing full well it would come around and bite him back if he didn't (since he'd taken a stand on campaign finance reform previously).

After four years of Bush, many people seriously yearn for someone with principles to be in the WH. I know I do. Someone I can believe, when he says something.

[trogdor]

297. Actually, he changed position to reflect reality.

There is a difference.

[OKNancy]

54. Clark

there have been many fine posts recently about why we picked Clark. One of my big points is that I really want Bush gone, but more so, I just hate the fact that the AWOL Bush thing didn't get more play in 2000. Whatever happened to Farmboxer? It was always so funny to see the end of every thread on DU with Farmboxers little snippet: Bush went AWOL, etc.
Because of this, I feel that Clark could really re-hash this point where Dean can't. And I don't care about people avoiding Vietnam, more power to them. It's the hypocrisy that bugs the heck out of me.

Of course, if you have read up on all Clark's proposals, you couldn't find a more liberal platform this side of DK.

I believe Clark has shown that he is a real fighter, and that he will win against GW. To get a liberal in the bargain is just icing on the cake.

[ramapo]

58. Maybe I can convince both of us

I'm in the same boat...torn between Clark and Dean but with no primary to vote in until June when it likely won't matter.

My gut tells me that Clark is more likely to win. His credentials are awesome...excellent education (economics no less, knowledge that may come in handy), top of the class (unlike GWB), an actual soldier with the scars to prove it, rose on merit to a top leadership position with responsibilities rivaling any. His lack of partisanship can make him a true uniter. He has the Southern link so he won't be immediately disregarded as a Northern liberal. His patriotism cannot be questioned. He is a very attractive candidate to the military/veteran voter. I believe he can better attract the independent voter. He is very impressive on TV and likely much more so in person. He has discipline and a pretty calm demeanor yet has shown he won't take any crap.

The downside to Clark? He's an unknown. Is he really a Democrat with somewhat progressive ideas? It's a leap of faith but I think I have made it.

Dean? Well I was an early supporter. Donated dollars to an early primary campaign, something I'd never done. His grassroots campaign has been so impressive as has the fund raising focused on the small donation. Equally welcome has been his fighting spirit. We can be confident we don't have a Dukakis or even a Gore here. Almost forgotten are his policy positions, which I can easily support.

But Dean will be an giant target for the Republicans. Lack of foreign policy and military experience. A Northern liberal for gay marriage. They'll dig up lots of stuff from his years as Governor not to mention his campaign gaffes (yes Clark has a few) and the many attacks on him by fellow Dems. The good news is Dean will fight and fight hard. He may come across as the underdog fighting for the little guy. That might be a very valuable position. I think he can beat Bush but it will be more (maybe much more) difficult.

The key is to beat Bush. Clark's military experience and overall resume makes him the better choice.

It'll be very interesting to see how the voting goes, especially after all the endorsement hype.

I'll be happy to support either. Hell I'd even vote for Lieberman.

[bhunt70]

62. I think you should support Clark...Here's why. (in no order)

1. Like you said, National Security is a big issue and I think thus far WC has less flaws in this area than Howard Dean does. When I think of someone "tough on terrorism" or able to accomplish security goals and stay on target I think WC's credentials show he is capable of doing what he says and having an organized plan at doing so. I do think his military experience is a big plus in this instance seeing as how he is obviously well versed in his former profession and the myriad of duties that go along with it. I think he is the direct opposite of Bush in this matter and offers a great alternative for someone who doesn't quite agree with Bush's tactics or history with the military, securities, and foreign countries.

2. Optimism- I think it sells and sells big. Sometimes even more than issues. I think WC has optimism for America. When he attacks, he attacks the president and the administration. When he is done HE SMILES. So far he hasn't outwardly attacked other candidates and has taken the relative high road which I think shows a great deal of diplomacy. I think WC has an ideal of what america can be and I think he's laid out a good plan. More and more, when people hear about his domestic policies they are all "buying in". I think that WC is the most optimistic for America, when I see him he sure acts like it. Like I said, he can talk strong and forcefully, but never seems to give off the "negative angry" vibe.

3. WC isn't taking the brunt of the attacks right now. There is, and will always be, the goal of some to overthrow the "popular" candidate. Look at all the negative things being said and drudged up about Dean, many because he is the front runner. It is allowing those who don't attack Dean to build a quite competent campaign.

4. In general I think he is the epitome of an American president, well spoken, tempered, educated, driven and has an obtainable goal for america. As an average joe, a moderately liberal democrat, when I see him I don't think of a politician. To put it in perspective, my wife for years and years has had a horrible repulsion to authority (cops, police, teachers, etc)...she is inclined to vote Clark.

5. He is strong in the areas that people like Bush for and stronger than Bush in those areas. Leadership(hehe for Bush), strength of conviction, courage (hehe for Bush). These are all areas that arent "party specific" so if you can get people from the other side of the fence to notice these traits in WC, then they may cross those lines. On the other hand, democrats can also look at him in these areas and find them admirable without having to gag thinking that these are republican traits.

6. He does really seem to want to unite people, as opposed to offering lip service, or only pander to one group of person at a time. Stark contrast to Bush, and the polarization that Dean seems to be having at the moment. I think the country is tired of being us versus them both international and domestically, and I think Wes Clark as a leader knows that division makes us weaker as a country.

Of course, I agree with a lot of what he says and his issues, but that doesn't win elections.

I'm at work so this probably wasn't as eloquent as I would've liked.

[TexasSissy]

69. Well said. I wish I'd done your post.

[CMT]

65. Howard Dean

First, we don't really know if Wes Clark is performing all that much better than Dean in the polls vs. Bush. Sometimes they only inquire about Bush vs. Dean. Second, Time magazine last week had Dean running best vs. Bush closing in on him only 5-points behind. This was better than any other candidate, including Clark was doing vs. Bush. These polls on the whole are useless at this early stage. A few of them have Dean doing slightly better than Clark and a few have Clark doing slightly better. It's a wash.

Second, Dean has a demonstrated record. I know national defense is a critical issue, but in the end the voters usually always vote on bread and butter issues. Dean has a record of balancing budgets (as opposed to Bush) of providing jobs in his state (as opposed to Bush) of covering nearly every child in Vermont (as opposed to Bush covering anyone--uninsured rates have risen under Bush). He has a generally solid envirnomental record (as opposed to Bush). I could go on but you get the drift.

Third, Dean has been proven right about Iraq. The war is a distraction from the real war on Terror. The reason Dean is in the position he is, largely, is because he took a stand which proved correct. He will bash Bush relentlessly on this issue that the US is safer than before Saddam was caught--it clearly isn't. Bin-Ladden is the real story and Iraq was nothing more than Bush trying to even a score. And he lied about it to boot. I think Dean, even more than Clark, makes this issue. He can insulate himself further by selecting a strong running mate such as Sen. Graham of Florida who is on the Intelligence Committee and has proven he can go after Bush on this issue.

Fourth, Dean has generated more excitement than any candidate, Yes, Clark is a close second. Dean also has proven he can raise money to compete. He opted out of public financing so that the period after the primaries and up to conventions he can go head-to-head vs. Bush--this is IMPORTANT. This is how Clinton gained a huge advantage vs. Dole in '96 and Reagan vs. Mondale in '84. Clark will not have this luxury as he is accepting public money. He will have his hands tied behind his back.

Fifth, it is vital that we pick off as many Green Party supporters from '00 as possible. Nader got nearly 3 million votes in '00. I know many Greens who will vote for Dean, but not Clark. Why? his military background, yes. but even more so, his GOP background. They do not trust a guy who voted for Reagan and Bush I. They also think he has been inconsistent on Iraq.

Sixth, It is vital we get a strong turnout among the party base. I think Dean does this better than anyone. I think life long activist Democrats will feel better voting for Dean than for Clark, who was praising Bush only a couple of years ago.

Finally, Dean has a great GOTV effort, and I believe this will be demonstrated in the primaries beginning in Iowa (a caucucs state). He will be able to coordinate with the regular Democratic party apparatus and organized Labor and I think generate the biggest GOTV effort ever delivered by a Democrat in a general election which can have wide-ranging consequences in House and Senate races as well. His GOTV efforts on the ground will be worth 2-3 points alone (I believe) on election day.

Don't get me wrong. If it is Clark I will be behind him, but I honestly believe for all the reasons listed above that Dean is the man who can run the best campaign and defeat Bush.

[imhotep]

66. I doubt anyone has any info

that we don't already know about all of the candidates.
They both CAN win, so it boils down to ideology.

If a decision is based on loyalty then vote whoever starts out strong.
If its based on ideology then be brave.
Or you can get lucky and have both.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[tedoll78]

74. Is that really necessary?

"Flakey"?

Come on.

[Skinner]

84. I think your broad-brush smears against Dean supporters

are incorrect and offensive. Also, I don't consider it a particularly convincing argument to help choose between the two candidates.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[Hoppin_Mad]

209. Get a clue CC - That's DU's founder suggesting you tone it down

You might consider what he said.

[Soul On Ice]

225. Are you suggesting that Democratic

Underground may not really be democratic?

[CMT]

194. take a look at the analysis of voters

in Iowa and NH provided by Zogby and you will find that Dean attracts more than young, college students. This is another myth like Dean being a McGovernite that his opponents like to pass on as fact.

http://www.zogby.com/

btw, why don't you provide some links showing that Dean's supporters are larely college age kids "who attention spans arent as long as the primary season."

[Melinda]

91. I'm a Dean supporter and I'm most assuredly not "flakey"

But I'm sure Peggy Noonan would thank you for that attack on those of us who support Dr. Dean.

[Cheswick2.0]

213. your smear doesn't apply to me

I certainly would not take your word for who I should vote for after that remark.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

68. A different perspective.

First, I don't want to imply that I'm coming out supporting either of these two men. I think they can both beat Bush and both have positives and negatives. The nominee of our party WILL be one of these two men.

My take, and since you have been a campaign hack, you may like to think of it in these terms. If I were to put together a campaign for these two men . . .

In terms of pure resume, great on paper, American electorate will eat it up, you GOT to go with Clark. Could there be anything better than an ad (a positive, respectful ad) with Bush in his flight gear and Clark in his general's uniform. He's tough. He talks trash quite a bit. You gotta like that. He's a bit stiff when he talks and is too transparently conscious of his message (especially when people try to get him off message). He can speak with authority on the war, war planning, etc. Smart guy. Overall, he seems a bit scripted, but if you give him the right script, he is potentially the strongest presidential candidate (republican or democratic) since Kennedy (I let all of you argue whether I mean Bobby or John). He's going with a tried-and-true poltical equation: be positive. Whatever the message is it must offer national hope and optimism (think Reagan and Clinton).

I terms of instinct and message for the time, Dean is solid. He fights, he fights hard, and he's subtly scripted a general election strategy already (state's rights) from which the playbook is open. He's also very, very smart. These so-called gaffes work in his favor. HE WILL NOT PULL PUNCHES. Let his mouth "get him in trouble." If we want to work on Bush's credibility (truthfullness), then this is the guy to do it. I have no doubt he'll "slip up" and say "lie." And I have no fear of this will hurting him. When called on his "gaffe," he'll simply say "what you people in Washington call 'equivocating' we in the real world call 'lying.'" He is an outsider at a time when this is a great political narrative (Clark attempted to tap into this but then backed away). Being an outsider is his overall guiding principle into which everything else will fit.

I can't wait to see either man in a debate with Bush. I guess my ultimate thesis for you is this: if both men are positive candidates for you, and you're not "sold" on either one, then you have to go with the NARRATIVE you like best. Which narrative wins between the two? Which narrative is sellable and can be easily digested by the media? At the same time, you have to think about counter-narrative. Which candidate's counter-narrative (meaning, how he will be maligned) is least damaging; or, perhaps (and here I would lean toward's Dean's narrative as outsider), think about which candidate's narrative already responds to his counter-narrative. I won't go into the counter-narratives because I want to keep it positive, and I think we're all aware of them.

[lovedems]

158. I totally agree with your assessment of Clark but here is my drawback

with the "general as president". I want to look beyond that and hear more domestic issues from him. He would be great for a nation in a constant state of war and I personally DO NOT WANT TO BE IN A CONSTANT STATE OF WAR. I am tired of hearing the republicans state how soft the dems are on terrorism and defense. I think the republicans only APPEAR strong on terror and defense and that is by scaring the shit out people. I am a firm believer that Clinton was fighting the war on terror while he was in office and he was obviously fighting it with a great deal of success. He was able to fight the war on terror "behind the scenes" and I am sure alot of his success went unnoticed. He didn't feel the need to scare the shit out of elderly and little kids. That to me is strong on terror. Don't get me wrong, I like Clark alot but I don't want to like him just because he is a general and we are at war. I want other tangible reasons I can put my finger on and it just isn't there yet. Some of that might be that I am just not informed about all of Clarks policy ideas. I live in Illinois and got rid of my cable tv, so alot of my knowledge of the candidates comes from DU and sometimes it is hard to stomach some of the threads that are associated with candidates.

[Soul On Ice]

204. You are using a computer

Remember that Google is your friend.

Read every source you can get including each man's position papers on their official web sites.

Mary Frances Berry, Director of the Civil Rights Commission (which also investigated the Bush selection of 2000) supports Clark!

Re the Clinton approach: Clark is friends with the Clintons; Dean is friends with the Gores.

Eisenhower (yes, repig, but coined the phrase 'military-industrial complex) was General Eisenhower before becoming President Eisenhower.

Please do NOT take the candidate threads here too seriously; study, read up!

[chimpymustgo]

70. Wesley Clark has the ideas and ideals to build a winning coalition.

I agree with your candidate assessments (though I'm still holding some hope about Edwards).

What I see in Wes Clark is the idealism of his campaign (the President you were promised as a kid), which has grown out of a grassroots effort to find the best candidate to represent the Democratic Party against the rape and plunder of America by *Bush and his merry band of thieves.

Clark is a liberal. A thoughtful liberal, who has a genuine concern for Americans. Last night on World News Tonight, he talked about his hard-scrabble childhood - both economically and emotionally - and how he learned to look out for himself and push himself to be the best. He is, in every sense, a self-made man. That has given him a strength of character that will eviscerate the evil one.

Clark's military service is more than wearing a uniform and fighting. He's done that, yes. But he also exhibited the leadership that took him to the top of the ranks of the army - the leadership so many Americans are yearning for now.

Clark is brilliant - but not in an arrogant, off-putting way. He is thoughtful, and I always want to hear his ideas about how to solve problems. This country needs a President who can come up with creative solutions to address the mess AWOL has put this country in.

Clark has an appeal that can heal the party, and then the nation. He will bring new people in, and bring the old people to the polls. We hear stories about disillusioned Republicans who say they'll vote for Clark. You know in your head and your heart that is true.

At the end of the day - Wesley Clark is the head and the heart candidate. He offers all the positives of Dean - the fund raising, the fire - without the exhaustive negatives. I have long been disillusioned with Howard Dean. His attacks on the others candidates, his flip-flops (NAFTA, Medicare, Affirmative Action, campaign finance, JESUS), his opportunism, his gaffes, his glee at pissing other Democrats off.

Make Howard Dean head of the Democratic party. Let him go out and fight for our candidates across the country - let's take the House and the Senate and the Governorships.

But elect Wesley Clark President.

Which man do you think can bring our party together? Who can unite our country? Who can take us back into the world community as a respected leader? Who understands the economic, class, and racial issues that afflict our country? Who will put forth the best ideas to move us forward?

Who will we feel safe with? Who will make the tough, correct decisions about protecting our country?

Who will protect the environment, improve our schools, offer health care and tax sanity?

Who do you want to look at and listen to every day for the next 4 years?

Who has the character, the leadership, the smarts, the compassion to turn this country around?

And which candidate matches up best against Bush. Rich boy who went to Yale, drank into middle age, weaseled out of Vietnam, sealed his records, governed as a so-called Centrist....I'll stop there.

Go with your head and your heart. Vote Wesley Clark.

[ewagner]

71. From this perspective,

I like what Dean is doing in focusing the party, creating a grass-roots organization. I am concerned, however that he is a polarizing figure and that he win a truly pyrric victory.

I posted some time ago that the campaign for the nomination was not so much about the personalities of the candidates, but more about the competing philosophies about how to beat Bush. The Dean philosophy is based on the assumption that America is highly polarized and that further polarizing it is, in fact, the key to victory. Clark, on the other hand, is basing his campaign on the assumption that "the middle" will determine the outcome and will play to that constituency. Personally, I tended to agree with Dean because the Bush Administration is constantly employing "in your face" tactics designed to divide the country. But recently, Bush has struck a more moderate tone, obviously seeking support from the great middle American voter and even trying to appeal to some traditionally Democratic issues (Immigration Policy as the best example). I think this means that he sees Dean's tactics as effective and is trying to counter them by trying to paint Dean as radical and himself as reasonable.

I'm thinking Clark may be a better answer for the long term health of the party but with this caveat:

Neither Dean nor Clark can afford to "nuke" each other. Something has to give. Accomodations must be made. Alliances must be formed. Without that, we effing doomed.

[Skinner]

72. These are all really great responses

I am reading every single one, closely, and I think there is some great stuff here. But the responses are being added faster than I can respond.

Others can feel free to respond to the comments in this thread. This exercise isn't just for my benefit. ;-)

[mrgorth]

103. research

Skinner,

Have you gone to see either of them speak? Have you gone to their websites to read issues statements? Have you read:
Dean's foreign policy statement
Common Sense
Dean's Domestic policy statement
Urban renewal statement
How the Poor Live Now (Vanity Fair)

I'm not being sarcastic but whenever I waiver from Dean he releases one of these things and I wind up reading what sounds to me like my own words.

[xultar]

119. Aw Teach, when will u have grades posted? n/t

[KittyWampus]

77. Remember "Too Close To Call" & Military Votes Being A Deciding Factor?

in Florida, the media and GOP ASSUMED the military votes, which ended up being significant in a close race, would go to Jr. Yes, I know that is not "Correct" but it happened and WOULD happen again.

With Clark the presumption in a close race that military votes would go to Junior and the GOP are not only ELIMINATED... it's the REVERSE.

The DEMOCRATS can presume the votes will be for CLARK. Again, it may not be Correct to make such an assumption... but we MUST win.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Please consider Clark's capacity to campaign without making gaffes... he's still talking to the press & welcoming them. And getting on the good side of the press people following you around is important.

Consider Dean's latest gaffes... he is no longer talking to the press freely.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Please consider the way Clark criticizes Jr.- very effectively... and with a slight hint of humor. Also notice his easy and ready smile when he is interviewed and his supreme ability to a handle hostile interviewers.

Lastly, please note the way audiences respond to him during Town Hall Meetings... they are listening intently to him... he's intellectually brilliant (good for some types of voters) and also comes across as a guy you'd drink a beer with (good for other types).

[Skinner]

121. I don't think Clark would reverse the military vote.

The military is very Republican, and they seem to love Bush. I think Clark can make inroads into the military vote, for sure, but it is my understanding that he has made his share of enemies in the military.

[trogdor]

190. Let the pain continue in Iraq long enough...

...and you might see a sea change in military voting habits, at least amongst the enlisted folks. I'm supposedly on the hook at my Reserve unit, and I intend to bring reams of absentee ballot applications with me.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

230. Perhaps Not a "Reversal" But Definitely Inroads

And I'll take that any day over no inroads at all. :-)

DTH

[John_H]

251. I wouldn't be too sure he can't make a huge dent.

[frank frankly]

301. the military voters would love to vote against Bush & for Clark

I am undecided b/n them right now, but I've talked to enough military types to know this is true.

Dean would make a dent in Repub military vote, Clark would take half or more, no doubt.

two great candidates either way. both against this bullshit nightmare war.

[Skwmom]

389. Skinner you are so wrong on this one.

The military vote is ripe for the taking. The problem is they won't vote for just any Democrat.

[KissMyAsscroft]

78. Dean/Clark.....its the only way...

It has the same balance of fiery leader/cool commander with experience....

Bush has that right now, with that ticket it's toe to toe.

[Walt Starr]

82. I used to think that would be the ideal ticket

In my humble opinion, if Dean chose Clark as a running mate, I think I'd lose all respect for the guy.

[robbedvoter]

104. THAT IS ENOUGH OF THAT! For Clark, you vote Clark!

How many Shermanesque statements does the man have to make for you to stop the arrogant co-opting? There were many dirty tricks involved so I am no longer chucking this to good intentions!
THIS STOPS NOW!

[lovedems]

83. I can't decided between the two either and here are my pro's for

each candidate. Clark is impressive. With the cluster fucks going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think of how beautifully he handled Kosovo. No American troops dead and the "bad guy" is at the Hague facing a trail before the WORLD. I have heard the argument that he doesn't have experience governing people, but I think he does. Governing is leadership and his leadership was exceptional in Kosovo. I also think he would be more appealing to the voters in the south which the dems desperately need in order to win. That, in a nutshell, is why I like Clark.

With Governor Dean, what impresses me the most is that I truly think he is a candidate for the people. While he is guilty of "gaffes", I think that is a byproduct of telling people the truth as he sees it. Sometimes saying what is "right" is not always popular and there are thousands of people who don't want to hear "Bush knew prior to 9/11". I appreciate his candor and I definitely appreciate his grassroots campaign. I think if Dean were elected, we would see the end of giant corporations buying their way into the WH and that thought is SO SO SO appealing to me.

I live in Illinois so I have time before I have to cast a vote and I probably haven't told you anything that you haven't thought about yourself. This is just one persons "struggle" to make a choice to another.

[CWebster]

85. I am a loyal Democrat too

That is why I will not vote for a Republican.

How can we ever win as Democrats in a reality consenus forever framed by the Right? What is the point of winning if it means forever triangulating and weakening the Democratic message, because the Republicans have a louder voice--instead of strengthening the Democratic voice? I consider myself a supremely practical person, half of my family is from old yankee roots and I am frugal to the point of an artform. If I was a millionaire I would still stop at garage sales - so practicality is high on my list. But I will not sell-out or settle for shoddy merchandise just to pinch a penny. The same goes for electibility--I will not sell out or accept less than I can get for what other's frame as electible - if it is a perception opposed to mine. I will be practical as a progressive to support the Dean movement, even if Dean is not as progressive as others, precisely because of the grassroots mission to restore the Democratic party.

However, when Clark is launched as the anti-Dean from the influences in the party which oppose Dean and seek to maintain a more corporate, conservative shift, I draw the line. Just because our corporate media has its own political agenda and will manufacture consensus to trash our candidates, doesn't mean I have to participate, and it doesn't mean that Clark will be immune from it.

Dean is a threat to the status quo, across the board and that can not be tolerated by the establishment. He is a rogue interloper who worked his way to the top and won the respect of, not only the Democratic base, but our best political spokespeople who are also dismayed at our current political climate across the board. I stand by that and am not swayed by the latest johnny-come lately flash in the pan, who is carrying his own baggage--enough to crucify him handily, beneath that slick, scripted made for prime time front. If your issue is how the media and rival candidates have smeared Dean, do you really think Clark would fare any differntly should he be given the spotlight treatment? He isn't immune.

And, possibly, because I am a woman, I am not as susceptible to the military symbols which seem to excite and bind men. I oppose the Military-Industrial Complex adventurism of the Bush administration, why should I turn to a general, who spent a lifetime steeped in it, who after he was fired, continued to lobby for it, as a considered option?

I guess it is all how you define winning --is what you win worth the price?

My .02

[Jack_Dawson]

94. Archaic thinking

It's OK to change one's opinion in life. And if Clark voted for Reagan 20 years ago, he can win over a lot of other people who voted for Reagan 20 years ago and have since become disillusioned w/ the republican party.

[CWebster]

198. Who is talking about 20 years ago?

How about this past April? In his own words:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

And what would "archaic thinking" be exactly? commie-pinko liberal?

[Cheswick2.0]

232. CWebster

I agree with everything you have said. We have disagreed on the 3rd party option in the past (if I remember correctly). But you make me proud to be in your camp.

[CWebster]

254. Likewise Ches

You know that, and I think I understand, we were all upset about what happened to Gore.

[ulysses]

314. well said.

:thumbsup:

[AP]

90. Clark and Dean are they reactionary candidates: they're reactions to Bush.

I think both are defined by Bush, but in different ways (anger, and war on terror/fear).

I want the candidate who is not just a reaction to Bush. Sure, the compare and contrast is important (which is why someone from the working class, who worked hard for everything they got is best). But what's more important is a candidate who says something important about our times, and not just about Bush.

That's Edwards.

You don't need Bush to understand why Edwards is the person who should be president.

[DemExpat]

97. Yeah, I agree that Edwards has something good to offer...

He is my second choice - and one to watch in the future.

DemEx

[Orangepeel]

92. I don't believe we can win with a traditional campaign

I'm not one of those people that thinks that a ham sandwich could beat bush (although, of course, I would vote for said sandwich). Even with his dismal record, it is going to be tough. We will be outspent, outlied and outsleazed. He's an incumbent this time and will have more money than last time. Even discounting all theories about voting problems and bought-and-paid for media, it won't be easy.

I believe that Clark will run a traditional campaign -- just like 2000 and just like the DNC run campaigns in 2002 -- and I don't think it will be enough to win (this campaign will be tougher than 2000 and we didn't win by enough then). For some reason, Dean has the ability to run what is essentially a national grassroots campaign, as well as the ability to raise lots of money (for a Democrat). It is unique; it is special; it is serendipitous.

Yes, Clark is the "safe" choice in that he might be harder for republicans to smear. But smear him they will. So it might take half a million dollars more to do it than it would to smear Dean. So what? They have that half a million and can get plenty more. How is Clark going to fight against this? With TV ads? Assuming that the republicans don't have all the time bought up (I guess they'll be a few trial lawyers willing to sell Clark their time), republicans will run six ads for every one of his.

At the local level, Democrats win when they knock on doors and talk to people one-on-one. When they make the calls that generate turnout. With Dean, we can do that at a national level. Dean's supporters -- the same ones willing to hand write letters to complete strangers -- will do the work.

Almost all Dean supporters will vote for Clark if he is the nominee. But he, or any other candidate, can't count on being able to transfer the enthusiasm. It is the willingness to pound the pavement that will make the difference in November.

