NYT: Dean And Clark Confront Electability

[DrFunkenstein]

DURHAM, N.H., Oct. 29 — Wesley K. Clark has a history of dalliances with the Republican Party. Caught up in conflicting statements on issues, he has endured what even his supporters describe as a rough first few weeks as a Democratic presidential candidate. Indeed, his stands on many issues are mysteries even to the Democrats who rushed to Little Rock, Ark., his hometown, to sign on with his campaign.

But General Clark's advisers, including former close aides to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, dismiss any concern over those factors, arguing that he brings a different kind of appeal to the primaries. They say his military record and what they describe as his compelling presence make him the strongest candidate the party can put up against President Bush.

In contrast, Howard Dean has based his candidacy not on electability but on his advocacy of Democratic Party values, an approach that has invigorated dispirited Democrats and drawn thousands of young voters into politics. Yet several Democratic strategists say Dr. Dean may be knocking up against a ceiling here and in Iowa, another early-contest state, precisely because of recurrent questions about his viability as a general-election candidate.

Those two elements — some Democrats' intrigue with a politically untested former military leader who holds largely unknown views, and Dr. Dean's struggle with questions about his strength against Mr. Bush — have combined to raise a central question in the battle for the Democratic nomination: What would Democrats be willing to sacrifice for a candidate who convinced them that he could beat the president?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/politics/campaigns/30ELEC.html

<>

<>

I don't know who's over there, but whoever it is sure pissed them off!

[La_Serpiente]

1. I think

he is pointing to Washington.

[bluestateguy]

2. "electability": I don't know what that word means anymore

Before the media whores tell me who is and is not "electable" (and I literally do not know what that word means anymore), let's hold a couple of actual primaries. Primaries! Remember those? When people actually voted!

[w4rma]

3. I would be voting in the 53% who prefer electability.

…
Polling in early-contest states suggests that there is currency for the view that Democrats are aching for a winner. For instance, a survey taken earlier this month by Stanley Greenberg, a Democrat not aligned with any candidate, found that when asked what they preferred in their nominee, Democratic voters in New Hampshire chose electability over ideology by 53 percent to 40 percent.
…

[Bandit]

10. You want electability over core values vote for Bush*

You obviously don't care about what makes up a Democrat only about winning. You sound just like a Republican.

[onebigbadwulf]

4. Eleca what?

I'm sorry when the BIGGEST unions in america back a candidate...

when record numbers of first-time voters register for one candidate...

when millions of people give money to one candidate...

when 74% of independents disapprove of the current president...

I wonder, what exactly am I missing that makes a candidate with the above qualities... UNELECTABLE?

A jar of mayonaise with the above qualities would beat bush.

[Kool Kitty]

5. Listen, a jar of mayonnaise WITHOUT

those qualities could beat Bush.

[CWebster]

12. This is a ploy

regardless of what the candidates do,say or achieve the media controls it by constantly sending out "unelectible, questionable, no one breaking from the pack" memes.

[neuvocat]

6. More spin, truly more spin.

"Electability" is a term getting so overloaded that the people who use it the most understand it the least.

[Cheesehead]

8. The "Electable Democrat" is a straw man -

a figment of the collective imagination that takes the most generic and uncontroversial stance on every issue, and is thus theoretically acceptable to the most voters. There is no real life analog to this fantasy, nor should there be. The candidate that prevails in the primaries and convention will not be a generic everyman, but the one who inspires the most passion in the electorate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Imagine, if you will, the Rove/Atwater campaign ahead

and what the potential landmines are for each candidate.
Polls right now before an election campaign are close to meaningless sans the environment of the actual dynamic.

[dave29]

9. We can't be scared of Rove

or play on his terms.

Period

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. Not scared- It's smart to know what each candidate's achilles heel is.

and I believe Dean is, head to toe, one giant achilles heel. I don't know enough about Clark, but I'll bet a lot of his records are sealed too.

[CWebster]

13. well, then you have an agenda

and it is in conflict with the facts.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. O.K. why is Kerry "unelectable"?

[WilliamPitt]

18. Because he is part of the PNAC/BFEE Master Plan To Destroy Everything

as part of the bluepint he and Mueller drew up while playing hockey together in high school. Or so I am told.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. No no. It's much simpler than that

he's an elitist snob who's out of touch with the grassroots. Or so I am told.

[CWebster]

14. So....where's Kerry in this equasion anyway

Or doesn't he even rate consideration on the electibility scale?

[AP]

15. Adam Nagourney wrote this piece, by the way.

[Jacobin]

16. As if GeorgeFuckingBush were "electable"

I mean, WTF. Smirk is a goddamned illiterate moron!!

and they are questioning Dean and Clark?

Give me a fucking break. Fucking NYT PNACing dildo headed dumbass media whores

[AP]

20. To win, the Dem will have to be twice as good as Bush...

...not just marginally better. There's a point spread Democrats have to beat, and it's, like a couple hundred thousand popular votes, 300,000 disenfranchised black votes, 45 electoral votes (FL) and one supreme court judge's vote.