Clark's appeal.... what is it? WHY is it?

[wyldwolf]

How many of us Clark supporters are supporting him because we feel he is the best candidate? Are some of us for him because he (appears to) have the best credentials to beat Bush?

That is the question the was turning in my mind while working a Democratic party booth at a North Atlanta festival yesterday.

Being a moderate Democrat, Clark's appeal to me is both his ideas and his whip Bush potential. But for others?

The festival attracted a lot of people of various lifestyles. I don't want to offend anyone here with labels but the people in attendance ran the gamut - people I consider hippies, preppies, goths, yuppies, indies, etc.

As they came to the booth and engaged in conversation with us, most defined themselves as Clark people. Many surprised me by saying they had been for Kucinich but switched to Clark.

From Kucinich to Clark? That is BIG leap in percieved ideology.

So, my question, and in light of the newest poll that has Clark as the frontrunner (at least for the moment):

Clark appeal or best shot at beating Bush?

[Kahuna]

1. I believe he's in it to right some wrongs....

visited on the citizenry by bushco. I don't believe he's in it for his ego. I believe he's more than able to accomplish his vision and goals.

[Racenut20]

2. NASCAR Daddies

If he gets this vote he can beat BusHoover.

[Skwmom]

3. Both

Ability to beat Bush is the number one issue for me. The fact that I believe Clark is also the best candidate makes me very happy to support Clark.

[Skwmom]

4. Plus I think Clark is the "real deal"

He's not a candidate with a "manufactured" image. Unfortunatley, I've now realized that a "manufactured image" which has no basis in fact appeals to both Repubs and Democrats.

[LeahMira]

5. Kucinich to Clark?

That IS a leap!

Still, a friend who is very conservative (not ultra, ultra right, but generally conservative) voted for Nader in the last election. People sometimes focus on one or two issues that are especially important to them and sort of ignore the total picture.

You said that in addition to his whip Bush potential, you like Clark's ideas, so I wonder which of his ideas you like and why you feel that the other Democratic candidates sort of fall short in those areas or maybe haven't addressed those areas to your satisfaction.

Quite honestly, my main problem with Clark is that he is career military and I don't know if anyone can step away from the military mindset after all those years. I suppose it's possible, but it would take quite an exceptional individual, IMO, to root out all of that entirely from your outlook and conditioned responses.

But you tell me, and the rest of us, why Clark's ideas appeal to YOU.

Thanks!

[Donna Zen]

6. A pragmatic approach:

First let me say that while I knew that Clinton was more conservative than myself, I also knew that many issues I care about very deeply, reproductive freedom, education, the social safety net, civil rights, the environment etc. would at least have someone supporting them in the White House. I believe the current candidates all have voiced a message that differs from the GOP in significant ways. Yes, even Lieberman...check his record.

My reasons inorder of importance:

• Once in the White House, must be able to govern which means an alliance of support from both sides of the aisle. Without this we are headed for Clinton Wars Redux and I don't relish working my butt off to get beaten in victory.

• Progressive-liberal on social issues with the addition of Constitutional Legitimacy (he is the only candidate talking about this.)

• Ability to increase support for the Democratic party and break the reichwing stranglehold on stero-typing liberalism. Currently, we know our ideas are best suited to the average American's needs, but the message is blocked by strawdogs at the gate. Clark can push a liberal agenda and America would be too blinded by the stars to even notice. Ah_a thing of beauty. That btw, is the only reason I look to his stars...and while some may call it "electability" I like to think of it as ending the long Democratic nightmare.

• A strong multilateral approach to foreign policy which moves us away from WWIII and toward a more constructive set of interwoven safeguards of peace. Ironic...I know, but Cincinnatus none the less.

• The ONLY candidate in the race that can stop the Pentagon money grab, and with 52% of pie, that's where any Democratic President will have to look for the funds to run a positive show.
Which brings me back to the ability to govern, and therefore, my last word.

[union_maid]

8. I guess I'm a Donna Zen dittohead

I agree with all the statements in this thread and Donna Zen lays out what I think, only she puts it better. I just have one thing to add - the electoral college. It's solely and entirely my opinion, but I think that Clark will win the blue states, and might or might not win them as decisively as, say, Dean, but I think he can get a majority in more some of the red states too. In other words, in a very close race, I think that Clark's popular majority might put him in the White House, where as we've seen, that doesn't always happen.

[The Lone Liberal]

7. For me it is very simple, Clark can win.

Clark will trump the only thing Bush has going, which is his phony persona of being a warrior.

Think of this, Rove wanted very badly to use Bush in that flight suit landing that jet on a carrier ( I know he didn’t do that, you know he didn’t do that, but the folks think he did land that plane.) with the real deal like Clark, Rove will not have the nerve to try that ploy.

Now to speak for my progressive, pragmatic feelings. Clark talks about things that mean something to me. So do many of the other candidates, but, like McGovern before them they have little chance of standing up under the onslaught that will be rained down on us if they are nominated.

We must win this time or we will not win for a long time. Clark has the better chance to do that for us.