[Carni]

93. I veer towards Clark

Because of the safety security points that you mentioned. I too TEND to think that Clark is the "safe" vote (and he's a Southerner)

BUT then on the other hand... you make some excellent points about Dean being a fighter, money raiser, motivator.

Will "safe" wash in a (s)election against bush in November? (It may not IMO)

To my way of thinking the two need to team up after the nomination
is settled (in any order.)

Where as Dean shoots from the hip and gets feisty to motivate the base... Clark has the foreign policy experience and a calm manner.

I personally think the different attributes of the two men would compliment each other (even though judging by the fighting on here their followers seem to hate each other lately)

Dean has a good record domestically as a money manager and Clark has the foreign policy experience.

I think in a campaign where one is the Pres candidate and one the
vice they could do some very innovative campaigning and offer kind
of a something for everyone package.
They have also both cleverly presented themselves as being outside the beltway

But to answer your question I STILL have no idea who actually has the better shot!

I also just want whichever situation can kick bush's ass!

[Jack_Dawson]

98. Two Words:__ C-R-O-S-S-O-V-E-R __ A-P-P-E-A-L

One has it, the other doesn't. Whoever has it, wins.

End of story.

[Walt Starr]

107. Two words:__D-E-A-N__R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S

I've met 'em and I've read their web sites.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Jack_Dawson]

108. Newsflash: "Dean Republicans" are Disingenuous

They want Dean to win the nomination so they can mop the floor with him. In other words, they are laughing at you. Hopefully you'll see this at some point...

[Walt Starr]

129. Link please

You made the assertion. Please back it up with factual information.

The Republicans I know who are supporting Dean are supporting Dean because they agree with him more than Bush.

[robbedvoter]

189. HERE'S A LINK:

And this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3849657
MR. RUSSERT: Bill Safire, do you believe that the capture of Saddam Hussein has changed the debate in the Democratic Party? Or is the party activists--are they so adamantly opposed to the war that it will have little effect?
MR. SAFIRE: I don't think it's changed the debate at all. I think the people who are for Dean are a--not only a minority in the country but may or may not be the majority in the Democratic Party. When we see Dean ahead, we're talking about ahead of a field of nine. When it comes down to, oh, March, then we'll see Dean against somebody. Great likelihood at the moment is Wesley Clark, because he's not taking a chance in Iowa. He is betting everything on New Hampshire. But it becomes one against one, Dean vs. the anti-Dean, then we will see what I hope is Dean's winning of the nomination. I'm a right-winger. I'd like to see another McGovern because I envision a Dean candidacy that not only reaffirms a second term for George W. Bush but drags down Democrats all across the country.
and more "supporters:

FROM SOUTH CAROLINA:
""Todd Lewis' strategy is to rally his fellow Republican friends to vote for Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who's been criticized by his rivals of running a campaign doomed to fail against Bush.
That's just what Lewis wants.
If a liberal New Englander's name is on the general election ticket next year, "it will hand the entire South to George Bush," said Lewis, a 31-year-old medical services salesman from Columbia.""
Guess GOP'ers voting for you-know-who in SC isn't an urban legend afterall...
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7576335.htm

[Walt Starr]

197. Red Herring

You did not link to a Dean Republican site. The writer is not a Dean Republican. Dean Republicans are Republicans who have switched to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Dean because they believe in Dean, much as the much vaunted Reagan Democrats switched to the Republican Party in 1980 to vote for Reagan.

Again, please provide a link to Dean Republicans being Dean Republicans to gum up the works.

[trogdor]

321. Here's one I quoted recently

http://www.republicansfordean.com

They even listed it on the Dean blog.

BTW, I switched from the GOP to the Democrats in 1999.

National Review is just talking trash like they always do.

Edit: Oops, my bad. These are serious Dean Republicans. You'll find the fake ones at Free Republic.

[Hawkeye-X]

199. Sorry, you know Safire is a right-wing hack

I wouldn't even take Safire's word.

Hawkeye-X

[robbedvoter]

202. And another link:

Should Republicans Help Nominate Howard Dean?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by CK Rairden

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6309.shtml 

Aug 6, 2003
Republicans are already voting with their wallets for Howard Dean, logging on to Dean’s official Web Site and donating various sums of cash to the left wing candidate’s primary campaign. They want Dean to win the Democrat primary. The real question now emerges. Will rank and file Republicans cross over and vote in the Democrat Primary elections to help get Dean the nomination?

Howard Dean is a dream candidate for two particular sides of the body politic. First, the angry disgruntled liberal wing that has taken over the Democrat Party and second Americans that want to see President George W. Bush re-elected.

Howard Dean is even more to Bush advisor Karl Rove. Dean is a Karl Rove wet dream. He is an anti-war liberal in a time when soccer moms have become security conscious. Dean has also promised to raise taxes if elected president. These are two losing platforms that have a McGovernesque train wreck written all over it. The GOP now has to consider whether they will now take an even more active role in securing the nomination for Howard Dean.

Should they register as Democrats where necessary, vote for Dean in the primary and help get him the Democrat nomination?More....

[robbedvoter]

115. Reagan Democrats, come home! Bring your friends and their friends!

The alternative: I am this wing of the dem party running against the other wing, ready to destroy those democrats and don't like much the other democrats either. Blasting one's base to smithereens will not jiust lose this election, but doom the party if allowed to prevail in the primaries. Internecine squirmishes vs crossover appeal. That sums it up for me too.
Plus the Clark tax plan - which converts people instantly - regardless of party. Just does:
"3 lines on your form: Mane, address, # of children, then put your checkbook away" people like that. I dunno know why. They'll love it even more as April 15 approaches.

[Jack_Dawson]

124. LOL - great logo

[Hawkeye-X]

139. You're right. Clark doesn't have it

Dean does. he's attracting true fiscal conservative Republicans and independents as well as Greens.

Clark's only getting a few Republicans and turning away progressive Democrats.

You have to realize which one of these two candidates will attract the PEOPLE enough to vote for them.

Hawkeye-X

[Jack_Dawson]

153. LOL - You keep telling yourself that

:eyes:

[davsand]

99. I'm backing Clark.

I can give you all the same stuff that several have on here already--his appearance, his affability, his policies. If I'm being brutally honest about it, the main factor for me is self control.

I am aware that I am gonna sound terribly judgmental here, but watch Clark and watch Dean in the debates when they are not aware the camera is on them.

Clark is up and leaning foreword and he's soaking it all in--he's paying attention. He's got a pleasant look on his face--but is essentially in a "poker face". He's not giving anything away.

Dean is also paying attention, but he's grimacing and making faces (unconsciously, I'm sure.) I sat with several Dean supporters before Clark had even entered the race--and THEY noticed it. They joked about it at the time, but it struck me then and has been present in every debate since.

It is a small thing, but it indicates to me that there are some fundamental things that Dean needs to work on--one of them being polish. Imagine that unconscious kind of "tell" (gamblers call it a "tell" when you indicate a good or bad hand by some unrealized gesture) when negotiating something with some foreign leader, or with Koffe Annin. Imagine that "tell" in a meeting with the Pentagon or even the press...

It seems so trivial, but I think it strikes to the very heart of anybody's ability to deal with the office of the President.

Maybe it is just me.

Laura

[xultar]

110. Here's my 2cents...

First of all, Dean has been running for over a year. I consider myself pretty politically aware and I didn't know about him at all until I stumbled upon Clark via conversation with my Pop June/July 03.
Thoug I'm a Democrat and voted straight tickets I never registered as a Democrat until I moved to GA. I've also never given money to any campaign.
What is it about Clark that got me a 30 something black female to come of some dough and become involved? So, when you say that Dean has energized you need to put it in perspective. Who has Dean energized? Dean has energized the people who have loud voices. When I get angry, TRULY angry you'll never hear a PEEP. I think those are the people that Clark has energized. That is why his numbers were slow to rise.
Clark has a quiet determination that burns deep. You feel it you don't hear it and you very rarely see it.

Secondly, I get the impression that there is some NBD rolling around. Where do I get that from, well I think people are afraid that if Dean does not get the nomination his supporters will pick up their marbles and go home also(stated just as a metaphor not literally or rudely.) If that is the case. Is that the type of support we want for a Dem PResidental candiate who is going against $G$W$B$?

Thirdly, Dean as sold himself as the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. In some research I've learned that Dean is actually to the right of all of the candidates. They were reporting on CNN that Dean's fights were with the Democrats in his State Legislature, NOT with the Republicans. Many people in VT are shocked that Dean has self styled himself as an extremly left liberal candidate.

Fourthly, Dean is appealing to the Primary voters. That is a smart tatcic. The only problem with that is Dean will have to move back Center to win. If Dean stays, where he is now he will get CLOBBERED in the GE. If moves Right, back to Center where he has always been politically, does he lose the bases support? Thus, risking the 04 GE?
Now every one..I'm home sick with a sinus infection, flue, bronchitus, strep throat thing. I'm hi on some stuff I got from the DR this am. So if this doesn't make any sense. Tough...j/k
Turra

[Crewleader]

169. You make perfectly good sense xultar, you truly do!

Hope you feel better soon and thank you for posting! :hug:

[xultar]

363. Merci! I feel like poo poo kaa kaa. n/t

[Crewleader]

113. You know my answer Skinner

General Wesley Clark was drafted into this campaign to be President because most of us who support him feel in our hearts and minds that he has the fighting charisma to beat George W.Bush all the way.
Across the board he attracts republicans, democrats and independents who see and feel what most feel, he's compassionate in his words and in his feelings that are so sincere on helping working families in America. Those of you that worry about him not being a Democrat, STOP! He sure is one, he believes the same values all us Democrats do and we need his leadership for our family's future.
I started out as a Independent in Massachusetts, no-one dare say I am not a Democrat who believes this is the only party for this country who governs by and for the people and have their best interest at heart! NO-ONE DARE SAY CLARK IS NOT A DEMOCRAT!

General Wesley Clark is a man of honor, integrity and has a record of patriotism of 34 years of service in the Army making rank to a four star general. He comes from humble beginnings, a single mother after his father died so young living with his grandparents. Then later his mother remarries someone who was a father figure but who had his drinking problems, even with all of that he made the grades to enter West Point. Now that really represents real life that most of can relate too, no silver spoon upbringing. It's shows the determination this man had to make better of himself and serve his country in a way we all can respect even more knowing his upbringing.

We admire a man who did not choose this campaign to the white house but was drafted into it and accepted because he did not like seeing where this country is going. He has made the commitment to make this United States better for all and when he speaks you can actually feel the sincerity of his heart for all. And not only for the future of his new-born grandson but all the children in America will be first in his thought. I like his plans on education and for all young people to have the opportunity to go to college, as it is such a struggle for families now.

On National Security, here's a man with the leadership to bring all our allies together with the UN being what it really truly represents, a institution for countries who can count on the humanity of it's being and the protection of it. Clark has shown how well he works with the UN and gives us Americans the confidence in our new elected President to lead this country to peace and prosperity for us all!

We can't afford not to win and with the leadership of General Wesley Clark WE CAN WIN take back our country and having our voices heard!He's the one that will listen and do what's best for all of us!
There's no doubt when I cast my vote he has my full support of making this country great again
and I'll be very proud he's my president!

[underpants]

128. Clark can be the Dem AND third party Rightist candidate rolled into one

I'm not saying he is on the right or any of that "fake Dem' crap but he has a built-in magnet to get the Dem base and a lot of Repubes to come on board and cut out some of W's base (not that he needs any help). W can't afford to lose anyone and he has with the military and with this immigration thing, he might pick up some of the "We are at war so I will support the President" vote but he is probably only treading water.

[xultar]

133. Your drawers make me wanna read from right to left...funny n/t

[underpants]

116. My 2 cents on that choice

First of all see the ABC profile last night on Calrk (no Dean yet) and also see the Kerry one (THAT is how to sell him)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Sections/WNT/

I just can't get on the Dean bandwagon yet but *sigh* I guess I will have to if he does get the nomination. This is not a lesser of two evils choice but I just don't see IT in Dean and my wife agrees. She knows less about their specific stances than I do but she looks at it from a woman's point of view (the eyes). Dean has made some missteps that have been overreported but that isn't it. He just does inspire me. His supporters jumped on so early and with both feet I don't think that they have allowed themselves to re-evaluate the entire situation as it unfolds. They basically seem to be creating their own place in the party without considering the end game, that is can he win. That is a whole other conversation (maybe yes and maybe no in a close race or in a blowout either way). I also (dread saying this) think that Dean is the Green party's (form the celebs supporting him) attempt to make their mark in the Democratic party.

Okay now Clark. His record is close to impeccable and is a very good story. He was in a single mother household way before it was seen as "fashionable" and he is self made. A great American story. They have been bringing the military bubbas out of the woodwork to complain that he didn't play by their rules and went the intellectual route, this could not play well against W's perceived "regular guy" thing but Clark has a lot of fight in him and he will steer directly at that. My wife says she can see it in his eyes and his physical conditioning is not going to hurt him with the ladies no matter how much the Republican women SWEAR that W is sexy just as they are told to. BTW-W is packing on the pounds and is going to have to do some real work to get it off coming off his knee procedure.

Okay that's enough for now but truth be told a Kerry-Clark ticket would be the best the Dems can put up this year.

[adamrsilva]

117. I say the problem is we've been going with the safe candidates

and look where it has got us - Republican control. Most people lean liberal, but they'll vote Republican, because those guys take a stand, Democrats don't. We need a fighter, we need a guy to show them Democrats can be tough and aren't gonna take their crap anymore. Clark is a great candidate and I think he's electable, but he's running a traditional campaign with a traditional message (he leans more on his experience than his vision) and maybe that just won't cut it anymore. Maybe we need something completely different. Americans love an underdog anyway...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

118. Thanks for asking the question as I am battling with this myself

The pluses for Dean ARE his organizational skills. Peoplee WANT to work for him which lets me know we ARE reaching out to MORE THAN the projected voters. When there is GOOD turnout Dems stand a better chance than if turnout is low.

Dean appeals to MANY of the same groups Clinton did in 92. He pushed out to frontrunner status by CHALLENGING which is important.

I really think the Civil Union deal is a PLUS. CLinton campaigned with gays in the military and did NOT suffer for it, however, there is NO Perot this time around to temper the conservative vote as of yet.

I DO see his prior tax plan though as eliminating some support from him.

Clark on the other hand would be a stronger candidate in the minds of SOME on national security and IN MY OWN MIND, there are far more politicians creating wars than Generals.

Clark might also make the international community feel a bit better than Dean. I think our allies are concerned about issues such as terrorism and symbolically Clark represents a breath of fresh air for them.

Dean's mis-statements (and corrections of statements made in haste) is only a cause for criticism for SOME right now..but what of he were elected and does this on the international front? Isn't that much like the problem we have with the current admin?

I see Clark parsing his statements a bit more carefully and that DOES matter in the area of foreign diplomacy.

Just SOME of my thoughts on the matter.

[Soul On Ice]

120. Clark

If you would please read both Dean's and Clark's official websites, you will find very little difference in most of their positions.

For me, this comes down to a gut-level choice.

You mention Dean's 'truly awesome, take-no-prisoners, aggressive campaign that offers a glimpse of what he can do to George W. Bush in the fall.' That may impress the non-voter and the internet super highway crowd, but I think Rove can turn that right around and dump on Dean as the elitist physician out of touch with working Americans that I perceive him to be.

You mention that Dean, 'Like Clinton (and unlike Gore), Dean will not sit back and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" when the Republicans attack. He is a fighter. He has raised piles of money, and I believe he could raise a war chest of $200 million to rival Bush. Because he has declined public money, the law will not require him to stay silent while the Republicans try to beat the crap out of him during the summer.' I believe that Clark, who is of the Clinton stripe whereas Gore backs Dean (for reasons) is also a fighter. It's just that Clark (and Edwards) have not been fighting the other democrats. Clark does and will continue to fight BushCo; he's been masterful on many television appearances doing just that.

Regarding Dean, you add that, 'And perhaps most importantly, he has mobilized an army of enthusiastic supporters -- the type of ass-kicking grassroots organization that Democrats are supposed to have but which the national party has failed to organize...'. Yes, but unfortunately, he has also turned off an equal number (if not more) of regular democratic voters. Dean's supporters seem to be more alienated and he masterfully tapped into that months ago utilizing the internet; then wooing Kucinich people as they become more able to face the probable fact that DK won't win either. However, I don't trust that vote yet. In the future, after Clark has been president, I see a lot that can be done to either make the democratic party more progressive or split into different parties; ie Labor, Socialist, Democratic, whatever. For now, we need hardcore Democrats who vote and some moderate conservatives who are angry at Bush. There actually are some who have had it with the war in Iraq and the comingling of church and state.

As to the temperaments of both men, Dean does appeal to the 'angry young man' in us all. However, the voting base will go for a stable, strong Clark every time. Dean has actually put one of his aides in charge of what he is allowed to say to the press because of all his gaffes, to use your term. Clark does not need that sort of babysitting. He is a mature man.

Again, when one strips away the facades, there is little difference between the positions of these 2. So, who will vote for each of them? I believe that just as some of the Kucinich people have drifted into the Dean camp, I can see that larger group facing the realization that the paramount importance is to get BushCo out and have everyone come together in the Clark camp which will lead to our election in November.

Then, I see Clark as President in 2004.

Please please respond to me.

[Skinner]

160. I think it is going to come down to a gut-level choice.

Unfortunately, my gut changes on an almost hourly basis.

[xultar]

165. That's called GAS n/t

[Soul On Ice]

172. It's also called a non-answer.

I'm beginning to think Skinner just wants to judge our essays.

[xultar]

125. So what happens to the $$$ the campaign raised if a candiate

drops out? I know it's been asked before but I have to ask again.

If Clark drops out can he hold it to run as VeeP with HRC in 08?

If Dean drops out can he hold it to run against HRC for the nom in 08?

or
Must it all be used now for the 04? election.

[JVS]

126. Dean

Dean has won elections before

Dean has a lot of high power endorsements, who if they must back Clark will, but people will still have that "Didn't you get on this train recently" feeling

Dean is rated well by the NRA. It is said that guns cost Gore West Virginia, if that is true then Dean will get it back.

Dean will attack Bush where he is weakest.

Dean will fight harder

[mikehiggins]

134. No nonsense

Since you are a self-proclaimed cynical pragmatist, here is the reason I'm backing Clark: if I stand Dean next to Bush in my mind's eye I cannot see a reason to believe that enough people will find the Democrat so appealing that they would vote against an incumbent president who most people like.

That is it.

It is problematical that they will like Clark better than Bush but at the very least he has a better chance for the very reasons so many here at DU find him wanting: the four stars, the winning smile, the swimmer's build, the loyal spouse, the adorable grandchild, the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the tax reform proposal, the NAP (New American Patriotism) appeal, the Civilian Reserve (which I suspect will turn into a modern CCC in short order), Clinton and the DLC, Bush's migrant worker (slave) program, the deficit, Iraq, 9/11.

Clark presents the American people with the opportunity to "trade up" as opposed to junking the old vehicle. He is attacking Bush rather than Dean because he doesn't have to move to the "center" after gaining the nomination. He doesn't have to "tone down" his dynamic, aggressive persona, doesn't have to "moderate" his rhetoric to win over the support of the candidates he's spent over a year maligning. He doesn't have to do all of the things that YOU know Dean will have to do to have a shot at winning in November.

And that is where I hope I can be allowed a moment of patience on your part for what some will consider a bash, or a flame, but which I consider nothing less than the absolute truth. I beleive the most damaging weakness Dean possesses is his very successful internet based populist campaign. I was involved with the Perot campaign that put Clinton in the White House, and while the names have changed (and the political orientation appears different) I see the same kind of people behind Dean as were behind Ross. The names are changed, as I say, but the actions of the true beleiver remains the same.

And when Dean does make a shift towards the center, they will turn on their leader like the Perotistas did after Ross pulled his "drop out" stunt. This is the nature of the "true beleiver" and this is why a Dean candidacy, in my opinion, is not a gamble at all. It is betting against the house, and that, old timer, is a losing bet no matter how you play it.

I dropped off DU for awhile because I feel the time spent here would be better put towards mobilising Florida for the primary down here, which may turn out to be, ironically, one of those that make the difference. Who would have thought it? I only logged on today because I saw your name attached to this thread and figured it was for real.

As one old-timer to another there is nothing in this campaign that matters to me except defeating George Bush in November. If I thought Dean could do it I wouldn't have bothered posting this.

[SayitAintSo]

408. Well articulated excellent post

Thanks

[DancingBear]

136. Wesley Clark

Skinner,

Emotions are wonderful things. They can take you to heights unknown, yet drop you to depths undreamed, without warning. In politics, they can make you stand in the cold until you extremities scream, or they can make you cry until your eyes refuse to give another drop. Political love is the cruelest of animals, for it can often cover your eyes and ask why you can't see. To paraphrase an old song - "Love can make you happy, or love can rob you blind."

We sit now on the threshold of one of the most important elections I have seen in my 50 years on this earth. The direction of this nation lies in the balance - not for four years, but for twenty, or thirty. Where will we go, and who can take us there?

I look at America not in anger, but with respect. Am I angry - oh, yes, as Mary would say to Rhoda, oh yes. I want my America back, but with the caveat that must come with the respect that I hold her in. I know that many feel as I do, yet many do not. My anger is felt full throttle by some, yet not by others. Others look for hope clothed in strength, for courage wrapped in liberty, and for honesty wrapped in honor.

My America bleeds today, not just from the left, but from the middle, from the right, and from the not sure. It looks for someone who can heal the wounds, and that man, without question, is Wesley Clark.

As our country hangs in the balance, look at the soon-to-be Senate candidates in the south, and ask about coat tails. Ask the minority leader in SD, fighting for his political life, about coat tails. Ask the House members up for re-election who they would feel more comfortable behind. It is the lady or the tiger, for politics is business.

This can not be a decision made of emotion, for that will not win the day. One must look across the entire political landscape and ask without reservation who can and will reach out to all. When I think of Clark, I think of someone who can reach those who are leaning in the Carolinas, and who are leaning in New Mexico. He can reach those in uniform in Newport News, and those on John Deeres in Oklahoma. These at one time were our people, and we need them back. For the sake of womens rights, for the sake of environmental preservation, for the sake of what makes us who we are, we need them back.

With Wes Clark, we'll get them.

[Maddy McCall]

150. EXCELLENT post. n/t

[phillybri]

248. Clark: Best post here....

Well done, DancingBear!

:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

262. This Is Just Beautiful Prose

Thank you, DB!

:yourock:

DTH

[John_H]

137. The decision became simple for me as the race took form

Chimp has one issue, and one issue only, to run on--"national security." Skinner, you've been around politcs long enough to know what that means: every dime of Rove's campaign bank, every ounce of spin from his press operation, every blast fax from the RNC will be devoted to making the race revolve around that issue.

So What can we do about it?

1) We can't win by using free media since:

a)the media is already molded their coverage of the Bush administration center around national security, war, and terra and,

b) they feel the need to justify their cheerleading with a pupular mandate for Bush.

2)We can't outspend the GOP to change the "message" of the race with paid media.

3)We do not control a single branch of government to shape the race around economic issues via introducing veto-bait legislation the way we did in '92.

So what can we do? Easy. We can run a guy who largely neutralizes the issue entirely, and in many ways, turns it around.

Then, and only then, we open up the other fronts and raise the issues we win with.

There's only one candidate who can do this and we all know who he is.

[cally]

188. This is one of my major reasons for supporting Clark

Clark can compete with flyboy on national security, war on terror, and America is afraid issues. Then he can frame the debate around other issues like jobs lost, dissent, taxes, and fairness. Clark is already doing this.

Some others have said that we shouldn't throw away the Dean organization. I don't think we should throw away a candidate like Clark. I think he can remake the Democratic party into the majority party. We can win on Domestic issues and not lose because the voters perceive Dems to be weak on security issues.

Then a major concern of mine about the Dean strategy. From what I understand, the plan is to energize the base and capture all the Gore states. He doesn't plan to compete in the South. If Dean is not competitive in the South and does not run a strong campaign there, then Bush can focus all his money on the swing states. I think Dems have to have a candidate that makes Bush compete in all the states or else we will lose.

[cmd]

138. If your car went over a cliff, who would rescue you?

Our country is over a cliff right now. I'm looking for Wes Clark to repel down and help us up again. He is fearless in a time when all we are being given is fear.

[windansea]

140. some numbers to consider

ARG NH Statewide Poll, (Dec 11)

Note the big diference between Dean and "democrat" in both democrats and undeclareds,,,Dean has been campaigning in NH for over a year and is well know to the voters there...NH was won twice by Clinton

President Bush Dean Undecided
December 2003 57% 30% 13%
Republicans 94% 6%
Democrats 14% 67% 19%
Undeclared 63% 11% 26%

President Bush Democrat Undecided
December 2003 51% 34% 15%
Republicans 88% 6% 6%
Democrats 5% 76% 19%
Undeclared 47% 32% 21%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/nhp45.html

USA Today National Poll (Jan 2-5)

The reversal in numbers (favorable/unfavorable) between Dean and Clark speak for themselves

Dean
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
2004 Jan 2-5 28 39 17 16

Clark
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
2004 Jan 2-5 37 26 21 16

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-01-06-poll.htm


The election will be decided by swing voters...Clark is clearly more palatable to them.

The other main reason for choosing Clark is that he defuses Rove's ability to use the defense/terror hammer (which they will club Dean with mirthlessly) A Clark campaign allows dems to open up serious debate on jobs...deficit...heathcare etc where Bush is weak.

Good luck Skinner and thanks for running such a great board!!


:kick:

[Toronto Ron]

142. Look at this exit poll from 2000:

(From http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html)

WHICH QUALITY MATTERED MOST? All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Understands Issues 13 % 75 % 19 % 0 % 4 %
Honest/Trustworthy 24 % 15 % 80 % 1 % 3 %
Cares About People 12 % 63 % 31 % 1 % 5 %
Has Experience 15 % 82 % 17 % 0 % 1 %
Likeable 2 % 38 % 59 % 0 % 2 %
Strong Leader 14 % 34 % 64 % 0 % 1 %
Good Judgment 13 % 48 % 50 % 0 % 1 %

(I know, not easy to read. It indicates, for example, that 13% of respondants thought "Understands Issues" was the most important quality. Of those, 75% voted Gore, 19% voted for the idiot asshole.)

