On Dean, Clark, and pragmatism

[Stuckinthebush]

For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a Dean supporter. I have his stickers on my car, and I have followed his campaing for many months now. I like the guy - he speaks to me. He was the first to tap into my anger, disgust, and hope for a new beginning in this country. For this, I rewarded him with my early support.

That being said - A thread by Radfringe in GD prompted some thinking. There are many different poll numbers, but I would imagine that we have a solid 40% to 45% of the voters who will vote with the Dems no matter who the candidate. 50+% of voters voted for Gore in an election with the largest number of total voters ever. Only about 5% of those individuals may think that Bush is now a great guy and they want to vote for him. Of course, they may think that Bush is awful. Our job is to present a candidate that is a striking alternative to Bush to ensure we get this 5% and a little more. We need electoral votes, so we need to appeal to those in the Southwest and Midwest. This Southerner says to forget the South at this time and focus on the other areas. Florida may be in play, but with Jeb in office, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

So, who will appeal to this middle 5 to 10 percent? Dean or Clark - or both? I only include these two because at this time, it looks like they will be the ones who stand a chance in the nominations. I would bend over backward to get any of the other candidates elected (even Joe), but the signs are pointing to Dean and Clark right now.

This middle 5 to 10 percent are in one of two camps - strong independents and disengaged voters. The independents think they are independent minded, however, the media affects their vote by how it plays the candidates. Similarly, the disengaged voters are the voters who walk into the booth on election day and basically flip a coin. Who do they want to drink a beer with? That guy should be president! I know...idiocy - but they vote.

Dean appeals to the base. He is strong and he has delieved a clear message as to his differences with GW. When all is said and done, 99% of the base will rally around Dean. He can even get the left leaning moderates. They want anyone but Bush right now. He will have no problem with this group. But can he get the middle 5 to 10? Will the media crucify Dean like they did to Gore? It has begun already - he is angry, he is a draft dodger, he flip flops. This pisses me off, but it is reality. This middle 5 to 10 is very influenced by media caricatures.

Clark, on the other hand, is not as easy to put in a bad light for this 5 to 10. Sure, they can spin some nasty stuff about him that will make the base shudder, but the base will vote for the Dem whoever he or she is. The middle 5 to 10 may be more comfortable with a Clark candidacy than a Dean at this time in history because of his military background. If Clark hooks up with Dean, then the Dean supporters will come on board and we have the best of both worlds.

I did not place this thread up here to start a flame war, so please refrain from such. This Dean supporter (and I am a big Dean supporter) is very conflicted now, and is moving towards pragmatism.

Measured, non-flaming thoughts would be appreciated.

[ablbodyed]

1. Well reasoned....

I like both Dean and Clark, but could enthusiastically support all but Lieberman, though I would vote for him.
The south is effectively out of play, the recent elections (Louisana not withstanding )show we'll never win there.
We have to appeal to moderate Republicans, and there are enough of them to make a difference: people I know, LONG-time R's, mostly women, are very upset at Bush. I'm not saying we need to dilute our message to appeal to them, but they're available to our candidate.
now whether the thugs let us take over, even IF we win is another story.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Thoughtful, realistic assessment. Clark could be the one.

I posted a similar musing earlier in the week - after watching Clark eviscerate the Foxnews waterboy.

I have been a big John Edwards fan. Also like Kerry. But Clark is now tied for number one with me because of electability.

Clark has experience, he's great on the issues, and he has a personal magnetism that I feel would not only unite our party, but perhaps the country.

Personal appeal is critical with the American electorate. I hope Clark continues to show the leadership and likeability we've seen so far.

He could be the one.

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. interesting post

and I guess I don't need to disclose that I'm a Clark supporter.

A while ago, a former Deanie who changed over to supporting Clark, gave this as an explanation:

"Dean makes me angry about the present, Clark gives me hope for the future."

I sure wish I could remember who said it, so I could give credit where credit is due, but it has stuck in my head as I listen to Dean supporters explain why they support him.

I AM angry about the present, but I feel the Clark has offered the greatest hope, and he has put forward specific plans for what he will do for our country, both domestically and internationally. I agree with you that he will be able to attract many of those fence-sitters. Many of these middle-of-the-roaders don't really like bush, but won't vote for someone who they feel doesn't have the experience and guts to protect our country.

[vi5]

4. Wow.....I wish I knew which DUer said that....

That really sums up a lot of feelings I have.

[Rowdyboy]

75. That line was a quote I posted....

but I don't remember where it originated...Sorry

[BJ]

5. If my guy doesn't have enough support to remain viable, I'm w/Dean

I fully intend on sticking with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to the very end. However, if at my caucus meeting Kucinich doesn't have enough support in the precinct to have his own delegated to the county convention I'm throwing in with Dean.

As for the rest: I could support Kerry (through I don't think he can win); Gephardt (but he's p*ssing me off with his continued attacks on Dean and not Bush);Moseley Braun, definately; John...who?; Sharpton, remember Tawana Brawley; Clark, but I gotta hold my nose; Lieberman, forget it, I've never voted for a Republican and I don't intend on starting now.