[devinsgram]

9. In a debate

he probably would make Bush cry and show the American public how much of an idiot he really is. With the intelligence Clark has and his way of delivering his point of view, it just makes me giddy thinking of him on stage with Bush. I can see Bush now, his face getting all twisted and red as finally he sits down on the stage yelling at Clark "Get out of my sandbox I don't want to play anymore. Where's my mommy!" Just like any other rich, spoiled kid.

Always remember, WE MUST KEEP OUR EYE ON THE PRIZE.

[ComerPerro]

10. I have spoken out against Clark threads, but I must get this out:

If Clark gets the nomination, I will support him and I hope he beats the shit out of Bush. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see Bush/Rove's forced militarism being thrown in their faces. I think the Bush administration has created a climate in which many believe military experience is a must for the position of President. How great would it be, therefore, to have someone like Clark come in and expose Bush as the fraud he is?

[izzie]

11. I really do not care as long as Bush is gone.

I would like to see someone that is a little more to the Left than Clinton. I never liked Nafta, but I would vote for any on the ticket. My beliefs are really in this party. Nadar hits it right on head but most people are not that far Left.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Here's My Take

Who's better to put forward a critique of Bushco's failed foreign and defense policies than a a four star general?


If I want a critique of a movie I'll look to Ebert and Roper not some Joe off the street.....


Also, Wes Clark strikes me as a fundamentally decent and gentle man....


Those are reasons enough are to support him...

[opihimoimoi]

13. The man has Credibility and Respect, more than enough for me.

The fact he is a war vet, Rhoades Scholar, 4 star Gen, Rt'd, etc, puts him in Deans Class, relatively speaking.

The Pubs fear Kerry, Dean, Clark the most. A combo of the 3 would produce a winner ticket and the Pubs know/fear it

[zeemike]

14. I’ll make this prediction now

And print out this page and eat it if I am wrong
If Clark is the candidate Bush will win in a “close” election.
And this is because of the same reason that Demos lost in 02,low voter turn out. It will be a choice between Bush And Bush light.

[diamondsoul]

15. Kucinich to Clark is not really a big leap,

as much as some would think, believe it or not. Both men have very similar views, although Clark I think is going to be more focused on the budget as a central point than Kucinich has been so far. Both have pretty good notions about fixing the messes Bush has made without dragging more and more military might into it.

Myself I'm sticking with Kucinich, but since he's declared Clark IS my second choice. The only real and serious difference between the two is just what Kucinich himself said to Will- "Why would we want someone from the Pentagon in the White House?"

Now Kucinich's view is that anyone who has been trained in the military is just that much more likely to use military force, and I think there IS some truth to that. That's not a slam of Clark, just an observation of my own. Of all the military people and Officers I've met over time, I personally thinkg General Clark is possibly the least likely of them to use military force without a well-thought out reason and plan, BUT I still believe he would do it faster than Kucinich would and, right now, I don't want that.

I'm going to say what I said on the Kucinich volunteer board, Americans, and the citizens of a few other countries as well, seem to have gotten the notion that terrorism is defined by the individuals carrying out the acts. It isn't. There are millions of terrorists all over the globe, and they are all the same with one exception- the REASON for their hatred and violence. It doesn't matter who the individual is, unless you address the cause of their hatred, anger and the beleif that terrorism will make their point, you will lose against "terrorism". It cannot be fought with military strength, despite what Bush and his cabal would have us think.

Terrorism is not an action, it's a REaction, and in the case of the United States, it's a reaction to the continued opression of the poorest of the poor, sickest of the sick, and weakest of the weak. It's a constant ignoring of human rights violations and the tacit condoning of the same combined with hypocritical foreign policies. One country commits heinous atrocities against its citizens and America continues to trade with them and give them a free pass, yet Saddam Hussein get attacked without ever having directly threatened the United States.

Now having said all that, let me clarify one thing. I respect and admire General Clark, and have said repeatedly that he's one of a rare breed in the military Officer Corps, the kind of commander who thinks of his men and women above all else. ONLY when the needs of the country to be protected do the men and women in his command come second. Knowing that about him, I can't say his decision to use military force would be necessarily "wrong" or "bad", I would just prefer to have a President even less likely to make that call than he would be.

I've strayed from my point quite a bit, and I apologize. It disturbs me to see people saying that Clark and Kucinich are so different when I know they really aren't. Clark believes in military force as a last resort only, as does Kucinich. Clark believes in Universal Healthcare, as does Kucinich. Clark believes we need to cut the Pentagon budget, as does Kucinich.

Clark believes we need to get the UN into Iraq and withdraw as many American troops as possible, Kucinich wants us comepletely out of there. The reason for the discrepancy there is just that I don't think General Clark has realized that there won't ever be peace and stability in Iraq with American troops still on the ground there, Kucinich has realized that. This is where that fundamental difference between a military man and a non-military man comes into play. The military man has to believe that his forces, his troops can get the job done, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to giving any orders. Instead of accepting that in this instance the military is NOT going to get the job done, he sees the situation as a "failure". Well it IS a failure, but not on the heads of the soldiers. General Clark is not going to accept that. That's why I can't switch sides.