This shows that "Honest/Trustworthy" was deemed to be most important, and it killed Gore (thanks to the media, of course). Look at the "Strong Leader" line too, Gore got killed there. I think Clark betters Dean in both those categories (but perhaps takes a small hit on "Has Experience").

Note: Though I strongly prefer Clark - and believe he will be one of the best Presidents ever - I like Dean too.

[Armstead]

143. Dean is a fighter and a shrewd politician -- Pragmatic Populist

It's a tough choice. I like both of them. I think a killer ticket would be Dean-Clark, with the both the Establishment Democrats and the "new blood" and older liberals and progressives enthusiastically behind them. That would take no prisoners.

But given a choice, I say Dean. He is a fire breathing populist, who is also a moderate liberal. The real Howard Dean is neither too liberal nor is he loopy. He also, despite his so-called temper, is not the crazed demogogue that he is portrayed as. I've seen a number of articles that describe him as basically affable and a "regular guy' in real life (although obviously ambitious and egocentric like all candidates for that office are).

I knopw a bit about Vermont, and in that environment, you have to be able to "get along" with many factions to get anything done. And his continual wins show that he is capable of working the wheels of government.

He has also shown in the noimination process that he takes guff from no one, and gives as good as he gets.

The "gaffes" are often not really the stupid remarks they get protrayed as. Often they are taken out of context and exagerated by his opponents and the media...The remarks that have not been politically astute were no so bad either...As otehrs have said, I like the fact that he talks like a person. (And Bush and REagan also often said similarly off-the-cuff things, so it is not a fatal flaw.)

Anyway, that's why I think Dean could kick major butt. The only challenge is to get beyond the stereotype, and perhaps "smooth him up" just enough to get through the distortions.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

144. Skinner, Here's What I Think

IMO, a few of the bases upon which you're considering Dean are not as impressive as you might be thinking they are.

First, Dean has indeed raised a lot of money, but it's nowhere near a given that he'll be able to raise so much more money than Clark that declining matching funds for the primary will make a very big difference. That's because Dean has ALREADY SPENT SO MUCH MONEY so far in this primary season. Of course Dean had to opt out; he was practically forced to opt out because otherwise he would've hit the cap, and been done. (I really, really, really doubt Dean will be able to reach $200MM, or even $100MM. His rate of growth from Q3 to Q4 was very low, and even if we up that generously to $20MM in Q1 and Q2 of this quarter, he's still only at $80MM, much of which will have been spent already.)

Clark, on the other hand, has MORE CASH ON HAND than Dean RIGHT NOW, and has plenty of room to raise money above him before he hits the $40 million cap. (So far, he's raised about $14MM total and has received about $3.7MM in federal matching funds. That leaves $22.3MM to go, and the Democratic convention is only six months away, at which time he'll receive an infusion of close to $80MM from the federal government.)

Add to that the importance of the Democratic 527 organizations being fielded by Soros et al. and the inherently greater difficulty that Republicans will have smearing a "Southern four-star general" than a "governor of a small New England state with no foreign policy experience" and I think the big money issue is a wash, or at least much more minor. Finally, please keep in mind that if Clark ends up REALLY getting hammered on this, he can always elect to opt-out late, pay a fine, and blow past the $40MM cap.

I'll also note that in terms of grassroots organizations, Dean has indeed assembled an impressive army. But his recruiting has slowed TREMENDOUSLY in this past quarter. You may recall that Dean made a BIG DEAL about crossing 500,000 volunteers toward the beginning of last quarter. What's the tally now? Only 559,481. The rate of increase has become very slow in these last couple of months, mostly due to what I believe is the "low-hanging fruit" phenomenon. He's already gotten those. New volunteers become harder to obtain. (I'll also note that those 559,481 volunteers are much like DU's membership numbers, they do not decrease when volunteers drop out or go to another campaign.)

Clark also has a strong army of grassroots volunteers, and IMO he will have greater upward potential as people become more and more familiar with him. Additionally, I think it's pretty much indisputable (but again, of course, YMMV) that Dean has had a much more contentious time with all of the other candidates, than Clark has had. Clark has also done a much better job of staying positive, IMO, than Dean. This will make it easier for Clark to attract Democratic activists from other candidates when they drop out, as opposed to Dean who will have greater trouble.

Dean's negatives are also a factor here. When you look at the latest CNN/USAT poll, Dean's negatives significantly outweigh his positives among the general population. In contrast, Clark has the best positive-to-negative numbers of any Democratic candidate. Aside from the obvious "electability" issue that you discuss very well in your post, this means that Dean is much less likely to draw VOLUNTEERS (much less voters) from the middle, because you're just not likely to work for a person you view negatively.

Finally, I totally get that Dean will not "sit back and take it" like the others. But neither will Clark. And having a lean, gray wolf General bite you back is, IMO, a little more effective than having a (and I absolutely hate to say this, because it sounds petty, but in our TV-based society it's also sadly true, IMO) short, pudgy guy who avoided service in Vietnam doing so.

Clark will be able to beat Bush with the hypocrite stick, he can point out Bush's AWOL status, he can challenge Bush on foreign policy, he can "out-Southern" Bush on things like "family values" (look how his "Families First" tax plan already does this, by saying in order to have family values, you need to be valuing families), he can point to his modest upbringing, he can do so many things that Howard Dean will not be able to just by virtue of the basic facts of their very lives.

IMO, Howard Dean is what he is: a longshot who in many ways embodies the negative traits of McGovern (my leftist organization will win the general election), Mondale (I'm honest about wanting to raise lower- and middle- class taxes) AND Dukakis (I have zero foreign policy experience). I don't want to bet my country and my future on a roll of boxcars. I genuinely believe that Clark is the superior candidate, and that we can win with him even if the economy and the national security prospects improve, either of which events will make a Dean candidacy even more difficult.

And if you've gotten this far, thanks for taking the time to read this long-winded rant. :D

DTH

[adamrsilva]

170. That's total bunk

Dean has barely spent him money.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

231. Again, You're Wrong, See Post #64 (eom)

DTH

[Hawkeye-X]

257. Got proof? Cite or article

Please. You won't find one.

[JNelson6563]

348. Wow! And you complain about attacks?

Very disappointing post, becasue it is from you DTH.

Julie

[DoveTurnedHawk]

384. I Complain About Attacks By Dean, and His Campaign

Big difference between that, and a bunch of mental masturbation on DU.

Obviously.

DTH

[Donna Zen]

145. It's about the governing...

First let me clarify something; when I was researching the candidates, one of the things that stood out for me was that Clark was as far or further to the left than many of the other candidates, but no one ever says that. The pundits consistently refer to him as a "centrist" but that is not the case. It made me laugh out loud: we could slide in a liberal and no one would ever know it! So cool.

Domestic Policy: Standard Democratic positions with the extra bonus of a much improved Cuban policy. In addition, any monies we need to improve social conditions in our country are currently buried in the defense budget. To be successful at governing, and Clark does like to be successful with a capital "S," the money must be weedled out of that pork-filled budget. Of all of the candidates, only Clark has the chance to do that and the knowledge required to find it.

Foreign Policy: I just read a TNR editorial, but it is not the first time I've agreed with a writer on this one. Clark doesn't just know foreign policy...he is considered one of the experts living on the face of the planet. Again, improvements in this country are directly affected by our foreign policy both in terms of dollars and in terms of jobs. To paraphrase something I read once: in the military they have a term "The Goldilock's Solution." It is when a policy wonk comes up with a set of briefs, one is too hot, one is too cold, and one is just right. The person being quoted said that Clark's always wants to know "why are we eating porridge anyway?" Clark thinks outside the box. The military of course hated it, but since they needed his solutions, they always wanted Clark on the team. He smart...no make that brilliant. And that is exactly what it is going to take to clean up this mess.

Finally, one of the greatest dangers I see to our democracy, is the rightwing's current control over the military. It chills me to the bone. We may not get another chance to break that lock. Clark is a gift to the Democrats, yes, but I would argue that he is a gift to all of us who value living in a free society. Clark's understanding and love of our Constitution and the philosophy that inspired the very notion of this country, is rare.

When I think about this election and look over the electoral map, it is not about "how can Clark win" is about "how can bush win" if we run Clark.

[TacticalPeek]

243. If I could say it better, I would.

But you nailed this part of it.

The other part of it is (for me): our political system is in apparent near equilibrium, like a tall tree that has been cut but has not fallen yet. The forces that coalesce on each side will determine in which direction it will fall. And the R's have been making headway in bringing their side to bear.

Because of the points you make, Donna Zen, this could be an epochal election in our recent history. Clark gives us the chance to build and energize a new democratic coalition that will tip the outcome away from retrograde, right wing opportunism and toward the progressive policies we need to carry us into this century.

And though I have nothing against Dean, and would probably be in his camp had Clark not entered, I cannot see Dean having anything near the chance Clark has to succeed at this point where success is so crucial, for the party and country (and planet).

Although I expect much degradation and prostration for this administration between now and the election, hope is not a plan. We must proceed on the assumption that Bush will be running strong, and we must be sure to take our best and strongest shot.

Besides, I'm sick and tired of the right wing hacking away our liberty, our security and our republic. Clark is the best guy to take the ax out of their bloody hands.

[Bonobo]

152. I'm so impressed that you threw this out in the open!

So I will offer my opinion to join the collective.
I was supporting Dean from very early on because of my stong opposition to the war and my perception (at that time) that he was the strongest. That he was, in fact, the only democrat bold enought to strike back at Bush instead of buckiling under as has been the recent Demo strategy.

This was all before Clark joined the race and before I saw how B@'s support was going to continue despite the evidence that the Iraq War was a mistake in so many ways.

I have come to believe that it is only Clark who can pummel Bush on the issue of National security. He will tear them a new A-hole on the issue. Of that I am convinced, and I think that this will avoid the otherwise inevitabile scene of having a Northeastern Democrat savaged for being an Anti-War, Birkenstock-wearing, Latte-drinking so-and-so.

Clark can show that Bush and his neo-con intellectuals are checkenhawk bullshitters in the same sense that only Nixon could go to China. He has hat unique position. And he's smart---deadly smart. He's got my vote and I hope he gets yours.

[dave29]

157. Dean - and here's why

I'm not going to post negatively against Clark, I think he is a fine man - and you are correct, perhaps the safe vote in this race.

Here are my thoughts on Dean.

I've watched Dean over the last year, and the way everybody has responded to his campaign. That response has been all over the map, as you well know.

We are asked, repeatedly, by those coming from "up on high" in this party (and even the other) to be pragmatists. "Can Dean win?" they ask. "Is he electable?" they ask. They tell us we really need to think this through for thousands of different reasons. Dean, they tell us, is unsafe at any speed. He shoots from the hip. He speaks too bluntly. He is angry. He will be crushed by the Republicans. He has no foreign policy experience.

We have even been given a full-spectrum list of people Dean can be compared to to illustrate just how badly he will be crushed because he supports this or that position:

McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, even Gingrich (for good measure).

It's enough to spook the heartiest of Democrats.

Then I look past my fear. I look at the list of others he has been compared to more favorably for one reason or another:

Truman, FDR, Clinton, Goldwater, Robert Kennedy, McCain.

I look at both of these lists, think of all of the things Dean has been accused of, and I think to myself... they can't pin Dean down ideologically at all. He has stated himself, he is not an ideologue - that this (being an ideologue) is one of the main reasons he thinks George W. Bush has been such a terrible President. And then it hits me.

The party is asking me to think pragmatically, but Howard Dean is the penultimate pragmatist, and this is his biggest asset.

This is, in fact, the main reason he is under constant attack from every direction. Dean evaluates and re-evaluates. He wants to do what will work not what a lobbyist tells him to do. For this reason, he holds partisans and ideologues (wherever they may come from) in contempt - and they hate him for it.

Deans "tragic flaw" when you really think about it, is that he honestly wants to do whats best for every American, regardless of race, gender, orientation, or religious belief. It's a potent message that's being muddled by those who don't understand you don't have to "spin" to make sense. Because of this deeply held conviction, and his ability to change his mind, he is accused by other partisans of pandering, flip-flopping, waffling, and all sorts of general nonsense. I think the people understand what he is telling them. And it's this very passion for equality (what our party is supposed to be about), in my opinion, that should be the very definition of an American Presidency.

Dean has the potential to be one of the greats, I believe, for this very reason. He has no constituency other than the American people. He will not be beholden to any "special" interests other than ours.
There is a lot of fretting about foreign policy, and I have to tell you, he has said nothing to concern me here. His positions are mainstream, and he wasn't afraid to voice them from the beginning. Sure, they will fight him on it, it's to be expected. But he's being proven more and more right every day that goes by. That's the other thing about Dean. He's not coy, he's not going to flinch. Howard Dean has backbone.

[edzontar]

159. Dean--because he is responsible fro re-invigorating our party

Until Dean's campaign got going, the DP was in the doldrums.

Candidates like Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman pursued the "Me Too" strategy of support for the war (in varying degrees) and other 2002-esque fence-straddlings and have all emerged as over-compromised losers-in-waiting.

But Dean has electrified the base, shown courage and daring, and attracted waves of new voters to the cause.

In sum he has kept the party ALIVE.

Clark has done some good too---but to me, his candidacy seems to much a "celebrity" sort of affair...that is, he has very shallow roots in the party or in politics, even when compared to the "outsider" Dean.

Also, he has yet to be subjected to the kind of scrutiny that has been showered all over Dean, and We just don;t know how much baggage the opposition might finds in his Republican and/or military past.

It is a valid point that Clark will appeal to many conservative or Reagan-Democrat voters.

On the other hand, his candidacy could alienate enough on the progressive side to spark a second Nader run--which would be a disaster, IMHO.

So I would argue that all things considered, Dean is the better choice.

[adamrsilva]

171. Right

would there really be as much attention on the Dems if it weren't for Dean?

[BigBigBear]

161. My $0.02

Rove Inc HAS to make '04 about National Security. Their boy has bungled or neglected pretty much every single domestic issue, except helping the rich get richer.

I have trouble imagining that Dean can convince middle of the road America (we're all partisans here) that he can keep them safer. I believe Clark can.

Bill Clinton wasn't trusted by the Democratic establishment in 1992, either.

The Democratic Party needs to look beyond itself, its failures, it divisions, its 'loyalties', and elect a winner.

I like Dean and would enthusiastically support him in the GE. I just think this is exactly the wrong time for a Northeastern Democrat - I don't think he can raise enough money, and I think Rove will take him apart.

I still can't say myself I'm committed to Clark's candidacy - but I'm sure close.

[CWebster]

242. Clark and NationalSecurity

Folks are so quick to become enthralled with image and jump on the bandwagon, but everytime I ask this question I get "Zzzzzz" if anything at all. Can someone please tell me how the fact that Clark was booted from his position (in a Democratic administration, for crissakes), just a few short months prior to retirement after a long career---thereby staining his credibiliy ---Can anybody tell me how this is not a liability? Can anyone tell me that the events at Pristina, where a British General charged Clark of threatening to start WW3--not only negates clark's experience, but has the Republicans salivating? How can Clark get any leverage when his military superiors and peers are critical of his integrity and performance? Do you really think they are going to make it easy for him, if they fear his rise to power will put him in the position to settle a few scores?

How the hell can he be the "safer" vote when his very strength can so easily be undermined by me, with 02 cents to my name and not 2 million dollars? And that is all Clark has--that is considered his strength, he has no domestic record, never held office, campaigned and had glowing praises of Bush and his team, stated he would've voted for IRW and advised a congresswoman to do so--and wants to appeal to the anti war base? Not to mention his association with Clinton, which will kill him in the General as Clinton's stalking horse and alienate him from the anti-DLC grassroots.

What can anybody be thinking to take him seriously as a "safe" contender?

Don't you all see how full of holes this guy is?

[democrank]

162. Tough Choice

Between Dean and Clark, but either could beat Rove`s pathetic, faux action figure using up oxygen in the White House. Media elites want us to think that Dean is just angry and Clark can`t find his political legs, but what I`m seeing is a lesson in steely determination from both these men and reality-based positions which should appeal to a wide spectrum of voters.

Clark inches ahead of Dean because of his admirable military record and his insightful vision of foreign affairs, but Dean bounces back for his tenacity and willingness to confront not only Bush but the DLC/DNC. Clark`s Southern roots would be a plus but so would Dean`s background in the field of medicine.

If I had to choose one right now, I`d choose Clark because I believe national security issues will be high on the agenda come November and Clark can totally destroy Bush`s fake hero-soldier image with four little letters....AWOL.

[DancingBear]

166. Clark - courtesy DoveTurnedHawk

(please excuse if previously posted)


1) Dean is a moderate who is perceived to be a liberal by the general public. This results in a double-whammy for liberal Democrats, namely a candidate who is less likely to be elected in the general election, and less likely to enact the reforms you want in the event he manages to get elected.
The standard response I've seen to this is some combination of, "Dean and his supporters will single-handedly take back the language and attitude that have been pervasive throughout this country for the last few decades, and make being perceived as liberal a good thing again," and "Dean will energize the base, so we don't need those squishy moderates and conservatives anyway."

I find both arguments exceedingly unpersuasive. While it's certainly POSSIBLE that Dean and his supporters will single-handedly be able to reverse decades worth of inculcation by the whore media and the Republicans, and suddenly make being perceived as "liberal" a good thing again, I certainly don't find it all that PROBABLE. It's a long-shot, and I don't like taking chances on something as big, as important to all of us, as the upcoming election. Much more likely, I believe the Republicans will ratchet up their well-financed attack machine and fit Dean into a comfortable target box: Dean is an angry, liberal, out-of-touch governor of a small New England state (that elects Socialists to Congress, to boot). I personally believe those attacks will work, especially since the stock Dean supporter response of, "Dean won't sit and take it like Dukakis did, he'll fight back," fits neatly into the "angry, negative Democrats" stereotype that the RNC is ALREADY pushing online.
As for the "energize the base" argument, first of all, the base will most likely ALREADY be energized, since most of us view Bush as such a travesty. Second, elections are won and lost on a grand scale, you need tens of millions of votes to move the needle, and in light of the historically declining number of self-identifying Democrats and increasing number of self-identifying Independents, those votes are typically better sought from the broad middle than the shrinking left, who are more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee this year than in 2000, no matter what a few dedicated partisans might say to the contrary. Before you respond by saying, "But the base has only been shrinking because the spineless Dems in Congress haven't stood up to Bush," please check the statistics. This trend has been happening for many, many years, if not decades.

Even if Dean gets elected, however, that will mean we're electing a man who most of his well-educated supporters have conceded is, at heart, a moderate. I am a Democrat, and despite my perception here as being a moderate Democrat, I consider myself to be significantly more liberal than Howard Dean, certainly. Ideally, I don't want a candidate who is more moderate than me, I want a candidate who combines "liberal" and "electable" as well as possible.


2) Dean has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and this is a critical flaw in our post-9/11 world. Dean's stock responses, namely that Bush didn't have any foreign policy experience either, and that Dean will assemble a crack team of advisors, are both exceedingly unsatisfying to me. First, I don't really think we need any candidate to compare himself or herself too closely to Bush in the general election, because it does the candidate a disservice, to which Dean himself has so often alluded.

Second and much more importantly, however, the two situations are readily distinguishable: before 9/11, Bill Clinton left us with the joy of being prosperous, and the sole superpower in the world. Foreign policy experience in the 2000 election was NOT a critical criterion in a candidate for that very reason. But now we are perceived to be in the midst of a dire war by most of the American public, and foreign policy is very much on their minds, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit Dean into another very comfortable target box: Dean is a typical, unpatriotic Democrat who is weak on defense and foreign policy. Again, I personally believe those attacks will work, especially since the Dean response of attacking George Bush's foreign policy failures once again fits neatly into the aforementioned "angry, negative Democrats" stereotype.

Potentially much more importantly, those attacks on Dean might work, and might work very well, due to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the very real possibility that such capture will indeed make American troops in Iraq safer, since they give Bush a reasonable counter-argument. He can say that his foreign policy has NOT been a miserable failure now (even though we all know it has been), and the American public, content with the pap fed to them by the complicit mass media, will probably go along. So Bush will say, in a world that is still unsafe, do you want a proven leader who has led this country with firm and clear resolve, or do you want someone who will need training wheels on the job?


3) Dean's plan to repeal all of the Bush tax cut effectively raise taxes on the poor and the middle class, and this will go over like a lead balloon with the American public. Dean's response, that the poor and the middle class have actually been paying MORE in taxes and costs associated with service cuts after the Bush tax than before, is too complicated to sell easily, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit Dean into YET ANOTHER very comfortable target box: Dean is a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to raise YOUR taxes, middle-class soccer moms and NASCAR dads who actually vote. Again, I think those attacks will work, since the truth is at its core: any way you slice it, if Dean enacts his plan, the poor and the middle-class will be paying more in federal taxes.

Dean's defense here, namely that the increase in taxes will be more than offset by restored benefits and services, MIGHT technically be true. It does NOT follow, however, that the ONLY path to restoring services is to raise taxes on the poor and the middle-class. There are many alternatives. You could raise the taxes on the wealthy EVEN MORE (my preferred solution), while keeping the tax cuts on the poor and middle class. You could cut spending in other areas that do not provide services, such as defense spending (Dean has vowed to maintain the defense budget at current levels, unlike other candidates who have vowed to cut it by as much as 15% or even 25%). Or you could continue running a deficit, a position traditionally embraced by Democrats when faced with the alternative of cutting services.


4) Obviously, YMMV greatly on this, but I have a real problem with certain elements of Dean's personality and character. Because this subject has been both hashed out so many times before here and is based so much on subjective criteria, I will decline to expand further, except to say this. IMO, Dean is more susceptible to this type of charge than any other candidate, especially when the Republicans use their well-financed attack machine to fit Dean into, you guessed it, another very comfortable target box: Dean is a flip-flopping, arrogant, egotistical, stretches-the-truth-to-the-breaking-point Democrat just like his new soul mate, Al Gore.

I will also note that on two separate occasions, with two different candidates, Dean and/or his campaign has willfully spread lies in order to stay on message. The first time is with respect to Wesley Clark. Dean's campaign decided the proper message against Clark was to paint him as a Republican. So shortly after Clark entered the race, Dean lied to everyone when he said that Clark was a "Republican until 25 days ago." I am sure Dean knew better than that, since Dean is a smart man who breathes politics, IMO. But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, even if you think that Dean genuinely believed that statement, after Clark got in his face about it, you'd think Dean would think twice before doing it again. But just yesterday, Dean's spokesman, very shortly after insisting (rather ironically) that Dean's message was a positive one, decided to slam Clark AGAIN on this subject, saying that Clark can't "make up for a lifetime of voting Republican. We're looking forward to seeing the Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney ad." Clark's "crime" that prompted this vicious attack? He dared to use stock footage of Clark and Clinton together in a complimentary fashion. Talk about a "nuclear" response for an innocuous occurrence that wasn't even targeted at Dean!

The second time is with respect to Dennis Kucinich. Dean's campaign decided a long time ago that the proper message for the entire campaign was that Dean was the only one to oppose the war, even though that's certainly not true. But Dean goes out with a TV commercial anyway, saying that very thing. Kucinich gets in Dean's face about it on national TV at a debate. Dean qualified his statement, saying he only meant the only "major" candidate, or whatever. Fine. Again, even if you give Dean the benefit of the doubt on this, after Kucinich got in his face about it, you'd think Dean would think twice before doing it again. But again, just yesterday, a glossy mailing went out, once again repeating the lie that Dean was the only one to oppose the war, or whatever. Yes, there might be absolutely tortuous convolutions of the English language that might, in the mind of some ardent Dean supporters, justify the statement and somehow magically make it not a lie. But I think most people who are paying attention, and are being honest about it, will acknowledge and agree that it was, in fact, a lie.

I don't like politicians who lie for any reason, and I especially don't like politicians who lie just to stay on message. That's no message I want to hear, personally. And it bothers me that Dean doesn't appear to have any problems with this type of behavior.

So that's my long response. I'm not going to try to sway you toward anyone else, because my biases there are obvious. I'm just telling you the issues I have with Howard Dean, honestly and openly, and hopefully to an extent that allows you to understand where I'm coming from.

[On the Road]

167. Who Will be Successfully Redefined by the Republicans?

I think the election will come down to a question of whether the Democratic candidate will be perceived by the voters the way that Bush wants or the way that the candidate wants. That boils down to the question of who's a more effective campaigner under adversity.

When faced with a wall of consistent, dishonest, propaganda, I believe it is better to be assestive and tough it out than to be reasonable and eloquent. The candidate's voice and conviction has got to overcome the mud and innuendo.

That is one reason I think Dean's style is better suited to this particular campaign than Wesley Clark's style.

It seems to me a lot of Clark supporters believe he is untouchable. I don't think so. The line on both candidates is already apparent. Clark was fired for personality issues, he's a Bush supported who changed parties for political gain, etc, etc, . . .

So, from a purely political point of view, I think Democrats and independents will respect Clark but are more likely to be motivated by Dean. That's why I would go with Dean.

[Soul On Ice]

177. Like in the debates

Imagine a true military hero debating in a calm manner; explaining why it was not a good idea to go to war in Iraq

vs.

a wild-eyed screaming person with about the same level of knowledge of foreign policy as Dubya.



From a purely political POV, democrats and independents will fall all over themselves at the site of Clark v Bush and will recoil in horror at Dean's antics.

[On the Road]

214. "Democrats and Independents Will Fall All Over Themselves"?

Really? So why is Dean still in the lead? Why has he been able to hold it when he's been under constant attack for weeks?

I've never seen Dean be a wild-eyed screaming person. Have you? Been watching the Daily Show this week?

In the general election, Clark would be just another candidate -- meaning no one's going to put him on a pedestal or hand him the election. His campaign strategy seems a little like Kerry's -- just be presidential and say you're a war hero and it's yours. Clark will have show more than that to get the nomination or to beat Bush.

[Soul On Ice]

296. If you believe the polls at this point,

please get a grip. They mean nothing. They will fluctuate all over the place for months.

There are polls, damn polls and statistics (or something like that) LOL.

Perhaps you are too young to know what really happens in general elections in this country. I almost wish Dean would get the nomination so you could watch him go down.