[Catch22Dem]

8. If you REALLY think Lieberman is a Repuke

You should look at the man's entire career from start to finish. I know Joe gets a lot of shit at DU, hell I dish it out plenty, for his stance on Iraq, but he's not a bad dude. But, what you're saying is you'd prefer Bush over Lieberman, and I just can't believe that.

ON EDIT: I can't believe I'm doing this, and I know there are plenty of other votes out there to counter these, but here are some of the things Joe has voted for/against

• FOR - Passing civil rights bill over Bush veto (Senate Vote 304) 1990


• FOR - Halting production of B-2 stealth bomber at 13 planes (Senate Vote 272) 1990


• AGAINST - Requiring parental notice for minors' abortions (Senate Vote 266) 1991


• FOR - Waiting period for handgun purchases (Senate Vote 115) 1991


• FOR - Tie China's most-favored trade status to human-rights progress (Senate Vote 142) 1991


• AGAINST - Confirming Clarence Thomas to Supreme Court (Senate Vote 220) 1991


• FOR - Overriding family and medical leave veto (Senate Vote 232) 1992


• AGAINST - Limiting subpoena of Packwood diaries to ethics related entries (Senate Vote 347) 1993


• FOR - Safeguarding access to abortion clinics (Senate Vote 112) 1994


• AGAINST - Exempting small businesses from minimum wage increase (Senate Vote 183) 1996


• FOR - Prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation (Senate Vote 281) 1996


• FOR - Approving chemical weapons ban (Senate Vote 51) 1997


• FOR - Dismissing impeachment charges against President Clinton (Senate Vote 4) 1999


• AGAINST - Removing President Clinton (both articles) (Senate Vote 17,18) 1999

Ok, that's as far as I'm going to go with it, but it's CLEAR you're not voting for a republican. Just think before you throw your vote away.

[BJ]

13. I have studied Lieberman's career & I'd NEVER vote for Bush.

I'd rather throw my vote away on a third-party candidate than vote for Joe Lieberman. He's nothing more than an elephant in a donkey suit.

As a Democrat he's more conservative than the Republican he defeated in 1988,Lowell Weicker, with the aid of fellow Yale alumus William F. Buckley.

Lieberman's also enthusiastically supported pResident Bush on the Iraqi invasion and the Patriot Act. In fact as early as 1995 Lieberman supported federal legislation giving police the right to conduct "shot-term warrentless wire-taps."

Furthermore, Lieberman's continually blocked efforts to force comapnies report stock options as expenses. (-snip-)In 1993, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the body responsible for setting accounting standards in the U.S., attempted to fix stock option accounting. The proposal required stock options to be valued, and that value recorded as an operating expense over the period of time that the options vested. A wide constituency of business interests opposed this. In support of these business interests, Senator Joseph Liebermann (D-Conn.) introduced and obtained support for the “Equity Expansion Act of 1993”. This was the first time that Congress intervened in a purely accounting matter. Lieberman’s act negated the FASB’s proposal for all public companies. In 1994, Lieberman continued the assault with the “Accounting Standards Reform Act of 1994”, which would have required the SEC to review and approve all new accounting standards. The 1994 legislation effectively would have removed the FASB’s authority. In response, the FASB changed its position to the rules that now exist. FASB folded, and said so. According to John Foster, a board member, “We know this isn’t the right answer, but the debate has been so divisive, we need to bring closure to this item.”Link.

"...he's not a bad dude"? Please.

[Catch22Dem]

15. I'm sorry, but I still think you're wrong

As far as I'm concerned, if you throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate, you ARE voting for Bush. There is no way, not on any planet in any universe, that Joe Lieberman is worse than Bush.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[AmericanDem]

6. You said it best when...

you mentioned Clark appealing more to the other 5%-10%. My opinion is that many folks that are now independant and even republican would feel very secure in backing Clark. You mentioned his military experience but I think many would avoid Dean for what they percieve as having too strong a liberal following and being perhaps to wrapped up in 1 party to consider their needs.

Clark has said from the begining that he wants everyone included and wants to bring America back to the place we belong. Dean on the other hand has stated only things that reflect bringing the Democratic people together.

[NNN0LHI]

7. The Repulicans are pragmatists. That Arnold is the CA governor proves that

Pragmatism is what wins elections. Not idealism. Great post.

Don

[BJ]

16. Wha!?...............................................

Of course, you're right. The election of Arnold Schwarzenegger has little to do with idology or idealism and everything to do with manipulation of maudlin symbolism and corporationism.

He was elected in part because Californians, like the rest of us, are shackled to our automobiles. His election was a reputiation of two unpopular car oriented measures enacted under Gray Davis:an increase in vehicle taxes and allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver's lincenses.

Now Schwarenegger's biggest goal, besides "balancing the Kaly-vorh-nyh budge-it," is the total deregulation of the state's electricity industry.