But it's too important now. It's just too important for these silly back-and-forths.

We have to get Bush out because I don't honestly know if we will survive another 4 years with him and his administration.

Clark is the only hope for the general election.

[Walt Starr]

168. When you look at all of the candidates, two stand out as completely unkown

political entities.

Al Sharpton has never been elected to public office and therefore has no political record.

Wesley Clark has never been elected to political office and therefore has no political record.

In the case of Al Sharpton, there is a record of political activism that can lead one to some conclusions about how he would react to various political scenarios, so at least some level of knowledge about how he would govern can be discerned.

In the case of Wesley Clark, there is absolutely no record of activism. All we have are a few speeches at events. Because of this, we have no idea how he would govern. For all we know, everything he has said could be a lie to get elected. It has happened before and it will happen again. He is an unknwon entity politically and that makes him the riskiest potential candidate in the field.

Even with a Lieberman candidacy, we would have some idea how he would govern as a president. The same can be said of the rest of the field, but not of Wesley Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

407. Saving

1.5 million Muslim Albanian and losing your job over it is not activism? Co-writing the AA amicus brief for the army for the Supreme Court on the U of michigan is nothing either....A peace treaty is diddly squat?

[T_i_B]

173. I don't have a vote in your primaries

But I can't decide myself if Clark or Dean would be better. At least you guys have more than one quality candidate to choose from.

Mind you I was originally sticking up for Bob Graham from over here across the pond!

[Douglas_Barber]

175. WWMD (What would Mario Do?)

Just yesterday I listened again to Mario Cuomo's 1984 Keynote address and it made me realize why I am a Democrat all over again.

Who comes closest to that ideal? Howard Dean.

[Soul On Ice]

179. Don't believe the hype.

Check the records; check the retractions.

Also, Cuomo's son worked for Clinton. Clinton/Clark v Dean/Gore.

Not so simple as you might think.

[OBrien]

176. I live in Houston

was born in Iowa spent 20 years there, 20 in New Orleans, three in London and 4 here in Houston. You could say I have had pretty good exposure of all sorts of people and opinions. I can say right now that here in Houston many rebubs seem quite interested in Clark and not Dean. There is little doubt in my mind that he can win. I'm fifty years old and consider myself a liberal demeocrat and I've been for Clark from the beginning. A little extra note, my American historical biographer father-in-law and his collegues are fimly behind Clark.

[Maddy McCall]

180. I am a liberal and a historian and I am supporting Clark, too

It is a misconception that only the centrist-to-right Democrats support Clark. You, I, and many liberal and progressive Democrats support Clark.

[lovedems]

187. sorry for the double post, son got on the computer when I got the mail!

[lovedems]

191. I have a question for you as a liberal and a historian

Do you think there is alot of appeal to Clark because "in general" people like the country to be governed from the center? There are people like us who despise the fact that * is governing so far to the right. In fairness, there are probably an equal number of people who would despise a president who governed so far to the left. I wonder if that is a worry for many in the country that Dean would govern to far to the left. ( I don't believe that, I think he was a centrist in Vermont) but the picture could be painted that way. But Clark's appeal might be that he would be a "centrist". Just a quirky little question to someone who might now.

[Maddy McCall]

205. Generally, in politics...

what I have found is that movements can't force people to "like" candidates or ideas. Any ideological shift of the general electorate must happen incrementally.

Take woman suffrage, for example. It was seen as extremely radical in the late nineteenth century, but by 1920 an ideological shift had occurred with the majority of Americans which made it "safe" for politicians to support it.

Bush does indeed govern from the far right, and let's remember that he campaigned as a centrist. And you are right that a far-left politician will have a hard time being elected in the current political climate. We have to find homeostasis before we can hope to move the American populace to the left, no matter in how small increments that move may be.

Dean is indeed a centrist--as his record in Vermont shows. But his anti-war rhetoric and civil union history are all that some voters will look at, and those positions will turn lots of them off (and those positions will inspire others). So, yes, he can be painted a far leftist just on those two attributes.

On the other hand, Clark appears to be centrist mainly because of his military career. That will be all that many voters care about when they typecast him as a middle-to-rightist.

Eisenhower took many Republicans and right-leaning Democrats down the primrose path of conservative promises, but it was his (rather scant) support of civil rights for blacks in the military and that caused many conservatives to abandon him AND he received blame for Brown v. Board. People fixate on the quality that is most important to them and when that proves to be illusory of secondary to other facets in that candidate, they abandon and become hostile to the person because he doesn't measure up to the bar they themselves set, based on what THEY perceive as important.

Don't know if I am answering your question, but for American voters to latch onto a single attribute of a politician and perceive that attribute as wholy characteristic of that politician is nothing new. Indeed, is this not how Bush was elected? Had the American public not perceived him as "honest" and a "good, moral leader," his corruption would have already been exposed. The American electorate perception guides MUCH of what happens in Washington.

[lovedems]

246. You did an excellent job answering my question!

THANK YOU :hi:

[Zero Division]

390. Definitely one of the best posts in this thread

:yourock:

[Kahuna]

178. Wesley Clark has discipline which Dean sorely lacks.

That's all I have to add. Dean is all of the place on issues. That will be his unravelling. All the money in the world can't fix that.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

181. Kerry's 'lackluster campaign'- a self-perpetuating and fulfilling myth

I think this line of reasoning, while on its face seems logical- that he stinks as a campaigner and will stink in the GE- is a psychological trap, based on a prejudice, of which the short analysis goes as follows:

The problem is Kerry often is extremely verbose, and few people want to hear 6 minute answers to complex questions, although sometimes that is indeed what it takes. Dean's success is proof that emotions can play a big part in candidate selection- we hate Bush, and are excited by someone who challenges him, and excited about having someone represent us. The bottom line is- excitement should not be a factor, and I think for a lot of "swing voters", it indeed is not. For those voters- the very ones we need to win- it all comes down to a matter of acceptability in the person and confidence that the candidate will deliver on the issues that matter to them.

Once this prejudice about a candidate's ability to excite is put aside, people such as Kerry and John Edwards begin to look really appealing- they have substantial knowledge of the issues, and solid records to back them up. In Kerry's case, the record and substance are too much to ignore, and he rises to the top of the list. As far as campaigning goes, I have personally found that when in a one on one conversation/interview (such as in a 'talking head' format)- Kerry's very profound knowledge and understanding of the issues comes through very impressivley- as someone here said "I watch him in these formats and I think 'why is it even a contest?'". And it is this very same Kerry who has been criss-crossing Iowa the last few weeks, gaining new and real support as evidenced in the polls there.

So I say, give Kerry a 2nd chance.

[Cheswick2.0]

182. I went to my first Dean meet-up last night

There were liberal democrats, conservative democrats, republicans, New Party, Green party and Socialists attending. There were old folks, middle aged and college aged people attending. There were probably more men than women. There was a lesbian couple and at least one young gay man. I would say that there were about 30 people there which surprised me given that in this area people think talking politics is like talking about your last bathroom experience. It is just not something we do in polite company.

We went around and introduced ourselves and said why we had decided to support Dean. Every single person said the first thing they knew about Dean was that he was saying what they had waited to hear, that we were in the grips of big money and big military and we needed to take back the party and country making it accessible to the grassroots again. They stated that they felt empowered. They are tired or being manipulated by sound bites and images and fear. They want their good jobs back and health care.

Mostly they were just sick of this stupor they see in public life. Then we wrote 60 letters to Iowa and New Mexico. Then we planned another letter writing event for Sunday. Then we began to talk about registering voters at all the local colleges and people are investigating what the various campus rules are.

Then we watched a video, a statement by Gov Dean and a tour of the Iowa office and a short statement by the NM campaign director thanking everyone for the letters etc....

Here is the short statement by Dean that thousands of people watched last night. See if you don't agree with it. Then remember that it is more than campaign rhetoric because there are thousands of people acting everyday to make victory happen.

http://howarddean.tv/

[a_random_joel]

183. Agreed - A hard choice. In the end I gotta go with Dean.

Skinner,

Like you I was hard-pressed to choose between these two fine men. Like you, Kerry, who I originally was favoring, wore me down with careless comments and a lackluster campaign. Edwards seems like a nice guy with a good general appeal, but like you, I don't think he's ready for prime time, yet. That left Clark and Dean as the only two "electable" Democratic candidates. I am not saying this with any malice or spite to the other candidates, it's just what I think is a fact.

Here's what it boils down to for me as far as Dean is concerned.

My choice is recent. He won me over on a Town Hall in NH, on C-Span a few weeks ago. He said everything I wanted to hear, and displayed eloquence, sincerity, compassion and humor. The "gaffe" thing has concerned me as of late. Then I started thinking about it... Who has a record of gaffes so large, there are entire books devoted to it? BUSH. So spotlighting Dean's gaffes is ultimately the perfect way to:
a. not only highlight Bush's gaffes, but to
b. spotlight the media's inconsistency in OVER reporting Dean's and UNDER reporting Bush's.

But further. Those who question Dean's gaffes here, fail to see that whoever the eventual nominee is, the media will pick them apart and take them out of context just like they did to Gore, and just like they are doing to Dean. If Clark was the frontrunner - you'd be hearing a lot more about Clark's "gaffes".

Additionally, I truly believe at the grassroots level Dean is stronger. I believe he is tapping into that "silent" majority that is still pissed off about 2000 and is generally (no pun intended) against the War. I believe he is someone who can make inroads into the 50% of people who DO NOT vote. And a small percentage of those people would be huge in what is expected by both sides to be another close election.

Lastly, Dean speaks his mind. Like him or not, agree or not... you know where he stands. He was right on the war from the beginning! I like Clark A LOT. I think he would be a formidable opponent, and I think he is the one Rove and Co. are most scared of. BUT, at the end of the day, I just don't know if I trust him as a tried and true progressive Democrat.

That's my .02

On edit - I will support the eventual nominee no matter who it is.

[a_random_joel]

193. One last thing!

Dean strikes me as the type who will roll up his sleeves and go down swinging.

I don't doubt that Clark is capable of that, but I have yet to see it.

[Auntie Bush]

341. You doubt Clark can roll up his sleeves and go down swinging?

If you don't think he can roll up those sleeves and fight...then how do you think he became a 4 star general? I think he has already proved he can do that. He put his career on the line to fight Cohen
and Shelton for what he thought was right and moral and he will fight for us too. Let's give him that chance!

PS Skinner....thanks for the spell checker. Love Ya. Vote for Clark!

[a_random_joel]

353. I haven't seen it.

For the record, I said I DON'T doubt it. But I have yet to see it.

Dean has. That is all.

[Padraig18]

186. Gov. Howard Dean, and here's why:

As some of you are aware, I've only been a citizen of this country for 2 1/2 years, although I have lived here for over 10. This coming November I will cast my very first vote for a candidate for President of the United States of America, arguably the most important elected or appointed office on the face of this planet.

The monumental importance of my casting of this ballot--- yes, monumental importance, because the other 6.2 billion people who populate this planet will be affected by my decision, even though they have no vote--- cannot be overstated, and I approach the exercise of this franchise with all appropriate solemnity. It is my duty to choose wisely, and for the best of reasons, rather than for the 'choosing the lesser of 2 evils.' Who, then, is most worthy of my vote?

Although I can and will support any of the 9 Democratic candidates for President, the process of choosing a candidate is bifurcated, so I must first choose which of those 9 candidates best reflects my deepest values and who best 'resonates' with me. That candidate is Gov. Howard Dean.

I believe in peace, social justice and the rule of law. I oppose the use of military force except in self-defense, or in the enforcement of international law, and so does Howard Dean. I believe that we have a duty to care for our fellow citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable among us--- women, children the poor, the physically- and mentally-challenged, those who are victims of discrimination based on color, creed or sexual orientation--- and so does Howard Dean.

In my 10 years of life in the United States, I have seen the results of 'politics as usual', and I am not impressed; after years and years of 'life' in our nation's capitol, fundamentally decent men and women have lost touch with their own constituents--- the millions of ordinary men, women and children who make up America. They mistake electoral majorities for unconditional approval of their choices, when in fact those majorities often represent little more than an electorate resigned to the acceptance of a somewhat-better mediocrity.

I support Howard Dean because he gives me something no other candidate does--- hope--- hope for a better future in which my voice will be heard and in which my vote will not be taken for granted. He has given voice to my dreams for a nation which not only can, but which must do better, and which must pursue policies and goals worthy of a great nation. He has spoken out clearly against an unjust, immoral and illegal war, as have I. He has spoken out against fiscal incompetence, as have I. He has spoken out for a social-welfare policy that is at one and the same time both fundamentally humane and fiscally-responsible, as have I. Finally, Howard Dean shares my anger at the 2000 coup d'etat that represented the first 'shot across the bow' of the Constitution's recognition of our right as sovereign people to a government of, by and FOR the People.

This is why I will support Howard Dean this primary season. Thank you.

[lovedems]

195. You rock. I wish others in the country were as compassionate as you

[Padraig18]

215. Thank you!

What a perfectly lovely thing to say! :hi: :)

[Hoppin_Mad]

250. Great post ! You elucidated the heart and soul of the Dean campaign ! -eom

[Kahuna]

200. NYTs today..." In Shift, Dean Starts Watching His Words"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/politics/campaigns/08DEAN.html?ei=5062&en=c4a6b502a527b6c0&ex=1074142800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

snip...
BURLINGTON, Vt., Jan. 7 — With a wary eye on Gen. Wesley K. Clark's rise in national and New Hampshire polls, Howard Dean's campaign has begun to limit his availability to the press, and the candidate himself is watching his words after several recent statements unleashed a storm of criticism from opponents.

Dr. Dean, who has spent two years campaigning as the candidate willing to say what he thinks, initially told reporters that he would be "happy" to discuss his tax policy. Then, as aides glared at him, he immediately said a senior adviser had "veto power" over what he would say.

"I'm not allowed to say I'm happy to do anything anymore," he added.

Later in the day, the campaign released a statement saying Dr. Dean had long intended to propose "additional tax reforms."

snip..
Then there is the new clamp on Dr. Dean's mouth. On Saturday morning, Doug Thornell, his traveling press secretary, announced that the candidate would less frequently face groups of reporters, or chat freely in transit, but instead would field questions, one-on-one, by request.

Three days passed without the kind of group interview with national reporters that used to be frequent, and the promised one-on-ones never happened (until Wednesday morning, when a Washington Post reporter was allowed to ask a question after a pancake breakfast in Muscatine about civil unions). Dr. Dean has met individually with local television and radio reporters, but he has not had a group meeting with local reporters, once a regular occurrence, since Dec. 16 in New Mexico.

end of snips

You see the problem here, Skinner? Dean has foot-in-mouth disease to the extent that his handlers are keeping him on a tight leash. Remind you of anybody? :eyes:

[batman]

227. thank maude for deans foot in mouth disease

i hope he never finds the cure. it is what has attracted me and many others to his campaign. he says what we wish other politicians would. refreshing/comforting/truthful. not to mention the great free press!

[Lefta Dissenter]

201. my penny's worth...

I haven't read through all the posts - I am SUPPOSED to be wrapping my son's birthday presents! But in the skimming I've done so far, the focus seems to be almost completely on the candidate, rather than the president.

We can debate till we're blue in the face which of the two you named 'can get elected.' Hopefully, whoever wins the nomination will kick bush's ass back to his little farmette in Crawford.

I am looking at the PRESIDENT that I want. I see Clark, who has negotiated successfully with world leaders, who is brilliant, who has enormous intellectual curiosity, who is compassionate, who will take a stand on what he believes in, who respects the voices of the people who work for him, who has a long-term plan for the environment, who respects people of all cultures, ways of life and socio-economic groups, who can hold his ground against detractors without belittling them, who does not come off as arrogant, who is committed to equality, who can explain a complex idea so even I can understand it, who is willing to apologize when he makes a mistake, who is a uniter, not a divider, who can cry in an interview when he's talking about genocide and you know that his heart is broken, who can stand up to his superiors and to dictators... ok, I would be kicked out of English class if I turned in this sentence on an essay, so consider those bullet points... THAT is the man I want for my president!

My son, who is a political science major, working for Senator Feingold, should have a role model such as Clark in the White House! I want to be PROUD of our President! I want the rest of the world to recognize that we have put forth the best man for the country and for the planet.

Our Lt. Governor, Barbara Lawton, described Clark as having "political courage the likes we've only dreamed of." How can we not elect that man?

[seventhson]

206. Clark is TOOCLOSE to the MIC/Arkansas Mafia: Stephens Group,Axciom

I just wrote a lengthy piece for submission to the thread , but a jumpy computer program ate it and so I am bereft and now off shortly off to work. So here is my revisded argument for Skinner to think abaout.

The gist of my argument is as follows:

DEAN is the candidate of the NEW WAY: the People's Way. He will reignite the passion of the people for politics and this organization will SWEEP new candidates into office to get DEAN's and the People's agenda accomplished. He MAY not have coattails in November 2004 (But I think he WILL) . But if he keeps US mobilized and fighting for our principles he will transform American politics FOREVER as he already has.

I see CLARK as a calculated opportunist whose background is as a Pentagon lobbyist for the Stephens Group because of his MIC contacts and his military histopry. My article/research on this from here has been linked at Whatreallyhappened.com and has attracted a lot of thoughts from DUers; None of which really refute these deep ties to the men who financed both Bushes and Clinton.

That thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=73251&mesg_id=73251

I have grave doubts about the wisdom of reelecting the Arkansas mafia candidate as I see him.

Clark is a TOTAL political novice. WHO KNOWS what he will do? He has NO political experience and his Presidency could be a total disaster.

Dean has experience building consensus, compromise, bipartisanship, balanced budgets and equitable and smart programs which incrementally help moand more people.

He is, after all, a doctor first and NOT a political animal (lawyer, lobbyist, general).

I will feel much safer with a DOCTOR in the House (the WHITE HOUSE) than a Pentagon/Intelligence Lobbyist and Military Lifer.

You know all the reasons I do not trust or admire Clark.

I hope, if he is elected, that I am wrong about him.

But my homeland is too important for me to risk it all for ANOTHER Insider from Arkansas backed by the Stephens Group (as I believe he is covertly)

I want the NEW WAY! The PEOPLE'S WAY! The DEAN WAY!

Please please please support Dean!

Clark may well be catastrophe for America and the world.

One final point:

Dean has brought , seemingly, millions of diaffected people, young people, into the political process. THIS is what we will certainly lose if Dean is not the nominee and not the president.

We MUST, for our survival, KEEP THE MOMENTUM OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA GOING!

DEAN has proven he is the only candidate who CAN keep this going in a NEW and AMAZING and EXCITING WAY: a NEW WAY for the 21st Century!

President HOWARD DEAN!!!

It rings TRUE!

[Renew Deal]

207. Trash Clark

baselesly: 40 lines

Say something nice about Dean: 1 line

Go Dean

[robbedvoter]

208. Skinner, do not underestimate Clark's organization: WE DRAFTED HIM!

I'll be able to bring more history after this weekend drafters reunion in New Hampshire. I don't know how much is myth and how much is reality in HD's organization (I do know that a lot of Clarkies who used to be HD supporters are still counted in HD's meet-ups )
Just consider how much we accomplished in our first quarter in terms of fundraising, outreach - compare that to HD's first 3 months (or anyone else's) and you'll realize the amount of energy and creativity involved. Thousands log on our blog at any time - day and night - the energy is incredible.
For all the suspicions cast on the strawpolls results here, doesn't Clarks winning time after time show strong internet grassroots?
We don't have the time to hype ourselves so much, but take a gander here once in a while to get an idea of just what an organization we have:
http://www.forclark.com/
As for HD's? He publicly pledged to the nominee, so, you shouldn't worry, right? Our doors are wide open, welcome mat outside.

[Auntie Bush]

365. I can vouch for the fact that I'm still counted as a Dean supporter

and I never went to a meetup but I can't seem to cancel my membership.

[batman]

211. very simple skinner - this is what sets Dean apart from Clark

For me it comes down to this.

Let me say that I like them both, but the most compelling reason(s) For me personally are as follows:

Dean/Clark share an almost identical agenda so it's hard to make a decision based on policy. The war was a big deal to me personally and again they are aligned their.

But there are a couple of practical reasons why Dean edges out in first place for me.

IF all goes well in Iraq and they have a perfectly timed election for the Iraqi people (cameras capturing smiling Iraqis who have named their babies George Bush headed to the polls etc..) Let's even throw in the capture and disbarring of AlQueda, Clark has nothing left. He has an agenda/ideals. But, no practical experience/history to compete with Bush on. He can say I don't like this or that about what Bush has done, but it becomes empty. Make sense?

Polls show Americans are most concerned with our domestic agenda. Terrorism is not the concern that Faux news would have us believe.

Dean on the other hand has his experience in Vermont. Many Republicans are discouraged with Bush's spending habits. Dean has his record of fiscal responsibility, his record on domestic issues, etc. He also has a great list of Foreign Policy advisers, and has promised to choose a strong VP candidate as it relates to Foreign Policy.

So, I think the answer is clear. Clark has great ideas/appeal, but he has no proven history. And, in this time of great uncertainty, we need a comfort level, more then an image, before we head to the polls.

[Mattforclark]

223. Given

"The war was a big deal to me personally and again they are aligned their."

:

What's up with your signature?

[batman]

233. just changed it out of respect for the subject matter n/t

[Soul On Ice]

236. For comfort level

I especially enjoyed the newsmagazine cover of Dean.

Now, that's who I know middle America wants to conduct foreign policy...let alone direct a staff.

[batman]

272. i agree that dean is who america wants

i also enjoy many magazine articles on dean

dean has an excellent staff in the making, many were clinton advisors on foreign policy

i wont bring up some of the more questionable clark issues because i think skinner wants to keep this discussion decent

[Soul On Ice]

293. I don't agree that dean is who america wants

i won't bring up some of the VT. nuclear plant problems, oops strike that, other issues because i think skinner wants to keep this discussion decent

a tip of the hat to your subtlety

[Hoppin_Mad]

212. Vote for the PROVEN Dem of the 2 & the only one with $$$ to win - DEAN -nt

[rucky]

216. How Hard Are you Willing To Fight?

Dean is offering a bottom-up solution to a top-down status quo. I don't want to overhype it by calling it a revolution - it's more of a restoration that's closer to how Democracy should work. I'll be the first to admit he's picking fights with other Democrats, but he's fighting to reform them - not eliminate them. Big difference.

What Dean is offering can or cannot happen, depending upon how enthusiastically people will back him after the convention.

What we've seen is a taste of what we could see, if everybody is as enthusiastically ABB as we say we are. That would make the Dean fight work. At this stage in the election, all you have to do is look at the covers of Time & Newsweek to see the resistance - but it's all understandable. The status quo IS being threatened, and that's always a bloody fight - combine that with the usual primary infighting & you see how ambitious the Dean campaign really is... And how risky.

Yes, Clark is a good man, and he will have an easier time of it. There is no doubt in my mind he will make a good leader, but there IS doubt in my mind that we will ever get to the heart of the corruption of Democracy that's infecting both parties.

Clark is a strong leader at a time when we really need a strong leader.

Dean is a reformer at a time when we really need reform.

Pick what you believe America needs more right now. My personal approach has always been to get to the root of the problem. But at the same time, that requires a major paradigm shift for most Americans. Some people will never "get" Howard Dean - that's the risk we take.

But when Dean says "you have the power", I start to question my own cynicism. We live in a cynical society - and that is part of the root of our problem. That is the climate that brought Bush into power - despite overwhelming evidence that he did not win Florida.

Clark can beat Bush at his own game. But we need somebody who will change the rules. We need to re-frame our minds, which is essentially what Dean is asking us to do. The first step is to stop being cynical, the second step is to fight for our rights. If we wait around for a leader - ANY leader - to hand us our rights, we will never get what our forefathers promised us. It is ironic that we need a leader in order to empower ourselves, but between Dean & Clark, Dean's been the only one to expressly deliver us that message which we so desperately need to shake us from our apathy.

The ONLY hesitation I have about Dean really comes down to my faith in the rest of the opposition voters to mobilize. I hope Dean's simple message doesn't get drowned out by scandal, dirty tricks & media spin. Again, it depends on our voice, just as much as Dean's, to carry that message.

[Eloriel]

219. Skinner

If who can win is your primary consideration, then the money angle alone should be decisive, I would think. Add to that the already existing, incredibly fired-up organization (you should see what we're doing in GEORGIA, of all places!!) in every single state ought to tip the balance.

If not, despite a few wrong-headed ideas posted about this, Dean has already demonstrated (in spades) that he appeals absolutely across the political spectrum -- Dems, Republicans (and not just the ones who misguidedly think he'll be an easy win for Bush), Independents, Libertarians, Greens, even Socialists, AND legions of new voters and formerly apathetic voters. He used to ask at his appearances how many in the audience were new to the political process and the percentage was always around 50% and higher. That's nothing to sneeze at. Clark can appeal to some of these "crossover voters," but not in the numbers Dean already has, and not nearly so much (if at all) to new voters.

Republicans for Dean
http://www.republicansfordean.net/
http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

Independents for Dean
http://deanindependents.org/

Libertarians for Dean
http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/

For kicks, look at this, with 13,000 members:
Punx for Dean
http://www.punxfordean.org/index.html

And if you want to see the energy and enthusiasm, as well as get a glimpse of that grassroots organization already in place and how new people are still pouring in, check out the reports from last night's MeetUps:

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/003007.comments.html

One of the problems with the Clark candidacy is that because his primary selling point is his resume, he has to play off of and validate our fears. That plays into George Bush's whole campaign very nicely. But focus groups and polls are showing that the number 1 issue in people's minds is still the economy -- and that won't change in this jobless "recovery" (which we all know isn't a recovery at all). If there's another terrorist attack here in the U.S. before the election (and there very well could be -- even Wm. Safire has predicted it, for October I think), those voters for whom their fear is the most important thing will more likely vote for Bush, not Clark.

Someone mentioned that Clark is appealing to the international community. That's not particularly true. Europeans are very, very leery of Clark, but have been quite enthusiastic about Dean for months. (Not that this is important to your deliberations -- I just wanted to correct the record.)

For the most part we don't have to worry about what the Republicans will do to whoever our nominee is -- hell, they'll make up stuff if they have to, as they have in the past. So normally I wouldn't worry about that, with one major exception, something we do have to worry about if Clark is the nominee and that's his record. I realize that not everyone sees flaws in his record, but it's irrefutable that there is at least plenty of controversy. His record WILL be used against him (imagine a handful of GOP retired generals speaking out against him in campaign ads) and I don't beieve there's any way Clark can overcome or explain or distract from that -- NOT to those people for whom his military experience is important (and again, his military experience pretty much constitutes his entire qualification). He will be completely discredited, whether that's fair or even true. And again, I see no way for him to avoid it, or recover from it.

I'd love to talk about Dean's vision and many, many other things about Dean and his campaign, but again, if who can win is your primary consideration, you already have your answer in Dean -- Money, Organization, New Voters, demonstrated and wide Cross-Over appeal across the political spectrum. And the requisite willingness to engage Bush in the battle.

Eloriel

[kentuck]

220. I keep waiting for Dean to challenge Bush on 9/11 and whether....

or not it might have been prevented with better "leadership". So far, Clark is the only candidate that is doing that. I like that, although some might think that is going overboard on the conspiracy ship. Although my #1 choice is Kerry, he has not challenged Bush in the way that Clark has challenged Bush. I think we have to weaken Bush on his strongest points, that being his leadership on and after 9/11. He needs to be challenged and, right now, Clark is the only one doing that. In my opinion, that is the only way we can beat Bush.

[curse10]

221. I'm disappointed that admin would weigh in on this

I was very happy that ya'll had decided to not make known your candidate preferences.

As someone who doesn't support either Dean or Clark at this time I don't know if I feel comfortable being here anymore-- knowing that everytime I post something negative about Dean or Clark it might end up pissing off an admin.

And I'm even more disappointed because this will only give fodder to already zealous supporters of candidates. I'm anxiously awaiting the "Admin has weighed in on this subject" posts in any thread about the candidates.

And, since you live in DC, is it really necessary to make a decision right now? Why not at least wait until a few of the primaries are over. Let's see what really happens. I just feel like an endorsement from admin (any admin) is analogous to Gore endorsing Dean-- and I know I felt like I was told to take my ball and go home after that little affair.

So, anyway. Go with Clark. At least he has a chance of getting the support of the other candidates still on the ballot.

[Soul On Ice]

241. First of all

Skinner is admin, but mainly he is the owner of the site; so, watch it!

The whiney tone of your post isn't helpful. It shouldn't (maybe it does) make a bit of difference who the admin is for as long as we are all going to back the democrat after the convention.

To wonder if you feel comfortable just because the 'powers that be' might not support your positions isn't going to work for you. They can't agree with everyone here! I certainly know mods in one of the forums completely disagree with a minority of us in a certain area, but we don't give up just because of that.

Just so I don't seem so hard on you, there is a definite theory just beginning to float around that Dean and Clark are going to end up so alienating each other's followers that Kerry is going to walk away with the nomination in the end.

So, never give up!

[curse10]

352. I know exactly who owns this site

and whiney?

I'm allowed to express my concerns, and, this concerns me. Skinner knows I have nothing against him or admin- I've happily served as a mod and I know how things work around here.

And I'm not worried about Skinner or other admin being biased- I'm worried it will be used as yet another tool for supporters of other candidates to bash or abuse candidates not in consideration.

I've been here a long time- since July 2001- I don't need to be told to "watch it"

[Skinner]

269. I'm not endorsing anyone.

I'm just trying to figure out how to vote. I think you are all smart people, and you are perfectly capable of making your own decisions.

If someone tries to claim that "Admin has weighed in on this subject" I would consider that totally inappropriate. I have done nothing of the sort.

I guess I just feel like it's more honest for me to be up front with all of you, rather than trying to pretend that I have no preference whatsoever. In fact, I'm getting a little tired of people trying to tell me and everyone else what I believe. If people are going to sulk around accusing me of bias against their candidate, I'd prefer that they at least base their claim on something resembling the truth. There are some hard-core partisans on both sides of the Clark-Dean food fight that have been absolutely shameless and underhanded in their efforts to smear me. (No doubt, some will consider this to be a cynical ploy to appear "unbiased" while I secretly try to undermine their candidate. There is no way I will convince them otherwise, but I hope that other, less partisan individuals will take me at my word.)

I have to make a choice before I vote. But I am completely honest when I say that my preference will not be a particularly strong one, and I will enthusiastically support whomever Democratic primary voters select.

[Melinda]

302. Oh yes you have weighed in, Skinner. Indeed you have.

You weighed in when you posted that you were "leaning toward Clark"... But don't believe me - start a thread and ask other Duers.

[Skinner]

311. Here are my three public statements on these issues

I did a search on the word "leaning" on all three pages, and found nothing. If someone wishes to make the case that I am leaning toward Dean or Clark, I am certain that a determined partisan can find plenty of evidence to support either conclusion.

If anyone would like to scrutinize the evidence, here it is:

My thoughts on the Democratic presidential primary race - Tue Dec-09-03
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=858965

On the capture of Saddam Hussein - Sun Dec-14-03
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=903819

On the capture of Saddam Hussein (Thread 2) - Sun Dec-14-03
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=904501

All I ask is that we refrain from turning this thread into a discussion of "Which candidate does Skinner secretly hate more?"

[Melinda]

319. I owe you an apology Skinner.

I could not find the thread in question so I relied on my obviously faulty memory... another DUer emailed me the thread in question (thanks for that btw :hi:) and it was not Clark that you indicated a leaning toward at all. I was wrong to say you did and I am sorry for putting words in your mouth.

However in the "On the capture of Saddam Hussein (Thread 2)", you did say:

With Saddam's capture and a recent up tick in the economy, the Democrats' position has weakened significantly. With a primary looming, we have to figure out how that will impact our electoral strategy. I fear that Saddam's capture has the potential to make Howard Dean a weaker General Election candidate, and might even hurt Wesley Clark, who has taken a less-outspoken anti-war position. My vote is still up for grabs, and today's news makes it even harder to choose. I'm certainly going to give greater consideration to John Kerry and John Edwards.

So the evidence absolves you re Dean or Clark - my bad - but you did state the part I have bolded above.

Again, I should have waited for the response to my email (asking for thread link) - I know better and you did not deserve that from me; I truly regret my actions.

[Skinner]

325. Apology accepted.

Thanks.

[goodhue]

309. I was kind of wondering about this myself.

Seems inconsistent with alleged DU nuetrality. But I'm glad to learn you won't be endorsing anyone. Will you let us know how you vote?

[Skinner]

313. I doubt it. (nt)

[Clark4VotingRights]

386. Thanks Skinner. I think it's wise not to tell us how you vote.

DU needs to remain anti-regime, and not be yet another campaign site
for candidate X.
But there's good food for thought here.
I'm enjoying the thread.

[curse10]

I want to be clear that I wasn't accusing admin of bias

I've worked with you all several times, and I know firsthand how even-handed and unbiased you guys really are. I'm just more concerned about how other people will use this as fodder in an already touchy subject.

:-)

[Jerseycoa]

224. Friendly Persuasion

There's been so much said so eloquently, it's hard to find something to add to the discussion. But there is one thing I've been thinking about since Clark's tax reform plan was released on Monday.

The RW charge will be class-warfare, we know. Clark wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, just like Karl Marx! But it won't take, and the reason it won't take is Wes Clark has the gift of persuasion.

He often cites Ike's definition of leadership as persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do. Clark's diplomatic skill will be used to good effect not only in foreign policy, but in domestic, as in asking millionaires to pay higher taxes. You watch, he will make it a matter of morality and patriotism: The country's broken, it has to be fixed, won't you join me in doing so? And they will say yes. They will say yes, because he will convince them it is in the national interest, and in their own, to heal the wounds and set right the inequities that have infected the system and turned our society into something unrecognizable, unbearable, and indefensible.

He can tell a roomful of worried Jews they have to be mindful of Palestinian rights. He can tell a white VFW crowd in New Hampshire they should be outraged the prisons are filled to bursting with young black men. He can tell all manner of people, well, what if it were your child who was gay? Wouldn't you want the best for your son or daughter? Wouldn't you want your child to have the same rights as every other American? I have no doubt he can convince the better off they should be thankful to help the suffering poor, working and middle classes.

I have no doubt he will win hearts and minds. I've seen him do it.

He has actually done it in the course of his campaign, as in the few examples I mention above. In his conversations along the trail, he uses discernment, comprehension, interpretation, and explanation, all in plain language, to convince the other fellow. He does it in a way that brings people to see the world outside their own experience, their own mindset, their own prejudice, their own fear. He does it in a dignified, elucidating way that freshens perspective, opens minds, and maybe can join the pieces of the fractured American polity.

As angry as he can be with the current state of the nation and the current administration, he is just that kindly and rational when he talks to voters about what will return dignity and fairness to American society. He does not talk down, he talks with; he does not yell unless it's appropriate; he does not back down from his beliefs. This is what a leader does. While I certainly do want a real commander in chief in the Oval Office in these times, I also want a leader who can convince the other fellow to do the right thing.

[Auntie Bush]

355. That was beautiful post

EVERYONE should read it! Thank you Jersey-coa

[Jerseycoa]

359. Why, thank you, Anti Bush

:hug:

[Duder]

229. Yours, is a fair evaluation

At Tom Harkin's Steak Fry, Bill Clinton said "Go ahead, fall in love, be for somebody, but when the primary's over, let's fall in line and bring the White House back to our party."

Andrew Cline wrote:

'To the political Left, Clinton was the tall, dashing lover who swept them off their feet only to break their hearts and leave them vowing never to go out with such a creep again. Dean is the nice guy with sensible shoes who has them believing in love again.
No other Democratic candidate gives the Left the same feeling of comfort and safety that Dean provides. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards all are tainted. They are career politicians who regularly flirt with "the other guy," a.k.a. the Republicans. Clark is tempting. He is handsome and looks great in a uniform. But he was sleeping with the other guy just last year. Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley Braun are — how does one say this politely? — just not attractive.

The establishment candidates — Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards — have no idea that the Left is looking for someone new. Hopeless dorks that they are, they think they can score by imitating the last boyfriend. Meanwhile, the object of their desire is watching Dean stride confidently by and thinking, "Hmmm, he's short and balding, but he is a doctor, and that anger is kind of sexy."'

One might disagree with Cline's assessment of the candidates but the point is to follow your heart and fall in love, it's the primary.

Howard Dean has built up a large grassroots bringing many newcomers to the party and whose small contributions have set an all time record for any Democratic campaign in history. Throw that away and will these people fall in love again in 2008? That's the biggest gamble the Democratic Party faces, imo.

[democrank]

235. Way Down Deep

I`m guessing Bush fears a debate with Clark but I bet Bush thinks he could score points against Dean using some RNC trash talk...liberal whackjob,no foreign policy experience, etc.

All Clark would have to do is mention that he doesn`t have to rent a military costume and play soldier. Bingo! Lots of fench-sitters go to Clark and Bush leaves the stage stripped of his military props, his pretend warrior words and his house of cards perch with the Top Guns.

Nobody says no to George and gets away with it, but Clark`s laser beam glare and his command of current affairs will be very unsettling to Junior, no matter how much he was coached beforehand.

[Soul On Ice]

245. I agree with you about the Clark/Bush "debates",

but not the Dean/Bush ones. Dean isn't a liberal - that's the hype; read his record, not DU.

I can see Dean getting really angry or condescending or arrogant and we'd have a smirk-off. Guess who'd win? (hint = 4 more years)

[batman]

267. dean has won every debate according to those in the know

clark has been criticized for failing to answer questions and going over time on weird tangents

if they ask clark about domestic issues, we've got trouble

[TLM]

240. Clark will have a hard time beating Bush... here's 10 reasons why.

First Clark will drive off the greens and the left side of the party who do not want a career military guy in the white house. So he will loose big blocks of voters right from the start that Dean won't.

Second, Clark has questionable democratic credentials, to put it nicely. He does not fire up the base the way Dean does. Clark is more focused on swing voters in the middle and does not inspire the base the way Dean does. Swing votes don;t mean a thing if you lose the base.

Third, Clark's actions in Kosovo make a lot of folks on the left really uncomfortable.

Fourth, Clark's record of working as a lobbyist for defense contractors... working with some of the same people now funding attack ads on Dean... makes a lot of dems uncomfortable.

Fifth, Clark has ZERO experience running, fighting, or winning a campaign. We'd be running a newbie against a seasoned team of campaigners who are very very good at fighting dirty.

Sixth, the whole argument that his military service will somehow shield him from attack is bunk. Max Cleland anybody? John McCain?

Seventh, Clark's effort fund raising for republicans and his statements about Bush, Reagan, Bush II and his crew will be used in endless ads that will totally discourage dem voters. Imagine if in 2000 we saw ads with Gore saying what a great leader Bush was and how lucky we were to have him running for the office?

Eighth, Clark has tied his hands with his taking matching funds. Bush will crush Clark in spending, and Clark will run out of money or hit the limits. So he will not be able to campaign effectively as Dean can.

Ninth, We can not win vs repukes by trying to out hawk them. It has always been a losing strategy. Clark would be another McGovern... or McCain or Cleland.


Tenth, Clark has made the biggest mistake that you can make in this election... he's going along with Bush's plan to make the election all about defense and national security. He is not challenging Bush's whole premise or focusing on domestic issues like Dean has. He's taken the bait and is playing Bush game on Bush's terms

Folks are supporting Clark because they imagine some situation where Clark will put his military creds against Bush's and somehow that's all it will take to win. WRONG! Bush wants to make this election all about war and fear and security and who is the best warrior. And Clark is going along with it.

Bush will spend 200 million attacking Clark for getting fired from his command, showing other generals talking shit about him, and showing ads of Clark praising Bush on defense issues. Clark will be painted as the guy who got fired from his command for making bad decisions, while Bush will be the guy who caught Saddam.

Without the greens and left end of the party, and with most of those war minded swing voters going for the guy who caught Saddam, and with Clark having spending caps... Clark would find it almost impossible to win.

It takes more than 4 shiny stars to win an election and Clark just doesn't have it.

Dean on the other hand has a much more well rounded approach to issues... focusing on domestic issues and the domestic side of the defense issues, while challenging Bush on the whole foundation of his defense policy. Add to that Dean's much broader base of support and the fact he's not limited by spending caps, and so far Dean seems to be the only one who will even be able to come close to competing with Bush on the money front.

Dean has the experience, the support, and the money.

Clark has 4 shiny stars.

[Soul On Ice]

249. News Flash:

Gore didn't get the greens or the left of the democratic party either.

Now, you want to run a physician with a temper and think because he's popular on DU he's going to win?

Hello?

The media everyone hates keeps talking up Dean's liberal cred, but it isn't there.

Clark at least has a good chance because we are going to be overwhelmed by alerts (betcha!!!) near the election, people want to be sure the guy they elect can handle that w/o flying off the handle. People want someone with experience in foreign affairs when they're scared like that.

One candidate will whip them up; one will calm them down.

Clark in 2004.

[batman]

256. popular on DU?

I could swear he is polling rather well, in fact he's in first place :freak:

regarding the deans not a liberal thing

shhhh, we know

it tends to be helpful in the general election

socially liberal, fiscally conservative (just what the doctor ordered)

ever hear the song "dont fence me in" howard dean comes to mind

[JVS]

258. Dean will lose some to Greens, Clark will lose even more to the Greens.

The Clark campaign is an obvious ploy to the Center. Many leftists will take offense and leave. Going after swing voters so hard sends a message of contempt to the left.

While Dean is a centrist, his campaign encompasses many types of people from moderates to leftists. He is the compromise candidate that we need so that we can beat Bush.

[TLM]

291. Gore didn't get the greens or the left of the democratic party either.

Yeah and how'd his election vs. Bush turn out?

[CWebster]

252. Don't forget Pristina

They'll make it look like he was a such a security risk on the edge of starting WW3, they had to fire him months before his retirement after a long career. They are rubbing their hands together with anticipation, and it blows my mind that so many here are unwilling or unable to see how he can be demolished with so little effort.

Oh yeah, and the famous exchanging of the hats snap shot.

[batman]

263. excellent summary, a must see for skinner here!

:)

[Renew Deal]

266. 10 reasons why you are wrong

First, Clark will not drive off most of these people. The "Greens" were 2.7% of the last election. These people are ABB. I doubt if many of them are willing to give their votes to Bush. The country has 30% swing voters and 2.7% optimistically "Green". Clark appeals to that more of that 30% than Dean does and the 2.7% will come along for the ride.

Second, Clark does fire up the base. I am the base. I like Clark. Many others like Clark. Why are his poll numbers so high if he doesn't fire up the "base?"

Third, Clark's actions in Kosovo make a lot of people proud. I met an Albanian the other day. He saw my pin and was psyched. Clark will get 90% of the Albanian vote. They love him. Also, the Repubs don't have problems with wars. No issue there. The country was 55% pro-Kosovo. This should be a non-issue.

Fourth, Clark didn't work with anyone that made those ads. He worked with the persons father. Big difference. Most people don't know about this, and if they knew the truth, they wouldn't care. Clark's brief Lobbying is more proof he knows Washington.

Fifth, "Clark has ZERO experience running, fighting, or winning a campaign." Actually that's wrong too. Clark ran, fought, and won the campaign in Kosovo. Clark's presidential campaign got off the ground faster than any of the others. Clark has done in 3 months what the others have been doing for 2 years.

Sixth, you are partly right. But Clark isn't those guys. He knows how to fight back. Also, Bush isn't an unknown anymore. There is proof of his idiocy.

Seventh, Clark also fund-raised for Democrats at that time. I think that if Dems pick Clark in the primary, they will have no problem in the GE. Bushco can run those ads. Then Clark can run an ad saying: I once said nice things about Bushco. Like many Americans, I have seen the light. They screwed up this and that. I am not a politician, just a regular american... Big win there.

Eighth, Dean will not raise as much money as Bush. Maybe he should give up now too. Clark and the Dems have to use their advantages against Bush. That will never be money. It will be Move On and the sort taking the fight. Also press means a lot. Clark will be able to keep himself in the press.

Ninth, actually we are not trying to "out hawk" anyone. Americans want someone that will make them feel safe. They do not want a loose cannon that thinks are biggest threat is the Soviet Union. Clark will make people feel safe by providing leadership and experience that Dean will never have. I'm sorry, but Dean's personality makes me feel nervous about him and "the button."

Tenth, that's half true. Clark is talking about his strengths. But he also has amazing domestic plans. His Tax policy is so amazing that it has DeanCo scurrying to create one. Clark even has more domestic policy papers and speeches on his website than Dean. Clark 35 Dean 11. http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[TexasSissy]

278. Au contraire. The winning nos. for a perceived far left candidate aren't

there, IMO. There are many independents who are not Greens (most, in fact), and they would otherwise vote Republican, and then half the Dem. Party is, of course, toward the center.

There are about 30% Repubs in this country, 30% independents, and about 30% Dems. (Actually, I think the Repubs are slightly over 30%, but this equation is simpler.)

15% far right Repubs - they'll vote for Bush (the divine King)
15% more moderate Repubs - most will vote for Bush, but a few will vote for an alternative
30% independents - neo-Repubs, Greens, Libertarians, neo-Dems. They're up for grabs.
15% more moderate Dems - most will vote for the Dem. candidate, but some will consider an alternative, if the Dem. candidate is not moderate.
15% far left Dems - these will vote for the Dem. candidate, if he's far left, but some will consider an alternative if the Dem. candidate is too moderate.

If we stick with someone who is perceived to be far left, under these election conditions (where there's a very popular - yes, he's popular - conservative Prez, and there has been a conservative election sweep across the country in the last two years), we stand the most chance of losing. Apparently, the moderates and Independents are voting Republican or not voting at all. And apparently some Dems. are voting Republican (both Bush's Schwarzenegger's large hispanic votes).

If our candidate is perceived far left, we might get:
the 15% far left
Not all of the 15% moderate Dems
Some (a minority) of the 30% independents
None of the 15% moderate Repubs
(maybe 30% total?)

If our candidate is perceived to be more moderate, we might get:
Some (or most?) of the 15% far left
The 15% moderate Dems.
Maybe 15% (or more) of the Independents
Some of the 30% moderate Repubs
(maybe 50% total? 45%?)

The latter is the winning ticket, IMO. It also occurs to me that there's a reason most people vote moderate: Their own views are moderate, and that's who they want running the country.

[HFishbine]

391. Ditto

Won't clog the thread with the same opinion in different words, but this post is spot on.

[Tinoire]

403. Excellent points. Thank you n/t

[goodhue]

244. Clark is not on your primary ballot

Does that have any influence on your choice, or will you write in Clark if so inclined? For the record, here are the choices you will confront next Tuesday . . .

Harry Braun, III, Arizona
Jeanne Chebib, Washington, D.C.
Howard Dean, Vermont
Arthur H. Jackson Jr., Washington, D.C.
Dennis Kucinich, Ohio
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Virginia
Carol Moseley Braun, Illinois
Al Sharpton, New York
Vermin Supreme, New Hampshire
Florence Walker, Washington, D.C.
Lucian Wojciechowski, California

[killbotfactory]

255. Vermin Supreme!

You can't beat Vermin (Bush) by being Vermin-lite! So choose Vermin Supreme!

[JVS]

261. Well, that is the most airtight case I've seen

[Skinner]

273. If I decide to vote for Clark, I will write him in. (nt)

[AnnabelLee]

253. Just about everything I thought of to say has already been said

I'd just like to reiterate that I think the gun issue weighs heavily in Dean's favor, as does the ability to raise money & the corresponding ability to respond to bushco attacks whenever necessary. Also, Dean's requests to his supporters to contribute money toward the campaigns of congressional Dems could translate into some of those same contributors becoming pavement pounding volunteers to work for those congressional campaigns.

I like Clark; I waver between him & one other candidate as my second choice, but I don't think he has the fight in him to win. There has been a lot of emphasis by his supporters on his diplomatic skills (probably in response to characterizations of him as being "only a military man"), & I think he does possess those--he had to negotiate with nineteen other NATO nations during the Kosovo bombing. Also, I don't think it is possible to rise to Clark's rank without having some formidable diplomatic skills. However, I think that he may be too diplomatic to take the fight to *. A man who lost three limbs in a war wasn't able to fend off the attacks against his patriotism, so we know that military service is no insulator against successful attacks.

I remember another post you made shortly after Hussein's being taken into US custody, in which you quoted someone who referred to Howard Dean as "lightning in a bottle". I think that when that lightning inside the bottle flashes, it will reveal to the voters the right path for this nation, a path away from knee-jerk fears & toward the changes we so desperately need.

[Walt Starr]

259. for what it's worth, Rush Limbaugh (R - Oxycontin addict) is worried

clark will win the nomination.

Take that however you will.

[Skinner]

275. I refuse to let Rush Limbaugh influence my decision.

That goes for Karl Rove, too. If Rove is going around telling Democrats "Elect Dean" then I can't help thinking that he's actually scared to death of the guy.

Rush and Rove are weasley bastards. I wouldn't put much weight on anything they say.

[Walt Starr]

295. That's the way I felt

but others feel these guys are being truthful in what they say.

There's also the possibility that since they know we know they lie, they'll tell the truth because we'll think it's a lie.

But then, we're smart enough to know that they'll know that we'll think they'll tell the truth to cross their lying ways, so they'll tell a lie because we'll think they're sly enough to tell the truth in order to throw us off the track.

It just goes to show you, never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

For my part, I would love to tell Limbaugh (R -Addict) and Rove (R-Weasel), "My name is Walt Starr, you stole my election, prepare to die (politically)."

[Skinner]

299. LOL

"My name is Walt Starr, you stole my election, prepare to die (politically)."

I agree: I have no idea what Rove and Rush's real feelings are. Better not to even worry about it.

[Selwynn]

260. Here is the most unscientific reason why I vote for Clark...

I have written a lot about the reason why I feel Wesley Clark is the best candidate in the field. And I've heard the criticisms against Clark as well.

But there's one other thing that really moves me to Clark - there is something about the guy that I just profoundly like. I am a person who has always said personality and more ethereal qualities shouldn't matter. But Clark expresses his message in a way that reaches me more clearly than any other. I am extremely turned off by the extremely aggressive, rhetoric and brow-beating approach of some other candidates. I just don't "hear" that well. But instead, when I hear Clark's stump speeches or I read statements from his campaign, he promotes a positive optimistic idealism that really touches me.

Now like I said, I've written plenty about why I feel Clark is the best candidate in the field, and those posts have been about substance. But I wanted to point out here that for me, there is some elusive quality about Clark that I really, really appreciate. I wish he would be the party nominee.

[Soul On Ice]

283. At this point, this is a big deal.

People do want to like the person for whom they vote.

Bush is likeable to some people; why, I'll never know.

However, I do see Clark as likeable. I've seen him stand his ground with Tweety and not raise his voice. Strong, steely, smiling but would not budge.

Again, because of what is going on in the world and still will be by election time, Clark is the one people will feel comfortable voting for if the decision is either Clark or Bush; or Dean or Bush. Dean will not win.

You want BushCo out? You want to save the judiciary? You need to have some toleration for ambiguity this election cycle and send Clark to the smirk-off debates with Chimpy. (sorry, couldn't resist repeating the smirk-off bit; I've received several PMs of appreciative 'giggling' over that!)

[bain_sidhe]

264. The deal closer on Clark for me

**edited because I forgot a bit I wanted to include**

I regret I don't have the time to closely read every post on this thread... I did read half, and skim the rest, and think that there are a lot of good points being made. But, I have to leave soon, so... here's the deal closer for me: After the election.

You are right that both men bring positives and negatives to the general election, and it's really hard to prioritize them... which positives are most important? Which negatives could sink the ship?

So I look beyond the election (as you mentioned) Who do I want to GOVERN after the election, and which would be best for the country?

To me, the answer to that is Clark. First, as I've mentioned on another thread, I think foreign policy is one of the most important challenges this country faces... and I don't just mean Iraq or even the whole Middle East. I mean our alliances all over the world, which Bush has come close to destroying, and which will take a LOT of work to rebuild. Yes, I know many Americans don't view foreign policy as one of the most important issues, and this *might* be a hurdle in the general election. But we ignore it - as a country - at our peril. Not just the military quagmire bush* has put us in, but the economic impact of trading partners that are no longer willing to "cut us some slack" when we have a trade problem. Look how Europe came after us on the steel tarriffs. The dollar's down, and it could turn into a free fall. Do you think our "friends" who bush has done nothing but insult are going to be particularly motivated to help prop it up?

(added on edit) I don't think people really appreciate the sheer diplomatic skill it took to hold the NATO alliance together for the Kosovo campaign... whether you agreed with that campaign or not, it took real genius to keep... what, 11 nations?... together for the whole of that campaign. Especially since most of them thought Milosovec would fold after a few bombing runs. Yes, it meant compromises on targets and strategies - and a few mistakes too - but NOBODY jumped ship. That's really awesome, when you think about it. We'll NEED that skill to rebuild this country's international standing.

I could go on, but since I've got people to do an things to talk to, so on to the next point...

The Congress. I think it unlikely that we will take the House, and only slightly less unlikely that we will regain control of the Senate. Dean is a polarizing figure, and Republicans who block his initiatives will pay NO price with their constituents. I believe they WILL pay a price if they block Clark's initiatives, because a good part (a minority, but still a good-sized chunk) of their constituents will support Clark. This has one of two outcomes, both wins for us - either Clark gets his programs through because Republicans are afraid to oppose them, OR many, and probably enough, of their Clark-leaning voters "punish" them by voting against them in the mid-terms, and we regain the House/Senate.

So, since I gotta go, that's my "deal closing" argument in a nutshell... look at AFTER the election and decide what you want to see. More polarized "my way or no way" relations with both the world at large AND the Congress, or someone with the chance to actually move forward on both those fronts?

[killbotfactory]

268. Dean

He takes a fact based approach to policy, and will get things done.
He's moderate on economic issues, and to the left on social issues.
He has a record of fiscal responsibility which will appeal to those who don't appreciate Bush expanding the gov't and spending money he doesn't have like a banshee.
He has a record that proves you can be business friendly while protecting the environment.
He has a great approach to universal health care.
His success-by-six program is amazing.
His stance towards gun-laws appeals to those in rural communities.
He accurately predicted the boondoggle in Iraq, despite the "conventional wisdom".
He is unscripted, which can lead to "gaffes", but also shows he speaks from the heart on issues.
Watch him in a town hall meeting, he's awesome.
His campaign is totally unpredictable, in that no one has ever run against something like this.
He can raise the money to compete with Bush and has the most efficient campaign organization.
His grassroots campaign is aware of the media whores and is ready for a hostile media (see the Tim Russert reaction).
He'd make a damn good president.

[Terwilliger]

270. vote Kucinich

[FubarFly]

271. Some points about Howard Dean:

Howard Dean is energizing the base, including bring many new Democratic voters into the fray- and although many of the Bush-hating crowd are liberal- they are not all from the far left. Dean's fiscal conservatism and pragmatic politics will have great appeal to independents and moderate Republicans who are horrified at the rate of gov't spending, the deficit, and fear losing their jobs. Once people see beyond the media caricutures, and see the real Dean, that number will only grow. Dean has the fundraising ability, the organization, the media savvy, and frankly, the spine to make that a reality. Howard Dean will capitalize on the anger of the left, the pragmatism of the center, and the economic fretting of the right. This gives him potentially, the widest appeal of ANY of the candidates. And the truth is, were weren't going to get the fundalmentalist or hard core Republican vote no matter who we ran. The candidates who pander to them are wasting our time.

Of all the candidates running I beileve Howard Dean has best learned from the mistakes Al Gore made in 2000. Howard Dean understands the we can not let the Republicans frame the debate. We can not afford to reinforce the outright fallacy that Bush is strong on National Security, or has in any way made us safer. Bush is responsible for alientating our allies, destroying our reputation in the world community, corrupting our intelligence services, overextending our military, insuffciently funding promised Homeland Security funds, and with our Iraq adventure has actually created terrorists. Howard Dean may not individually have significant foreign policy experience, but that has never stopped America from electing a governor before, and as a whole the Democratic Party is vastly superior on National Security. We were much safer under Bill Clinton then we are under George Bush. Bill Clinton understood the value of strong diplomacy- and so does Howard Dean. Also Howard Deans executive experience, and to a degree his medical training, have made him an expert at analyzing a situation, weighing all the considerations involved, (including the moral ones), and making a level-headed and often difficult decision. He does not rely on the polls to do his thinking. He was right about civil unions and got reelected, he was right about Iraq and is the frontrunner, and he was right about Saddam not making us any safer. He will be excellent on foreign policy because his instincts and judgement are extrodinary, and once again, he has the media savvy to sell to this the public.

As far as the media image goes, I can go through a litany of defenses for each of Deans supposed flaws. I really only have one central point to make on the subject: ALL of our candidates will be unfairly smeared by the media. Howard Dean is the best equipped to fight back.

The influence of the internet has shocked the "experts" in every industry which has been exposed to it. It has turned conventional wisdom on it's head. The political world is no different. Dean is prepared to not only take on the the media on their home turf, but to capitalize on the power of the internet in ways many have never dreamed. He has already shown this with his fundraising success, his direct action media center, and his ability to instantly respond to media distortion before it gets out of hand. He hasn't really used it to go on the offensive yet, and he has more than a couple of surprises prepared for the generals. I don't believe it is hyperbole to suggest that Trippi still has a few aces up his sleeve. If we succeed at keeping the Republicans off balance and on the defensive, our chances of victory increase dramatically.

These are only some of the reasons that show you why Dean is the right choice. I haven't really talked about his grassroots yet, or the fallacy that pandering to the Southern vote by putting a Southernor on the ticket is in itself a smart strategy. In short, Dean is the perfect combination of pragmatism and populism. He is battled tested (ten straight victories in Vermont), He is managed brilliantly. And most importantly, he learns from his mistakes. If Dean gets the nomination, he will win. The emperor has no clothes, and Dean will be the one to say it.

[janx]

274. Consider the deal closed.

[Renew Deal]

280. I guess we can all go home now.

I mean, we don't have to vote, right?

[janx]

294. That's not what Skinner was asking for.

Where in my post did I say anything about not voting?

[Renew Deal]

300. You didn't

Instead you implied it by posting 1 poll that is an out-lier.

[janx]

306. How does a recent poll imply anything about not voting?

:crazy:

[LuminousX]

276. My Case for Dean

His Political History

Political Experience:
Governor, State of Vermont, 1991-2002
Lieutenant Governor, State of Vermont, 1986-1991
Vermont House of Representatives, Assistant Minority Leader, 1985-1986
Vermont House of Representatives, 1983-1986
Jimmy Carter Re-Election Campaign, Volunteer, 1980.

Organizations:
Democratic Governors' Association, Executive Committee, 1997-present
Democratic Governors' Association, Chair, 1997
National Governors' Association, Chair, 1994-1995
National Education Goals Panel, former Member
National Governors' Association Task Force on Health Care, former Co-Chair.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Member, National Governor's Association's Executive Committee
Past Chair, National Governor's Association.

His Positions

"They say race, I'm going to say jobs," he told supporters crowded into a school gym in Hampstead. "They say guns, I say education. They say gay marriage, I say health care. We have to run a campaign based on what everyone has in common. This fight is on jobs, education and welfare."
By BILL STRAUB Scripps Howard News Service January 07, 2004

Abortion:
As a physician, I am outraged that President Bush has decided that he is qualified to practice medicine. There is no such thing in the medical literature as "partial birth abortion." But there are times when doctors are called upon to perform a late term abortion to save a woman's life or protect her health. Today President Bush made it a crime for a doctor to perform such medically necessary procedures when a woman's health is at stake.

Healthcare:
I have two advantages -on health care-. First of all, I'm a governor and we've actually done a lot of this in Vermont, and second of all, I'm a doctor. costs a little less than half of the Bush tax cut. First, everybody under 25 gets Medicaid if they want it. It worked well for us in our state. It's not expensive. Second, give prescription benefits for every senior. That makes Medicare into a pretty decent policy. Third, between 25 and 65, subsidize small businesses, don't give the tax credits to the big corporations, subsidize individuals who need help buying health insurance, and then help individuals who work for companies that don't do it. The cost is half of the Bush tax cut. It'll pass because most of the interest groups that oppose the Clinton plan will support it, and it's affordable. And it will pass now, and it covers everybody.

We ought not to be the last industrialized country in the world to guarantee Health Insurance to all our citizens. As a doctor, I understand the fear facing families without health insurance. As a Governor, I am proud that virtually every child under 18 and more than 90% of adults in Vermont are eligible for health coverage. But as a country, the US can do better on this front. To help finance this effort, we must repeal the President's tax cuts-which have thrown America back into the huge deficits of the 1980s-and balance the federal budget. We cannot build crucial social programs without a solid financial foundation. Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state, federal, and private programs:
1. States should be required to guarantee coverage for all children under age 23. In return, the federal government should assume responsibility for drug and acute medical care for Americans over age 65.
2. Older Americans deserve a pharmacy benefit under Medicare (an unaffordable impossibility under Bush's current fiscal policies). This would cost $450 billion over 10 years, a little more than 1/4 of the value of Bush's tax cut. With a pharmaceutical package, Medicare becomes a decent insurance program.
3. Finally, to cover those between the ages of 23 and 65, we should use the present employer-based system with refundable tax credits and federal subsidies to cover low- and moderate-income Americans who lack insurance.
This plan is affordable and simple, relying on three existing systems-one for children, one for seniors, and one for those in between-which all Americans understand

Terrorism:
" Handling Information Needs"
Many of the operational, programmatic, and funding activities associated with terrorism consequence management preparedness are classified because of national security. Thus, the sharing of critical information is hampered. State governments must be viewed as strong partners in the US' national security efforts, particularly as related to terrorism.

" Managing Consequences"
Managing the short- and long-term consequences of terrorism is among the responsibilities of state and local government supplemented by the resources of the federal government, coordinated by FEMA.
" Supporting Public-Private Cooperation.
Terrorism preparedness efforts should be inclusive of key private sector entities such as defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities for public and private health and medical communities.

" Clarifying the Role of the National Guard"
The role of the National Guard in terrorism response activities is to support federal, state, and local response agencies with equipment, facilities, and personnel. Any assignment of responsibility should enhance the nation's terrorism consequence management capability and provide for the contingency of the National Guard being called to assist active and reserve components in dealing with a major military conflict.

" Federal Responsibility"
Governors recognize the need to coordinate programs among federal agencies to address domestic terrorism and appreciate the efforts of the National Domestic Preparedness Office. However, they encourage greater clarification of the currently fragmented structure of federal responsibilities and support increased cooperation among federal agencies to better enable states to plan for domestic terrorism responses. Governors urge appropriate funding, maximum coordination of program components, and coordinated service delivery within states and localities.

Education:
The President's education bill is the second largest non-funded mandate (after special education) in the history of federal education legislation. It is the largest reduction of local school board decision-making power in history. This new federal law will result in the identification-or mis-identification-of between 30% and 65% of all community schools (depending on your state) as failing. The enormous cost of coming into federal compliance will fall on local property taxpayers. In Vermont, we may forego federal education funds altogether because in the long run this law threatens to make our schools worse rather than better! Vermont, like many other states, already has a strong testing and accountability program. By the President's own measure, Vermont's students collective rank sixth in the country. Now our system is at risk because of a new federally dictated definition of quality.

Strongly supported by education conservatives, Bush's No Child Left Behind Act won bipartisan approval in 2001. Now that the law is being phased in, educators are arguing that they cannot meet its ambitious goals without adequate federal funding. The legislation permitted spending up to $26.4 billion this year to help the nation's 16,000 school districts comply. But in the face of growing deficits, Congress appropriated $22 billion. Some Democrats are joining in the push for more federal funding to carry out the law's requirements. Gov. Howard Dean calls the education measure the "every school board left behind" act. "It's not going to accomplish anything except raising local property taxes," he says. Dean as well as some school officials refers to the gap in federal support as a "non-funded mandate" - buzzwords that Republicans used for decades when Democrats ruled Capitol Hill and passed laws without adequately compensating states for having to carry them out.

Gay Rights:
In 1999, in Baker v. State of Vermont, the state high court held that same-sex couples were entitled to the same legal benefits and protections enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. In 2000, Dean signed a bill legalizing so-called civil unions in VT He did so without any public ceremony, which angered the gay community. However, during his 2000 reelection campaign, Dean never budged on his support for the civil-union bill even in the face of a withering assault from the Republican candidate.

Economy/Taxes:
DEAN -to Graham-: I got into this race because I wanted a balanced budget, and I wanted to have a party that stood up to President Bush, because I think that's the only way we can beat him. You and Senator Hollings and I have something in common. We all are former governors; we've all balanced budgets. Fritz Hollings had an amendment a couple of weeks ago that would have zeroed out the president's tax cuts. You voted for that amendment. Senators Edwards, Kerry, and Lieberman –instead- voted for an amendment that would add $350 billion of additional tax cuts. Why'd you make that choice?
GRAHAM: I made that choice because I think it's reckless and irresponsible at a time of rising deficits, at a time that we're at war with uncertain cost of completing war and then completing the occupation and renewal of Iraq to be talking about cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal budget. And that was what Senator Hollings's amendment eliminated.
Source: Democratic Debate May 3, 2003

President Bush and the GOP have essentially taken money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and used it to finance tax cuts that hurt most Americans. The bulk of those tax cuts went to those in the top 2% of income earners. Left behind are middle class and working people who are paying for their tiny tax cuts by losing their jobs and their health insurance. The tax cuts (with some exceptions in the estate and retirement areas) should be repealed. Otherwise it is irresponsible to discuss a Medicare pharmacy benefit, money for education, better roads and rail systems, or stronger environmental protection. Those all cost money. Ask most Americans if they would rather have a tax cut or better health coverage, roads and bridges, and schools for their children, they will choose the latter. They also understand-despite hollow Republican promises-that we cannot do both. The budget must be balanced; we must build the Social Security Trust Fund; and we must invest in Health and Education once again.
Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, "On the Issues" Nov 30, 2002

Race
In the mid-sixties, Yale, like other élite universities, had begun to commit itself to progressive admissions policies based upon merit and a quest for ethnic diversity rather than Wasp hegemony. This was a shift that Dean, the son and grandson of Yale alumni, figured he might as well make the most of. Obliging an explicit request from Dean, the housing-placement office assigned him two African-American roommates. One was Ralph Dawson, a sheet-metal worker’s son who is today a labor lawyer in New York City.

“Unless you operated from a stereotypic understanding of the Yale white boy as rich, you wouldn’t know that about Howard,” Dawson, who graduated from an all-black public high school in Charleston, South Carolina, told me. “When it came to race—and I don’t know whether this was a function of intent or just came naturally—Howard was not patronizing in any way. He was willing to confront in discussion what a lot of white students weren’t. He would hold his ground. He would respect that I knew forty-two million times more about being black than he did. But that didn’t mean he couldn’t hold a view on something relating to civil rights that would be as valid as mine. There were lots of well-meaning people at Yale who wanted you to understand that they understood your plight; you’d get into a conversation and they would yield too soon, so we didn’t get the full benefit of the exchange. Howard very much thought he was capable of working an issue through. He was inquisitive. And when he came to a conclusion he would be as strong as anybody else. I don’t think he’s stubborn. He’s a guy who’s always been comfortable in his own skin. That’s something you still see in him today, and it gets him into some degree of controversy.”

Dawson was referring, with tactful obliqueness, to the emblem of the Dean style, his vaunted “unscriptedness”—which, by his own reckoning, constitutes both his Achilles heel and his appeal.
Source: New Yorker 1/5/2004

His Organization
Internet
Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi told the Washington Post, “We set out to be the greatest grass-roots campaign of the modern era.” And so far, that is exactly what they’ve done.

In creating this online operation, Teachout employed some rather unconventional methods. She turned to Internet dating software, specifically the Web site Friendster, to help Dean supporters across the country find and connect with other supporters, organize local events, and get together to convince others to vote for Dean. Teachout told MSNBC, “social software is far better for organizing than it is for dating.”

Bridging Internet and Real World
But for Teachout, a 31-year-old lawyer in black high-top sneakers, the campaign is not about the Internet. Online tools are a way to get people to act -- to meet in the physical world, to put up flyers and posters, write letters and checks, speak to other people face to face. And ultimately, to get out and vote. "The Internet is moving from information technology to organizing technology," she says, sitting in a windowless conference room at the campaign's offices. "I e-mail you that I like Dean, maybe you'll tell your wife. If I tell you face to face, you'll tell everyone."

Real World
On Wednesday, the last meet-up day before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, almost 170,000 supporters expressed intent to attend one of the gatherings slated for up to 604 cities worldwide. A significant number are planning trips to Iowa or New Hampshire to volunteer in Dean's behalf.

"They have not been involved in politics before," Dean said during a recent swing through southern New Hampshire, including a stop in Hampstead. "Twenty-five percent of the people making donations to the campaign are under 30 years old. That's unprecedented. We're going to bring in 3 (million) to 4 million new people who haven't voted before. We're giving them a reason to vote."
By BILL STRAUB Scripps Howard News Service January 07, 2004

Not exactly a Daniel Webster cut-and-dry case as it really depends upon personal opinions about a lot of these topics. But these are the reasons why I have chosen to support Dean (aside from the weirdo reasons that shouldn't be used to convince people of anything.)

[Soul On Ice]

279. The only problem is that apparently

is what you found today.


Apparently Dean just found Jesus a couple of weeks ago.


Let us know what you find in another couple of weeks.


You want stability; as the country wants? You want Clark.

[batman]

284. deans church begs to differ

dean has been a member for 20 plus years

[Soul On Ice]

287. In a way, that's even worse and

more calculating then.

First he starts off completely secular but does mention he has a Jewish wife and they allowed their children to choose what religion in which to be brought up. They chose Judaism.

Next, his wife is still Jewish but his children have suddenly been brought up both as Christians and Jews and he prays every day; he was just waiting to mention that until he campaigned in the South.

Good grief. I'm waiting for his announcement that Dr. Steinberg isn't Jewish either.

[batman]

305. calculating?

i dont see it as such

i guess thats because i was familiar with dr deans (religious) backround for the past year or so

i am thankful that he is respectful of other religions as am i

i did cringe at the debate where clark talked about the bible being the word of god though

sounded a bit 'disrespectful and divisive' because there are many books that contain messages of faith

i do know faux news is all a flutter about dean mentioning in a recent speech that he is a christian blah, blah, blah.

hannity has his undies in a bundle saying . well much the same thing you did

[LuminousX]

286. Seeing that religion wasn't one of my sub-topics

I don't personally care when a candidate talked to the burning Bush or met the Great Architect, or first sacrificed to the Dark Gods.

That isn't stability to me. Stability is a person who joins a party, works with that party's apparatus for several decades, serving the party in lesser elected roles until such time as he/she can make a move for larger national seats.

[Soul On Ice]

289. Let's replay that:

"I don't personally care when a candidate talked to the burning Bush or met the Great Architect, or first sacrificed to the Dark Gods."

Oh, boy, are you out of touch with the electorate. They do care about that.

That is why he flip-flopped on the religious info; which is why I added his religious flip-flops to the entire mix whether or not that was one of your sub-topics.

Frankly, I would prefer a secular humanist in the WH; but I still want one who doesn't 'sacrifice to the Dark Gods' or meet 'the Great Architect' or talk 'to the burning Bush' the next week.

Our word for the day is stability. Thank you.

[LuminousX]

290. Your word - and I said it was MY CASE for Dean

If you wish to have Your Case Against Dean, be my guest, but don't imply that I was saying Dean's religion plays a role in my case.

[Soul On Ice]

298. Huh? I didn't.

I responded to your "examples".

Please don't infer what doesn't exist.

I feel like I should write, "Well, Skinner said we could weigh in on this."

This is degenerating...perhaps a 300 post limit would be nice. Or maybe a new thread tomorrow. Or maybe we should all PM Skinner with our positions.

I like that one. Everyone on DU: PM Skinner with your position papers.

heh heh heh

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

281. I share your "who can win?" attitude...and that's all I care about too

Gephardt was my guy until today. It took me a long time to fully appreciate the Dean campaign and the folks who have revolutionized campaigning for generations to come.

If you look at the demographics of the Dean supporters vs the Clark supporters, it's not hard for a guy like me,in his 40's,to relate to both camps.

I have concluded that the risk of alienating the Dean supporters far outweighs the attractiveness of Clark as our nominee. Whatever we may gain in swing voters would be lost in Dean defectors and the energy, money and drive they have provided for our party. Dean's ability to raise money is proven and very deep. Clark's support from Hollywood could prove to be a cash cow in many ways, but it's not proven.


In the final analysis, Dean clearly deserves the most serious consideration.

[HFishbine]

308. Wow

Thanks Dawg!

[w4rma]

368. Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214
(I really need to update this post with a new thread.)

[RetroLounge]

277. Doctor and Gov. Howard Brush Dean!

for many of the reasons already stated.

I saw Dean speak when I was undecided and he gave voice to all of my concerns and issues and I found nothing in his speech I did not agree with. People say he is polarizing and angry. Well I came away from his speech united and hopeful. He is polarizing to the bought-and-sold media whores who are the only ones who say that he is, then watch as all the other supporters repeat the meme.

Dean is the first candidate I have ever worked for, volunteered time, and donated money. I've manned the phones for him, done other work, gone to meetups, etc. Lawn signs, bumper stickers, on-line discussions, etc. Since 1980, my first presidential Election, I've voted Democrat, and then went home to watch the results. Dean is the first one to inspire me. Instill the feeling of hope. Make me jump up and yell.

I'm not one of these young, flakey, etc. supporters the other candidate supporters are fond of broad-brushing. The meetups are packed, and at 42, I find myself on the young end of the spectrum at times. But also feed on the energy of the younger supporters. We've had volunteers who are too young to vote begin Dean For America groups at their high schools! If they can put down their gameboys and join the Mouse Pad and Shoe Leather brigades, then so many more will once Dean wins the nomination.

But something else to consider. And this is only my opinion based soley on a gut feeling.

If Dean had never run, I believe the race would be Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and then Clark.

If Clark had never run, I don't think anyone would have noticed, and it would be Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and then Edwards.

YMMV

[batman]

282. I appreciate your being open about your choice(s) do you intend to

announce your decision?

[Skinner]

292. I doubt that I will annunce my choice.

Regardless of who I choose, my preference will not be a strong one.

And I think it might be disruptive for me to announce it.

[batman]

307. i respect your decision, but i honestly hope you will

let us know who you choose

[bain_sidhe]

288. One more thing...

I want to be proud of my President and my country again. Is that so much to ask?

[KaraokeKarlton]

310. Well, here's my attempt to influence you...

1) Election History...Dean has never lost a single election in his 20 year political career. Clark has never won a single election and doesn't have a political career.

2) Political Record...Dean has an impressive and successful record as Governor of Vermont. As a Vermonter, I can say he's a great leader with authority. Clark doesn't have a political record. This worries me because I can't look and see what kind of political choices he made. He can say anything he wants, but there's nothing to look at to see how consistent he is.

3) Money...whoever goes against Bush is going to need a slew of it to have any chance of winning. Dean wisely passed up on public funding and has proven he can raise a million in a few days. Clark is handicapped financially because of the public financing. Bush can pummel him until the cows come home and Clark will be totally defenseless to those attacks.

4) We CANNOT mak the election about the ONLY perceived strong point Bush has...foreign policy, defense and being tough on terror. (Yeah, we all know he sucks, but the everyday people don't). If Clark is the nominee then the election becomes about what Bush wants it to be about. BIG MISTAKE!!! The only way to beat Bush is to show you're better where he's weak. Clark has nothing else to offer. All he has is a military record. Defense isn't even at the top of the list for what people care about most. They care most about domestic issues and Clark has absolutely NO experience there at all.

5) Dean may not have a lot of experience in foreign policy, but having lots of experience doesn't necessarily make someone better at it. To get foreign policy right all you need is a willingness to listen, watch, be fair and have a value for others' rights. Dean has the qualities to be a great and effective leader in foreign policy. He's also been to over 50 countries, including most middle eastern countries.

6) Clark has affiliations with the military industry, as a lobbyist no less. This worries me greatly. Do we honestly want another Dick Cheney doing favors for big corporations he's been affiliated with? If Clark didn't want military contractors to bleed US tax dollars dry, then why would he lobby for them? I just can't trust Clark, especially in light of him doing fund raisers for the opposition.

7) Dean has always done a great job in actually delivering what he says he will. His health care plan was written to pass and provide insurance for people who don't have it. I'm sick of everyone fighting over this while people go without health coverage. As Dean says, get them in the system first, THEN fight about big reforms. I know that if Dean wins, he will make us all proud. I can't say the same about Clark because he's never held an elected position ever.

8) Howard Dean is definitely going to be on the ballot in DC. I don't know if Clark is or not.

9) If we simply nominate a military uniform in an attempt to out-do the silly flight suit photo op, we are no better than the other side. We need to offer a distinct and clear difference, not just another tough looking suit lacking substance.

Dean is the way to go.

[Scoopie]

312. Clark is da bomb

Not only is he skilled in foreign policy and affairs, his plans to rejuvenate the economy while building on Homeland Security (another Bush program not funded), help middle class workers with tax cuts, help educate our children with funds for college and help us all help control ballooing health care coverage costs are well-thought-out, intelligent and shows a level of compassion we haven't seen since Clinton.
He is also excessively more electable than Dean - who has been shown to flip-flop and even lie about policies. The South and the mid-West can sink their teeth into a Clark candidacy, helping to de-throne the appointed Shrub.
But, in all, don't take my word for it - take his:
"While I cannot take sides in the Democratic primary, I believe Wes, if he runs, would make a valuable contribution because he understands America's security challenges and domestic priorities. I believe he would make a good president." -- President Bill Clinton

[KaraokeKarlton]

318. Riddle me this, please...

How can someone who has never actually been elected be more electable than someone who has won 10 consecutive elections?

[BobbyJay]

322. oooohh won 10 Vermont elections!!!

LMAO

[KaraokeKarlton]

327. Are you making fun of my state, Bobby Jay?

You know, it's much harder to win an election in Vermont than most other places, especially re-election. Vermonters pay very close attention to politics and we are ruthless towards disappointing politicians. The fact that Dean was re-elected 5 times as governor speaks volumes.

And I must still point out that Clark has not ever won ANY election of any kind. He's totally untested as a candidate and frankly, I don't think the most important presidential election of our lives is the time to test him as a candidate.

Oh, and in the future, kindly refrain from insulting my state. People on this site have a great deal of respect for Vermont politicians. We gave you Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords...all heroes to many. Quite obviously, Vermonters are ahead of the curve when it comes to electing good, honest politicians. Howard Dean is no exception.

[Soul On Ice]

324. Clark may have been elected

25 times in a forest.

You know it still makes a noise...we just don't know about it.

If that is too zen, assume the lotus position and say Ohmmmmmmmm.

Thank you.



I think I need to do some work now. When I get this silly, it's time to actually work, IMHO.

[RedEarth]

316. The General should be your choice

since Clark will have a greater chance to pick up the swing voter.

[Bread and Circus]

323. The laundry list of reasons in support of Clark

1.) Four stars vs awol - makes our job easier to convince on-the-fencers

2.) Pay the price, go the extra mile kind of guy - wins state champ swim relay by taking two legs for team (on top of creating and organining a swim team at his school).

3.) Jump on a grenade kind of guy - rappels down a potentially mined mountainside to look after fallen compatriots

4.) Brilliant - West point valedictorian, Rhode's scholar

5.) Can handle the swing and southern states (crossover appeal) --
being a military man garners ready-made trust amongst a lot of folks
that are R and I, not just Dem.

6.) We are at "war" -- seems like having FP XP and cred is important.

7.) Clark has shown himself to stay above board and stick away from dirty politics.

8.) Clark can appeal to brainiacs and the common working person...
he can discuss Einstein physics as well as throw back a beer w/
fellow soldiers

9.) Clark's got a lot of good policies that are very similar to
all the rest of the candidates, nothing earth shattering but
I think lowering taxes for working-class families will be popular.

10.) I think Clark's tails will be longer than Dean's in terms
of Congressional contests.

11.)I think the "face" of our party having a very strong foreign
policy cred will help us down the line in future elections. We won't
always have the specter of "being weak on foreign policy" even
though we are not.

12.) I actually think Clark can push a more liberal agenda while
seeming very moderate, I don't think Dean will be able to do
that.

[Bread and Circus]

326. In summary, I think Clark offers a higher standard of leadership

[Albert Einstein]

328. I'm not backing either but between the two I'd back Clark.

Bush is a draft dodger. He was AWOL for over a year and couldn't remember where he was when asked about that year. Who do you think could most credibly ask about that in a debate? If we run Mr. Military, it adds credibility to the opposition to the Iraq war and brings military personnel who will want to vote for one of their own.

The important thing to remember is that the Democratic Primaries will only determine the Democratic candidate. If we choose wisely, we'll win the general election. If we chose someone who is already starting to have questionable credibility (as is the case with the Dean flip-flops)the Republican-controled news media will kill us.

Also, Dean's tax plan will lose us the middle class. The middle class doesn't want a tax increase and that's how the press will portray Dean's plan.

[redqueen]

329. As an ardent Kucinich Supporter and ABBer

I'd be happier voting for Clark than for Dean.

Take that however you like. :)

[Skwmom]

331. Skinner, how long are you keeping this thread open?

I'm trying to put together my case for Clark.

[Skinner]

335. I think I'm going to leave it open as long as people want to discuss it.

It'll die on it's own eventually.

If it gets too long for some people, they can always hide it.

[batman]

343. skinner, i hope you will announce (when) you decide regardless what that

decision may be?

[absyntheNsugar]

332. All I can offer is my rationale. I was faced with the same dillema.

I think Dean can beat Bush, but that doesn't mean he will beat him.

We need to beat Bush - too much is at stake. Going into the decision with that truism, I looked carefully at the two candidates. Their platform is really similar. Clark is actually a little farther to the left on many issues than Dean. And if anyone can beat Bush on National Security, it's Clark. He's going to bring in all of the Clinton aces he worked with in the 90's. Most likely, Albright will be back (Yea!)

However, Dean is more telegenic, and has much more charisma. After a Dean speech I want to tear up the streets for the guy. He inspires, and I say this speaking as someone who has never been inspired by a candidates before.

But is he a sure win? McCarthy was said to inspire, but he couldn't even win the nom, let alone the presidency.

Like I said, Dean can win, but Clark, most likely, will win if he goes head to head with Bush. The poll numbers seem to indicate so, and the man has promised to get us out of this war with dignity. That is what a lot of Americans want (Dem and Repub).

[David Zephyr]

333. Support Them Both, Skinner. That's What I Have Done for Months.

I favor Dean, but will be happy with Clark.

I wish all the rest, except Kucininch, would bow out after New Hampshire allowing the nation and the party to focus on these three.

Bill Clinton will signal his approval of Clark sometime around the New Hampshire primary.

The race will really tighten up after South Carolina.

In any event, Clark and Dean will both arrive in Boston at the Convention with such large slates of committed delegates that they will be forced into a ticket together with the winner having to choose the other...regardless of how much they protest now.

John Edwards will be immediatley touted as the ticket's choice to replace John Ashcroft in hopes of securing North Carolina.

Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean will win the election.

Favor one, but support both as I have. You'll be ahead of the curve.

[Auntie Bush]

369. Bill Clinton will support Clark by the Primary election?

Where did you get that idea? A gut feeling? Intuition?
Knowledge? Wishful thinking? Inside Information?
Please tell me it's the latter. I want to believe it is true but don't want to get my hopes up.

[UrbScotty]

334. Dean has stood up to the attacks of primary opponents

When someone attacks him, he seems to get stronger.

When Dean does the attacking, they seem to get weaker.

[Clark4VotingRights]

337. Oh Skinner, Clark can *sooooo* win...

1-Funny you should mention money. It's one of his many strengths.

First he's shown he can raise it. Lots and fast.
I think he’s demonstrated it to a pretty dazzling degree in fact.
Of course he doesn't have as much accumulated as Dean...yet. He's been in the
race just over 3 months! But when people see him and hear him, the money flows.
He’s that impressive.

I feel certain that there are tons of rich Dem celebrities that will gladly donate to Clark.
He’s been meeting with them all along. Great people like Steven Spielberg.

And he probably has the option of declining federal matching funds for the GE, just like Dean and Bush did. He’s not a fool. If the playing field is completely off balance because of Bush’s bucks, he’ll level it. He knows he’s in the battle of his life; he won’t go in unarmed. He is most definitely not a fool.

2-We can't win without the south. Clark has the best southern strategy.

It's part of the reason he spent time there instead of Iowa.
He appeals to some crucial demographics: African Americans and white men.

He's the *only* major white guy Dem to consistently speak out about the strategic
disenfranchisement of our black citizens to steal elections. He's the only major white guy Dem to blast the racist criminal justice system, that targets young poor black men to disproportionate degree, labels them as "felons," and robs them of their right to vote (traditionally Democratic, hmmmm). He’s fighting for that right, and not taking that demographic for granted. And he has greats like Charlie Rangel and Andrew Young on board as campaign co-chairs.

And this is where is military background will help immensely.
The military is one of the most integrated institutions in the US.
A lot of the black voters here on DU, and that I talk to (doing voter registration) cite this as a huge plus.

And, southern good ol’ boy white guys? I think they’ll prefer a four star general to any of the Yankees. Dean would have to find a strong southerner to run with. Clark is a strong southerner. That's a huge advantage.

3-He’ll get the traditionally Republican military vote.

Um, just might help there to have a four star general who is speaking out on their behalf, who is appalled at Bush’s misuse and abuse of them. Sending them to be killed for no reason. Not arming them properly. Not giving them adequate pay. Slashing veteran’s benefits.

Who could address those issues better than General Clark? He truly deeply cares about our soldiers. It shows.

4-He has experience caring for the needs of every military family under his command, and his progressive domestic platform.

I won't repeat his entire presidential platform. You can read his policies here:
http://clark04.com/issues/

But he’s proposed the most *progressive* tax plan of any candidate.
He's intensely focused on jobs, education, and training.

5-He has the military/soldier credentials, and the diplomatic credentials.

Clark is a diplomat first and foremost.
He respects our soldiers…his soldiers (unlike Bush), and will put them in harms way, only as a last resort.

He negotiated the Dayton Peace Accords.
I’m thinking that after four years of Bush flipping the bird to the world, it would be good to have an experienced diplomat reaching out to other nations. Clark can do that better than anyone.

6-He has the military/soldier credentials, and the humanitarian credentials.

He fought possibly the only war US history that was waged for humanitarian reasons.
Clark shamed Clinton into stopping "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo.

Samantha Power, the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy (1998-2002), and the Pulitzer prize-winning author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (Basic Books, 2002).

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book.

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it.

She describes his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance.”

So in an era where the US has no moral authority thanks to the BFEE, here is a man with immense moral authority.

7-General Clark has immense moral authority and significant foreign policy experience.

Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe…’Nuff said.

8-He has presidential demeanor and looks. It matters.

He’s friggen impressive. He’s brilliant yet personable, tough and compassionate. Handsome as hell, physically fit as hell. Hey, it matters. His appearance gets people’s attention, and his eloquence and brilliance seals the deal.

9-BushCo has manipulated us into needing a “wartime” president.

Whether we like it or not, we’re stuck. BushCo created the need for "wartime" leadership, which he can't provide. He's given us: War in Afghanistan (for the Caspian pipeline, but still war), war in Iraq (for oil, but still war), war on "terra,"...war war war.
And the Pugs will claim the Dems are weak on national defense.
You know, wimps.

How will they make that claim stick if the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a four star General is our nominee?

Picture a debate between Bush (the rich boy who got out of Vietnam by having his daddy get him a slot in the national guard, then went AWOL...from the friggen national guard!) and Clark. Clark will serve him his ass on a platter.

Did you see Clark's interviews with the standard media whores a few
weeks back: Russert, Mathews,...everyone on Faux News?
He ate them for lunch. They never knew what him 'em.
But he did it with poise and dignity, with a professional presidential demeanor.

Now when they interview him they're downright differential.
They practically roll over to get their bellies rubbed.
They've learned that he will fight back. Unlike the traditional spineless Dem.

Picture a debate between Bush and General Clark…

I rest my case.
:)

[RichardRay]

338. More cards to play

I like Howard Dean well enough, and I will certainly line up behind him 100% if he's the nominee. Right now I'm doing my best to support Wes Clark.

I believe the Doctor has played all his cards. What we see is what he'll have to run with in the GE. I'm not certain it's enough to get the job done.

OTOH, I believe the General is continuing to accelerate, both as a campaigner and as an idea generator. I think this strategy is designed to peak for the GE, not the primaries. That risks failing to win the nomination and thus not get TO the GE, but if he does take the nomination I think he's on the best path to challenge the current fella most effectively. I think this reflects his well-defined goal - to become President, not just to become the nominee.

I don't know that I can lay out a fully documented argument to support this contention, but it's what it looks like from the bleachers up here in the mountains.

[IndianaGreen]

339. Clark and Dean opposed the Iraq War Resolution

They are far preferable to the four that gave Bush a carte blanche on Iraq.

Clark and Dean will attack Bush relentlessly, like rabid bulldogs!

Either of them will make a fine nominee!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

340. Sometimes It's Also the Small Things That Can Make the Difference: AR/VT

Here's an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=84080

Yes, it's just a prediction, but the stark reality is that Clark will carry AR, which went for Bush in 2000. Dean's home state, Vermont, is already safely in the Democratic column.

That's six extra electoral votes for Clark, for a net swing of twelve.

If the Democrats win, I suspect it will be by a VERY close margin. Twelve electoral votes could make ALL the difference in the world.

DTH

[Skinner]

342. Interesting point.

Here is the 2000 electoral college vote.

Bush: 271
Gore: 266

If this were 2000, a net swing of 12 would have put Gore in the White House. Of course, this isn't 2000. It's 2004 and we've got a new map, which moves more electoral votes out of the Blue states and into the Red states.

Anyone know what the electoral college vote would have been if Bush and Gore were using the 2004 electoral college map? Would Arkansas put us over the top, or would it not be enough?

[Skinner]

346. Replying to myself here...

If we used the 2004 map, Bush would have won by an even wider margin:

Bush: 278
Gore: 259
Other: 1

Yikes. :scared:

A net swing of 12 would still put Bush over the top:

Bush: 272
Gore: 265
Other: 1

Source: http://www.presidentelect.org/art_newev.html

[DoveTurnedHawk]

349. Indeed, Which Is Why We Cannot Rely on Just the States Al Gore Won

That is one argument I hear all the time from Dean supporters, namely that "all we need to do is take all of the states Al Gore won and Florida and we'll win."

Well, Florida is almost like a banana republic in my mind now, what with Jeb in control of the state's electoral mechanisms. We cannot rely on Florida. Hell, we cannot even rely on taking everything we took in 2000, we have to have as broad a strategy as possible while still defending our home turf.

Clark has AR, so he's already ahead of the game when it comes to home state advantage. Excluding FL, all we need then is one of the states that Clinton took in 1992 or 1996 (but which Gore failed to take):

KY
TN
WV
MO
GA
AZ
NV
CO

Of those states, five are Southern or Southern-border. Clark will be much more competitive in those states than Dean will.

AZ, NV and CO, I think both candidates could do well in (although Dean has the slight edge in AZ, IMO, due to his strong support in the Latino community).

Regardless, with AR in Clark's column and his stronger regional appeal as a Southerner with a military background, he will have a greater margin for error than Dean.

And even if we still don't win any Southern states under Clark besides AR, he will still force Bush to spend resources in the South, which is another area where Dean's supposed money advantage is chipped away.

DTH

[batman]

350. i saw some recent analysis done by a republican polling group that showed

dean could soundly beat bush. it was based on new electoral data

the washington post noted it in a story about "how dean can win" here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A47806-2003Dec8¬Found=true

here is some analysis from free republic, thought it was interesting. seems the freepers are not dismissing dean?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972861/posts

dean is the most electable of the candidates in my opinion

it appears there is a concerted effort to brainwash people into believing otherwise? i guess this is a sound tactic when you can win on the issues?

please review the article by the post skinner if your concered about electability

[arcos]

364. Where's Ohio? n/t

[hellhathnofury]

377. You neglected Ohio.

[bain_sidhe]

378. easier electoral calculator here

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

All we need are Gore states + Ohio. Or Florida... which we all know was a Gore state anyway.

[CWebster]

393. Which is why

the cross-section of voters Dean energized should not be written off if we need every last vote to win.

Steven Zunes writes:

"There are also large numbers of voters – including myself – who respect the U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter enough that we would refuse to vote for any presidential nominee who authorized President Bush to invade Iraq and lied to the American people about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in order to justify it. Indeed, if Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards or Lieberman appear likely to receive the Democratic nomination, you can bet that the Green Party will attempt to field a strong candidate. She or he would certainly get my vote and the votes of millions of others like me who would otherwise vote Democratic.

If the Republicans really are wishing that Dean gets the Democratic nomination, you better believe that the Greens (at least those who put the growth of their party as their top priority) are hoping Dean is denied the Democratic nomination. Nothing could be better for the Green Party than for the Democrats to select a nominee who supports Bush’s disastrous foreign policies.

Indeed, with a Democratic nominee so willing to endorse the most immoral, illegal and dangerous foreign policies of the Bush Administration, why should voters believe a Democratic administration would do things any better?

In short, at this point it appears that the Democrats would lose less votes by nominating Dean than by nominating one of his pro-war rivals."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0107-01.htm

The chances are even slimmer that the progressive Left will rally around Clark once the details of his past and the questions about his position on the war are scrutinized.

People may not like to hear it--but it is the reality, and if you are calculating a practical assessment, it can not be dismissed. The cross-section of the base Dean's campaign enegized should not be taken for granted as transferrable. Indeed, many Dean supporters seek Dean as a candidate to oppose the elements in the Democratic party that provoked them to leave it. Why would they vote to support it election after election?

The writing is on the wall.

[Printer70]

344. Who has the vision?

Dean has articulated a progressive agenda that will see an America with healthcare for all, which will bring corporate bullies to heel (as articulated in his address on corporate regulation), and which will act in concert with the rest of the world. Clark doesn't have a vision, he has a slogan.

[burning bush]

345. SKINNER- Vote Howard Dean

Here's the three big reasons why I'm for Dean:


1) The Campaign

Dean has rebuilt (or at the very least is rebuilding) Democracy in the United States. In 2000, only half of all eligible voters stayed home. Why? Apathy. Those people do not see voting as a means of creating change. Dean's campaign is offering those disenchanted voters a means by which they can regain hope. Every bit of the process sends a message, from the way Dean raises money (Read - I owe my success to people, not corporations), to the way he organizes from the bottom up, not top down (read - You know what works best in your town/region/state) speaks volumes about the way Dean feels about Democracy, and the way Dean would govern--and those disenfranchised voters are responding. How else can you explain Dean's success? He's not the usual Dem candidate, with all the usual Dem ideas. Dr. Dean is a different type of candidate, running a different type of campaign.

Dean's campaign is a microcosm of a Dean Presidency. Activist. Populist. Responsive. Inclusive. Effective.

If you want to beat George W. Bush, we had better not resort to the "same old same old" type of campaigns that Dems have run in the past. We got lucky with Clinton, but there won't be any Ross Perot to eat up the Republican vote this year. We need every voter we can get, and Dean is getting them - across the board.


2) Dean's States Rights Position.

The press and the opposition, are describing Dean as a wild eyed Northeastern Liberal. Either that, or the far left thinks Dean is too conservative. Is this weird, or what? What is behind this?

The problem that detractors are having stereotyping Dean is due to the fact that Dean, like his campaign, is coming from a completely different direction, and nobody knows how to get a handle on him.

The way I see it, Dean is a progressive state's rights advocate. Every position - his stand on women's choice, civil unions, gun policy, Bush's tax breaks, health care, etc - can all be linked to a progressive stand on individual state's rights.

So, why do I like this? Because it brings the South, South-West, and Near-West states back toward the Dem party. The idea of Sate Rights is a part of the Southern mindset going back to the beginning of this country. South and Near West states are typically independent, and distrustful of Big Brother type government. Bush has given us an opening in those western states with the horrible Patriot Act. Dean has already positioned himself as an independent minded candidate behind state rights. It doesn't take much to make the leap and see Dean taking these states from Bush, or at least making Bush spend resources there. Resources that Republicans are not used to having to worry about.

The idea that we need a Southerner to win the South is tired, and dangerous. One day, may not have a Southern Dem going after the nomination. We need a different strategy, and Dean is the ONLY candidate offering a strategy that will work.


3)Security and Economy

"It's the economy stupid" might have worked for Clinton, but it may not be our lifeline this year. The national security issues are different than they were 12 years ago, and the economy looks better than it really is. (Are we seeing Enron accounting at the Fed level?).

Some folks think it will take a military man to take on Bush, but I STRENUOUSLY disagree! Putting a General or a war hero up against Bush allows Bush to dictate the parameters of the debate, and then Bush simply plays the "Don't Switch Horses In The Middle Of The Stream" card.

Just look at the 2000 election. Gore is widely criticized as not using Clinton enough. In other words, Gore should have been able to use the Peace and Prosperity strengths of Clinton's Presidency to use that same "Don't Switch Horses In The Middle Of The Stream" card that Bush now owns.

How did Bush defeat Gore, or more correctly, how did Bush get close enough to Gore to be able to cheat so effectively?

He redefined the debate.

Bush ran as a someone who could bring the parties together (never mind that it was always the Republicans that were the ones responsible for the high levels of acidity and acrimony). People loved Clinton, but were tired of the rumors, endless bogus scandals and the constant arguing.

Bush made the election about restoring peace within our own government, and Gore let him.

Look now at 2004. How can we beat Bush on the economy? His tax cuts seem to be working (don't look at those jobless figures behind the curtain, please). How can we beat Bush on security? He hit Afghanistan hard after 911, and took out Saddam (don't look at those terrorists behind the curtain, please).

The thing is, Bush has enough of the artificial appearances of success to be able to use the Horse/Stream card. We need a NEW debate.

Here comes Dean, talking about State Rights. Tying security (disappearing funds for Homeland Security, National Guard deployment, etc) into States Rights, and tying the economy (Bush's tax break putting burdens on the states, etc) into States Rights as well.

Clark might win Bush's security debate, or he might lose. Dean offers a debate Bush can't win, not without undoing every action of his Presidency.

[Skwmom]

347. #1 Clark is the type of fighter we need....

Skinner, reading your post I think you’ve already made up your mind but what the heck, I can always use this at another time (and it's nice that you're willing to give Clark supporters a chance to make their case). I have several points to make and will post them as they are completed.

1. CLARK IS THE TYPE OF FIGHTER WE NEED TO PUT IN THE RING AGAINST BUSH. You talk about Dean being a fighter and write “ Dean will not sit back and say "thank you sir, may I have another?" when the Republicans attacks. He is a fighter.” Well Clark is one hell of a fighter.

Did you somehow miss the General’s smack down of the fox reporter?

At a Pancake Breakfast w/ Clark a vet asked what he was going to do if Republicans tried to smear his patriotism. Clark replied: "I'll beat the shit out of them."

Gene Lyon’s on Clark (not somebody to fuck with). (This is Lyon’s word so please don’t delete my post.) “I want to be careful how I say this, but he has an almost feline presence -- and by that I don't mean "catty," as in bitchy. I mean like a big cat. I once encountered a mountain lion in the Point Reyes National Seashore in California, on a rainy day in winter, when I was all by myself. We stood stock still staring at each other for a few seconds. And there was this moment of "Gee, that's a cougar, this is really cool." And then an instant later, came the feeling of "My God, that's a lion!" There's nothing between me and him, no fence. Clark has a little bit of that kind of presence. You sense a tremendous personal authority about him held in and contained by self-discipline. Not somebody to fuck with, is another way of putting it.” http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

Clark fought to stop ethnic cleansing, putting his career on the line to do what was right. One republican criticized Clark for not giving up and for day after day after day after day butting heads with Shelton and crew. When he believes in something passionately (and he is passionately committed to ousting Bush and stopping the destruction of this country) the man does not give up! (I know he must have some Irish in him somewhere.)

Clark to Karl Rove: "If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear this loud and clear-- I'm going to provide tax cuts to ease the burden for 34 million American families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty by raising the taxes on one-tenth of one percent of families in America, those who make more than a million dollars a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it." Nashua, NH January 5, 2004

Clark’s as tough as nails. He doesn’t attack the other candidates (on edit - or falsely smear them) because IMO he doesn’t want to damage the Democrat’s chance to beat Bush in the fall. I truly believe with Clark this is about fighting for his country and not for his own personal glory. Clark is for lack of a better word a “strategic” fighter. Because of his intelligence and discipline Clark will strike hard at the right moment for maximum effect and in such a way that he comes across as someone not to screw with (who will fight for the American people) but not in such a way that he will come across as a “ Tom Delay” bully or an angry hate filled Democrat (which is how the Republicans were viewed once they went to far in attacking Clinton).

If I was going into a fight I would pick Clark - not only would we annihilate the other side, we would do it in such a manner that we would come out looking good (rather than looking like participants in a Jerry Springer show thus turning off a huge portion of the electorate - which is what the Republicans did when they overplayed their hand and came across looking like a bunch of partisan bullies). In addition, to be an effective fighter you have got to have credibility. Once you’ve lost that, you might as well hang it up and go home. Clark has credibility.

We have to fight hard in the general election but we have to fight SMART. Clark is the man to lead that fight!

[kaitykaity]

351. Love them both, but the edge goes to Dean,

with a heartfelt hope that Clark is on the ticket
as the VP, despite the denials and back and forth
between the two camps thus far.

1. Dean's courageous opposition to the Iraq war at
a time when the patriotic fervor was at it's fever
pitch. I finally found someone who was speaking for me
on the national stage, and it will take something
catastrophic to shake me of that loyalty to him.

2. I want an experienced politician at the top of
the ticket. Clark is a political neophyte, and as
smart as he is, that inexperience would be another
edge for raving lunatics DeLay, Hastert, Frist, etc.

You're right about this being about the intangibles.
They are both fighters. I loved it when Clark kicked
Asman all over the FAUX studio, so there's no doubt
about his gut. There's just something in my gut that
pulls me to Dean as the top dog. I wish I could put
my finger on it better.

It's like when the stars line up right or something.
Dean is exactly who we needed exactly when we needed him.
Dean is a centrist (who has been portrayed as a liberal)
who is acceptable to many of the Greens who were angry about
the DLC, but who will pull in swing voters when they hear and
understand his positions.

The fight with the Bush Criminals is on, and I think these
two men together really can win this damn thing.

My .02 cents.

[windansea]

354. read me...WANT TO WIN?

USA Today National Poll (Jan 2-5)

The reversal in numbers (favorable/unfavorable) between Dean and Clark speak for themselves

Dean
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
2004 Jan 2-5 28 39 17 16

Clark
Favorable Unfavorable Never heard of No opinion
2004 Jan 2-5 37 26 21 16

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2004-01-06-poll.htm


The election will be decided by swing voters...Clark is clearly more palatable to them.

The other main reason for choosing Clark is that he defuses Rove's ability to use the defense/terror hammer (which they will club Dean with mirthlessly) A Clark campaign allows dems to open up serious debate on jobs...deficit...heathcare etc where Bush is weak.

[batman]

356. read me.....THEN VOTE FOR DEAN!

the reason clark is more palatable is because no one has gone after him

wait until the other campaigns start to play politics with the general - he'll be a far less tasty morsel

[windansea]

376. want to win?

vote Clark

:bounce:

[TexasPatriot]

409. i dont think this information can be understated

the internals from gallup show Clark is the only candidate with the same 3:2 fav:unfav rating as W. Dean not only has his own unfavorables to overcome, but a massive bush favorable to deal with.

The Dean support is young and energized - but inexperienced and running against a democratic machine split amongst many contenders. After the primaries - if dean wins - what happens? Do his people buckle under and start taking direction from the DNC guys who've been doing this for 30 years and know how it works? or do they just assume the machine will work for them regardless... and get to try their tactics against the united well funded roveco smear machine. Either way - even if he wins we're divided well into the fall.

its great that there are new energized people being brought into the democratic process by Dean - but there's a lot of spin going on there as well. i probably have 10 friends who, at one point or another thought of themselves as Dean supporters (J,J,K,S,F,J,T,R,W,C). Right now, i'd say there are 3 (W,T,R) that are still active. none of the others will donate (and all of the previous had done so), and they've stopped going to any of the meetings (they're now distributed into other dem camps, or are utterly dismayed at our prospects). Only someone with a strong fav/unfav number will be able to bring everyone together - and collect the votes needed to win in the fall.

We need a positive candidate that has a strong fav/unfav number to win. There arent a lot of options there... and Clark is far and away the best one.

[maxr4clark]

360. Clark is better at framing the debate

Against Clark, Bush will have to defend his foreign policy record, which is indefensible. Bush has the luxury of claiming Dean has no knowledge of foreign policy, and will blast him on domestic issues. If the economy looks good during the debates, which Bush will make sure it does, Dean won't have a chance to attack, he'll be on defense the entire election.

Clark is known as a superb military strategist. He knows the value of timing and of choosing the battlefield; he has used that knowledge to protect his side and conquer the other side. I have no doubt he will do a good job against Bush/Rove, just as he is doing a good job in New Hampshire. His decision to stay out of Iowa and focus on New Hampshire is being proven correct in the surge he's getting in the NH tracking polls at ARG.

Clark's successful military career will get wavering Republicans and hawkish independents to listen to him on foreign policy, and on the rest of the issues once they tune in on foreign policy. His manner and his proposals are the kind I always hear from the rest of my Republican/indpendent family, despite the fact that his tax plan is more progressive than Dean's. Dean is seen as a draft-dodger, and won't be able to win the hawkish disenchanted Republican voters. Dean is also seen as a tax-and-spend kind of Democrat. He talks like one, he comes from the same part of the country as one, and he wants to raise taxes. The moderate/disenchanted voter won't see past that.

I don't buy the argument that Dean is going to get a lot of additional voters to the polls. Most people who don't always vote will get barraged with so much information, they'll stay home and not vote because it is too hard to figure out who is right. A person who doesn't usually vote is much more likely to not vote, just to be able to say "well I didn't vote for him" when bad things happen after the election. It is sad, but I am 40, and that is the kind of attitude I see all around me in my generation and younger.

[Lobo_13]

361. Three reasons for Dean

1. If you take an honest look at his positions on a variety of issues, he makes sense. Even if you don't agree with him, he's forthright about how he got to his conclusions.

For instance, on gun control, you may not agree with his philosophy, but you have to admit that maybe gun laws tailored for East Los Angeles aren't really necessary in rural West Virginia (a big reason why Gore lost that state) or any state with a large number of hunters.

He may not do things the way YOU want them done, but he gets them done, even if it's incrementally, like he did with healthcare in VT.

2. He has a verifiable record of doing what he thinks is best for the people who elected him, regardless of, and usually in spite of party opposition from either side. I'm a little different in that I'm looking for someone who can beat Bush*, but will also take this country in the right direction after Bush* is beat. Dean has the long term bonafides. How difficult do you think it is to force balanced budgets through a spend happy Dem legislature and later, and later an adverserial Rep legislature. Again, his solutions might not be the ones YOU would be happy with, but he's done a hell of a job focusing on what will help all of the people he works for. It's a character issue, and he's passed at every turn.

3. He's the only candidate who has the strategic ability to win the election. He'll have the money to continously defend himself up through the election. That's an advantage that no other candidate has.

A leader doesn't take people where they want to go, he takes them to where they should be. (See #2)

[cthrumatrix]

362. #1) Dean can win because his "organization" can and MUST beat the media

I'm not going to disparage Clark or others. But there is a difference in the organizations and who has the "grass roots ability" to overcome

* negative media hype
* potential staffing for poll duty (validating votes)
* people who are not swayed by the "sheeple mentality"

It's going to be tough and you need an organization. I truly think that this is what Gore / Bradley see...somebody who can overcome the "elite machine" and take back our country.

From the negative spin Dean gets...it seems to show that "they" do not want to face him.

[mikewriter]

366. Go with Dean

Dean has centered his campaign on being the Washington outsider. His recent change of heart on some issues is just another tactical plot to show he's an outsider. He wants to display that he is just an ordinary citizen, like you or me, who is fed up with the current state of this country. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment things are said and since we our all human, Dean has the right to change his mind.
I feel Dean will do wonders in trying to stop the financial bleeding in this country. I feel he will try to decrease the deficit and balance the budget (GO SLICK WILLY). He will also help the medical system in our country like getting insurance for most children like he did in Vermont He's game for civil and human rights as well.
Dean reminds me of Clinton because of his compassion and sincerity and his honesty. I truly feel that Dean cares about this country, all the candidates do or they wouldn't be running, but I get that sense of passion out of Dean, I don't from Clark, who's stern rigid military influence is just too cold for me.
For those who say Dean has no national security or foreign policy, neither did Clinton and look at the job he did.
I feel Clark or any other military leader is not what this country needs now. For years, the GOP has used their military power as a strength and the only times we went to a full-fledged war in the last 30 years is when a GOP has been in power. Clark reminds me too much of a republican.

[YNGW]

367. Heads Dean, Tails Clark

Go get the quarter. No two out of three. One toss. That's it.

[Bucky]

370. NO! I say "Heads Clark, Tails Dean" can't you people get anything right?

That's the last straw. I'm taking off the gloves, byatch!!



(ahem, 'scuse me for that)





:freak:

[arewethereyet]

371. You should reconsider Edwards

Technically he's more senior than General Clark so that doesn't really wash. His committee assignments demonstrate what the leadership thinks of his political savvy and ht does know how things get done in Washington. That is worthy of a rethink between he and Clark. That the General has baggage, valid or not, and Edwards does not does play a part in ability to win. Starting in a hole is a disadvantage plain and simple. Add on that Edwards is hands down a better public speaker who knows the importance of understanding his case from all sides and made quite a lot of money successfully doing it better arms him on the campaign trail.

As to Dr Dean, same arguments regarding how to get things done in DC, starting in a hole, public speaking.

And history favors him over either of the other two.

I guess you may be inflexible as to which candidates you will consider but I think this is a flawed starting point. Thats is, of course, opinion but the rest is difficult to dispute.

[farmbo]

372. Two great candidates...One great campaign....Go with Dean.

Four words:

McCain-Feingold spending limits.

[Turkw]

373. What can I add that has not been said already?

Well, I will repeat myself form other posts and say that Clark's history on education is a real positive for me. The state of the educational system for the soldier's children in Europe was terrible. Old, poor quality books, outdated curriculum, lack of funds.

He took a personal interest in this problem and helped create a new curriculum. He didn't just want to update it, he wanted to make it competitive when compared to other educational systems. (I forget the exact quote to this effect) He also went out and got the funding to revamp the schools. He went where ever he had to and did what ever he had to, for the funds. It was not just a request for funding or and addition or change to the traditional budget.

Think about this, a general in charge of all the US forces in Europe, took the time to personally go out and find and acquire sources for the additional funding. He could have delegated this responsibility, freed up as much money as he could from the military budget, but he did more, he made it part of his personal mission.

The soldiers didn't elect him, the vast majority might never even see him, much less meet him. Yet he knew this was important to them, that education was important in and of itself, and that it was the right thing to do for the students. They were part of his responsibility, which he took as seriously as he did the condition of the guns, tanks, and planes.

There is one other story that I will try to relate, please forgive me it has been awhile since I read the story. One of the duties of the commander of the US forces in Europe is to interact with all the heads of the other forces from the different nations and also with civilian diplomats that work on military matters. Now the state department has a person over there that does the same thing with the diplomatic corps of the different nations. These are two different sets of foreign diplomats.

Usually the State department guy gets to know all the strictly civilian diplomats, since they are who he deals with. The military guy gets to know the other group for the same reason. Clark made it a point to meet and make contact with all of them.

Finally, I'll add a little bit to the story of him repelling down the mountain to try and help any survivors of the accident (which, unfortunately there were none) After he helped get the bodies from the wreck, he stayed with them until they were recovered. He also hand delivered the wedding ring of one of the soldiers to his widow.

Say what you will about traditional military men, he is not it. This is not a shoot 'em up kind of guy. Force is his last option, not his first, but when it has to be used, he does not throw the lives of American soldiers away. He took the civilian side of governing the military forces as seriously and as personally as he did the military. He does not stay between the lines of traditional political thinking, he will go to bat for what he believes is right and take the consequences.

The people who point out he lost his job are missing a few very important facts about this. One: for all the innuendo about character and integrity, not one specific example or charge has been raised. His official record is exemplary, including comments and commendations from those whom he angered politically by pushing for what he believed was right. The most serious unofficial things I have heard was that he was not in the good old boy network of the military and that he was ambitious. ( this only helps him in my book ) The people who support him use a lot of specific examples of character and integrity.

Two: he took a stance unpopular with superiors in the pentagon and pressed his case with the President. (Clark knows who is in charge of the military and the US, the CIVILIAN PRESIDENT ) He did this endangering his career and accepted the cost. When you look at it, you cannot respect the people or the manner in which orchestrated his leaving. When it came to playing it safe or doing what was right, Clark did what he thought was right.

Three: The conclusion Clark came to in regards to Kossovo was that the ethnic cleansing and the violence from ALL sides had to come to an end, not that we had to go to war. Diplomatic avenues were exhausted first.

Finally: This was not something done to make his career. His career was made already, he was a Four Star General. It would have been far easier to wait out his time as NATO commander than to convince the president, put together a coalition, and fight a mountain war, in the Balkans.

He has civilian governing experience, he was domestic government experience- working for and with the executive and congressional branches of our government. He has foreign relations experience.

Although he has never sponsored a bill or voted on one, his history does show provide evidence of some of his positions. He is pro-education. He is multilateral when he deals with issues of wold wide importance, but will not relinquish US sovereignty. (he did go out side the UN, but did form a real coalition of countries)

Win with Wes.

Thanks for this opportunity.

[tpub]

375. don't give up on KERRY

Much of his campaign was miserably run early on, but they've turned a corner. Kerry's a fighter and can come from behind to win.

John Kerry is the whole package. He has the military and foreign policy experience that Independents, Republicans, and so-called Security Moms are looking for--but more importantly he has 35 years of working toward progressive goals.

I do not want to hear another person say that Kerry could be one of our best presidents ever, but because of the way the campaign has been run they are looking elsewhere.

We cannot give up on the chance to have this intelligent, experienced, hardworking, dedicated statesman as president at this time when we need him the most!

We are working very hard in Iowa right now and all the news from that state is good. Please do not write off John Kerry!

[hellhathnofury]

379. Dean can win because Dean got it when no one else understood.

We'd been sold out and we're angry at our guys somewhat and the Republicans even more. No other candidate got it like Dean, the other's just made calculations. Dean felt us and that's important. If you don't know how to take the pulse of your own party how are you going to represent it? Furthermore, Dean mixes principles with pragmatism. Like it or not, money is a big factor. Gore was outspent 3-1 in the spring so we were given "Gore the Liar," Dean can match the spin machine. Dean will win without selling the party down the river.

Al Gore seems to think we can do it:

[shivaji]

380. To vote for a candidate SIMPLY BASED on PURPORTED electability

and disregarding that candidates lifetime republican roots is a recipe for disaster for the democratic party. The party will lose its direction, it will lose its base, it will lose its very core.

Now if Clark can run for senate or even the house, and prove on record that he will actually vote for democratic values, I would back him in a minute for future presidential runs.

But not for a basically unproven, untested, political novice. This is not 1952. The media is bloodthirsty and so are the republicans. I quiver and shudder about the campaign with Clark carrying the banner.

Dean is a complete contrast. As skinner says, and I agree, he is a fighter, proven winner, in your face politician who will overpower Bush in every debate.

[Clark Can WIN]

381. Plug and Play............Clark offers a truly progressive plan

sweeping tax reform and less plug and play for Rove.

I would continue ad nauseum but you've read it all.

[Hawkeye-X]

383. Sure. Another trickle-down economic plan

Just like Reagan, Bush I and Chimpy.

Same damn shit, just different paper.

[maxr4clark]

387. raising taxes on the rich

and lowering taxes on those making less than $100K was trickle-up economics, not trickle-down. Closing corporate tax loopholes in order to fund education and healthcare programs is also trickle-up economics, not trickle-down.

But why bother discussing the actual proposals put forth by the candidates? Forty years ago, Dean dodged the draft and Clark went to West Point, so Dean must be a liberal and Clark must be a neocon. That and some koolaid is all anyone needs for this election.

[MidwestMomma]

382. I think Dean can beat Bush but I think Clark will soundly defeat him

That's sums up why I support Clark over Dean.

I want a resounding repudiation of Bush. I don't want another nail-biter. I want a mandate from the voters that our new president can take with him into the White House to use in his fight to repair the damage of this administration.

Why do I think Clark can attract more voters than Dean?

It has to do with the current psyche of this nation.

You see, we the people are a tired people. We've been beaten down with terror and fear for the last 2 years and we are looking for someone to fix what's wrong with this country.

To the energized Democratic base it's an exciting time. Time to 'take back the country' and 'kick the insiders out of Washington'. But from what I see, the average voter is just not up for the fight.

Dean tells the voters "You have the power to fix what's wrong with this country". I think that message will fall flat with the average voter.

Why? Because I think the average voter will feel they don't have the time or energy to fix the country. The average voter is worn out from the struggle to keep their jobs, make their mortgage payments and raise their kids.

I think they will respond better to Clark when he says, "I want to be your president because I want to fix what's wrong with this country". Why? Because I think the idea of putting all their problems in the capable hands of a 4 Star General will be very appealing to a people worn down by these years under Bush.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on why Clark has the potential to pull in a lot of voters. There are other reasons why I believe Clark can beat Bush with big numbers but they deal with campaign strategy and are not as important as the idea I'm trying to express above.

Thanks for listening.

[brainshrub]

385. My 2 cents.

I think your analysis between Clark & Dean is thoughtful and balanced. It's the best I've read in a long time.

You should start a website or something.

[NV1962]

388. President decides, but Congress furnishes $$$ - so I recommend Clark

Edited to add my apologies - somehow I managed to overlook Deminflorida's suggestion, posted as #14... Touches upon the same argument.

Impressive topic, this. Adding to the many perspectives that I've read so far, I'll focus on just one aspect I haven't seen explored as much here.

Let's forego "electability" and impressions/opinions as to who can deliver the "biggest win" - Instead, let's assume two alternative cases: Dean as President, and Clark as President.

Then, think about where the money is to carry out the President's Policies: Congress.

We need not only a strong Democratic President, we need a strong Democratic majority in Congress to appropriate funds.

So, my key question comes down to this: which of the two alternative Presidents offers the most promising perspective of being able to co-exist with (and/or at least not "alienate" or "disturb") Congress elections, some time down the road?

So far, the open considerations. Now, my subjective answer: Wes Clark offers a better profile, the necessary smooth political personality to steer government ahead and above the Congressional fray.

Think back to Bill Clinton's dilemma: as strong as he is (was) he was made an issue during the Congressional elections, and we know what happened next. Right up to and including the phony impeachment proceedings.

We can't afford to let government bogged down like that again - I think Wes Clark has a better shot at it. We need a strong Democratic President and strong Democratic presence in Congress.

With all due and deserved respect to Howard Dean, I think Wes Clark is the best guy.

[Soul On Ice]

394. Clark, because:

The head of the federal Commission on Civil Rights and several other prominent women endorsed retired general and presidential hopeful Wesley Clark on Sunday as he restated his support for affirmative action and women's rights.

snip

Mary Frances Berry, head of the federal Commission on Civil Rights, got a standing ovation from the crowd after she made a brief speech in support of Clark.

"I've dealt with presidents all the way back to Tricky Dick," she said, referring to former president Richard Nixon. "When I talk to (Clark) and when I listen to him, I can see him as a president for all Americans."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-01-05-clark-women_x.htm


Background:

Here's a couple of sites (you should see all the R/W 'hate sites' devoted to her)

http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2001/062701_berry.htm

http://www.africanpubs.com/Apps/bios/0718BerryMary.asp


From those sites,in_cog_nit_o excerpted:

APPOINTED TO U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
In 1980 President Carter appointed Berry to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan agency that monitors the enforcement of civil rights laws. Along with Berry, he appointed Blandina Cardenas Ramirez and commissioned a massive affirmative action study. In doing so, Carter planted "many seeds ... that would later grow to entangle the commission in turmoil under Reagan" theorized James Reston, Jr., in Rolling Stone. When the affirmative action study was published, it supported setting goals and timetables for correcting historic discrimination of blacks and women, particularly in the workplace.

In his 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan had spoken against affirmative action, and the newly published study put him in an uncomfortable position. According to Reston, the Commission on Civil Rights was viewed by Reagan and his staff as "a pocket of renegades that needed to be cleaned out." Reston continued: "Reagan wanted his own people everywhere, and no agency--regardless of ... its historic independence and bipartisanship--escaped attention." In 1984, Reagan attempted to fire Berry, a registered Independent, along with Democrat Ramirez and another Democratic commissioner.

In the Washington Post, Berry expressed her frustration over Reagan's attempt to remove members of the commission who disagreed with his viewpoints. She felt that his actions reduced the U.S. Civil Rights Commission from "watchdog of civil rights" to "a lapdog for the administration." Berry and Ramirez successfully sued Reagan in a federal court and retained their seats on the commission. Berry became known as "the woman the president could not fire." Joan Barthel wrote in Ms. that Berry's "convictions her clinging stubbornly to her outcast's seat on the commission." Berry responded: "I tell the happiest day of my life was when Reagan fired me.... I was fired because I did what I was supposed to do. His firing me was like giving me an A and saying `Go to the head of the class.'"


"...She sued Reagan!!! AND won! AWESOME! I DO like this lady and I will definitely keep an eye out for her from now on..." (comments provided by in_cog_ni_to)

[douginmarshall]

397. Who can win was my question

As I looked at the Candidates I started out liking Kerry. Then Clark came a long and I began to do some checking. My first thought was a general against Bush is good but don't often agree with military people.

So here is why I think Clark is the one.

Highly decorated leader who was in charge of very large operations.

Supported the University of Michigan in their affirmative action case.

Does not hesitate to say pro choice, even when asked by someone who is clearly against choice.

Shows a true care and concern for those who served under him, many still support him. see www.cris.forclark.com.

Has a vision for this country that is based on the constitution and the environment.

Has the ability to make us feel good about being American (this will be important for those in the middle)

Has a positive message.

Can not be painted as weak on defense or a Washington insider.

Was willing to risk his career to protect the lives of 1 1/2 million people in Kosovo for no other reason than they were human. That's the kind of leader I'm looking for.

The thing that got me was his understanding, even in Vietnam, that it is Patriotic to speak against the policies of the president even at a time of War.

I have been a Dem, most of my life, parents made the mistake of voting for Nixon in 60 the year I was born, and have supported every candidate we have run. I have always been frustrated by our inability to fight the notion that we are week on defense. That changes with Clark

:kick:

[Skwmom]

398. Keeping Bush defections to a minimum

If Dean is the nominee, Rove can hold defections to a minimum (and hold on to your seat - I think he will actually cause some people who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 to vote for him in 2004 or to sit this one out). Rove will accomplish this by:

1. Making people scared to have Howard Dean in charge of national security. The Democrats are already perceived as weak on defense; Dean does nothing to refute this. Dean seems to want to counter by 1) picking a VP who is strong on national security and 2) creating the image that he is a "visionary" who foresaw the mess in Iraq and therefore, is the guy you want to serve as commander-in-chief and oversee foreign affairs.

To make sure that a VP selection can't prop him up Rove will need to

a) paint Dean as unstable (unfortunately I don't think this task will be to hard to accomplish because of the footage they have of Dean on tape, his own comments (basically that he acts then reflects upon his actions), the Osma/Saddam comments, the VT nuclear security scandal, the whole empowerment thing (expect the cable news shows to be flooded with so called cult experts) and the meme that seems to have already taken hold (Dean shoots from the hip which isn't the type of guy whose finger you want on that button) . I believe Rove will also use another dirty (but very effective) trick against Dean which has already been quietly floated but it’s not one that I want to repeat on a public message board.

b) drive home the message that it is the President not the VP that calls the shots on national defense. This in my opinion won’t be to hard to do.



The whole visionary thing will be countered by Dean’s own statements (for example comments made during his salon interview "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations," Dean said. "If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice." How are we going to say that Bush is using the whole national security issue for political gain when they can accuse the Democrats of the same thing (and have something to back up their argument)?

2. Targeting particular groups who are ripe for Bush defections: For example, with Dean Rove can make sure that every military person knows the draft story, the reply to the Iowa questionnaire where Dean infers his brother was in the military, his contradictory statements on the war (which unfairly or not makes it seem that Dean was using his anti-war message for political convenience and was trying to cover all his bases). Yes Skinner, the military is ripe for the picking. Did you hear the guy that covers the military on C-Span (though as he pointed out the military won't vote for just any Democrat). In addition, my own experiences supports this assertion. I guess we've reverted from the military is so disgusted they will vote for any Dem, to the military is republican and won't vote for any Democrat. I think both assertions are wrong. Rove is terrifed by Clark because he knows Clark will increase the number of Bush defections (and not only military voters).

3. It’s about the “trust stupid.” Rove knows many people who previously supported Bush feel they can no longer “trust” him. Rove will try to paint the Democratic nominee as a person you can trust less than Bush. A couple of weeks back a Bush Admin official was on one of the news shows - I lost track of how many times he used the word “trust” in describing Bush. With Clark we don’t have a string of contradictory statements on record. In addition, if both candidates are perceived as untrustworthy, the liar in office (who is perceived as strong on defense) has the edge. In addition, I think many will get disgusted with the whole thing and opt to stay home (I can’t trust either one of them but at least the bum in office is better on national defense). I don’t think they will be able to play the trust card effectively with Wes Clark (because the more you know about him the more you trust him).

[douginmarshall]

401. Key is the ability to stand up to Karl Rove

I love this quote and the way it defines the race. We normally sit back and put out fires, this takes the campaign on the offensive.


"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it. And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride And I dare you to come after me for it."

-- Wesley Clark

A :toast:to doing this :kick: to Karl's ass

[Skwmom]

402. It will be much harder to attack Clark in the general election.

1. There is less material for them to attack Clark with.

2. Rove will have to be careful in attacking a “military hero” and a man of Clark’s stature or risk suffering a backlash in the general election. I think this is one of the reasons that some of the talking heads have backed off from some of their "attacks" on Clark (or tried to provide a mix). In fact, if Clark isn't the nominee I fully expect to see these talking heads discussing "what's wrong with the Democratic party that they failed to nominate a stellar candidate like Clark" - they are hate filled, Clark was a man of faith, etc trash the Democratic party.

[Hawkeye-X]

404. Rebuttal

1) You seem to forget that Rove has more ammo on Clark than Dean.

2) That doesn't wash. People want someone who can do domestic policy, not a friggin guy with four stars. He is everything that is WRONG with the Democratic Party.

Hawkeye-X

[chimpymustgo]

406. FIVE SOUTHERN SENATE SEATS.

Skinner, I don't know if you're going to wade through the 400+ responses again, but I just posted a thread on this.

5 Southern Senate seats. The nominee has to help us keep those, and what little power (filibuster) we have in the Senate to block *'s right wing, LIFE TERM judicial appointments.

Not to mention the Supreme Court.

We need not only someone who can beat AWOL, but a nominee who can help us hold what we have in the Senate, even make gains.

[Lurking Dem]

410. I'm lacking some of the eloquence

of other posters on this thread so I'll do a "nutshell" approach.

When I hear Clark speak of his vision for America, I see the America I want for myself and my son. I see an America I can be proud of again. I see grandness.

Long before there were announced candidates, I spoke of the Democratic Party needing someone with an inspiring vision (on a Kennedy scale) to beat Bush. I think Clark has that vision. I think he is the only candidate who can beat Bush because of that vision.

The Republican meme that Democrats are militarily weak, lightweights on foreign policy, and unwilling to stand firm for any American ideology will be turned completely on its head by the election of General Clark. Forever.

Being firm and being a "warmonger" are not the same thing and I am sad to see there are people who don't grasp the difference. But the large majority of the voting public does. Wes Clark will lead us to victory.

[Walt Starr]

411. IMO, your post here and elsewhere reveals your choice.

IMO, you have unwittingly revealed your leanings and where your choice will go.

IMO, it's very evident.

That's my opinion. I know 128 other DUers (and growing daily) who share that opinion.

[Dover]

413. Were you also not impressed with Bill Moyer's concerns about Clark?

If you missed it and many of the other alarming FACTS and concerns that have been raised about both Clark's association and support of the GOP and the fact that he has lobbied for corporate and defense industry interests......well, what more can one say? Cast your vote the way you like...because it seems that this information has had no bearing on your decision.

No one has raised those kind of concerns about the other candidates.

Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/buyingpres.html

[w4rma]

414. William Kristol and some Republican consultants say …

How Dean Could Win . . .

By William Kristol
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27
…
Thus, on domestic policy, Dean will characterize Bush as the deficit-expanding, Social Security-threatening, Constitution-amending (on marriage) radical, while positioning himself as a hard-headed, budget-balancing, federalism-respecting compassionate moderate. And on foreign and defense policy, look for Dean to say that he was and remains anti-Iraq war (as, he will point out, were lots of traditional centrist foreign policy types). But Dean will emphasize that he has never ruled out the use of force (including unilaterally). Indeed, he will say, he believes in military strength so strongly that he thinks we should increase the size of the Army by a division or two. It's Bush, Dean will point out, who's trying to deal with the new, post-Sept. 11 world with a pre-Sept. 11 military.
…
The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47806-2003Dec8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=24883

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

Bush team considers Dean formidable Republicans admit they underestimated Dem candidate

By Judy Keen
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party officials and political advisers to President Bush admit that they underestimated Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and say they now consider him a formidable potential adversary.

Some Bush allies say he reminds them of another insurgent candidate who once bedeviled Bush: Arizona Sen. John McCain. His wins in Republican primary elections in New Hampshire and Michigan rattled Bush's 2000 campaign.

''There is something going on there, and I tell you, if we don't pay attention . . . we're making a big mistake,'' says Tom Rath, a Republican strategist and Bush adviser in New Hampshire.
…
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030908/5477666s.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=103020