That's not pragmatism. That's cynical political manipulation to advance the corporationist grip on this country.

[NNN0LHI]

18. They voted for a guy who in their eyes advocates killing babies...

...because he is pro-choice to get him elected because they knew thats the only way they could win CA. That my friend is pragmatism any way you look at it, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.

Don

[BJ]

38. Whom do you mean by "They"?

The Repugs ran Aww-no'd because he's pro-choice? That dog don't hunt, my friend.

There are plenty of true-belivin', Bible-thumpin', snakehandlin' "Christians" who feel betrayed by the California Repug machine and Aww-no'd.

The pro-dereg, big business wing of the Repug Party, the real controlling interest of the GOP, backed Aww-no'd.

Gov.-elect Schwarzenegger Should Come Clean About Ken Lay Meeting Or Face Inquiry, Group Says
Energy Deregulation Agenda Criticized
Santa Monica, CA -- Governor-elect Schwarzenegger must explain the substance of his private May 2001 meeting with Enron chief Ken Lay, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) wrote in a letter to Schwarzenegger today. Read the letter.
Link to Consumer Watchdog webpage.

The issues, as I stated above, that tipped the balance in favor of Schwarzenegger, vehicle tax increase and driver's licenses for illegal aliens, were blatant appeals to self-interst, greed, xenophobia and racism.

[NNN0LHI]

52. "They" are the Republicans in CA. that voted for him.

Check back on post #7 and you can see who I was talking about again if you may have forgotten. I never said they voted for him because of his pro-abortion stance. They voted for him in spite of it.

Don

[BJ]

63. That doesn't prove "pragmatism"

It does point to tight party discipline. If California's Democrats have of displayed the same tight discipline, Gray Davis might still be governor.

The day after that "abortion" called a recall election the LA Times said:Dissatisfied Democrats showed their displeasure with Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday, with about a quarter each breaking ranks to vote for the recall and for a Republican candidate to replace him, according to a Times exit poll.

Despite the governor's efforts to rally Democrats to his side, a quarter of liberals and at least 3 in 10 moderate Democrats voted "yes" on the recall, according to the survey of voters.
(-snip-)

So the Repugs didn't elect Aww-no'd. Democrats did. It just means that the Bible-thumpin' snakehandlers will swallow what little idealism they possess in the hopes of advancing their agenda at a later date. I guess, maybe, it could be called pragmatism, I call it opportunism.

[Tatiana]

76. Sorry, I agree with Don.

I have idiot cousins in Oakland and Corona who are Christians and they voted for Arnold. When I asked them why they didn't vote for the real conservative in the race, they told me they were voting for Arnold because he would win.

Do Californians like Arnold's politics? He really doesn't have any. Like Bush, Arnold's got handlers and advisors to tell him what to do. People voted for Arnold because they wanted to win, and they wanted to win so bad that they ignored the candidate that represented their own conservative values.

That's pragmatism.

[calimary]

131. I agree with Don, too. He makes a good point.

Out here, it's been proven repeatedly in the recent past that California will not go for conservative leadership. The ONLY way the rethugs could win, and they KNEW this, was to put forward a mellower, "kinder, gentler" rethug. They tried with that pathetic dork Bill Simon. They tried, in L.A. with Steve Soboroff. Flat-out conservatives don't get many votes here because so few of the electorate really is flat-out conservative. So they held their nose if they were strict idealogues and voted for Arnold, even with his "flaws." Because to them, ANY rethug is better than no rethug. That's also why a lot of Dems turned on the party and went for him, too. I actually heard people say they could more or less live with Arnold because "well, at least he's pro-choice."

[meti57b]

9. I completely agree with you.

Is there any evidence that either Clark or Dean would accept the vice-presidential nomination?

[Stuckinthebush]

10. I think so...

I think both are comfortable with each other, and they understand that it may take both of them to win.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clark choose Dean or Dean, Clark.

[Donna Zen]

11. The sweet spot

I just posted about this phenomina is the thread about the latest Gallop polls. I will repost here but first I would like to share this snip from "The Two Percent Solution" a book that takes a hard look at where we are today:

At the presidential and statewide levels, today's parity also breeds a maniacal focus on "swing" voters, that narrow universe of uncommitted citizens who determine American elections.... those groups, and their brethren in each party's coalition, leave things deadlocked. The people left over decide who wins. Campaigns therefore obsess over them: Who are they? How can we move them? What can we say that will attract them to our candidacy? " In the last thirty days of a campaign you're fighting for the same voters," said Bob Kerrey...Largely undecided, non-ideological suburban white folks who are concerned about crime and Social Security.

I would add natiional security to that mix.

My other post:

Over on the Clark blog there is someone whose professional career includes crunching poll numbers. He has pointed out something that consistently is reflected in the ever fluctuating numbers. The undecided voters change their position to "bush" vs Dean. IOW, there is a polarization occurring regarding Gov. Dean that moves his head to head bush stats to a weaker showing than Kerry or Clark. In this latest poll the same thing occurs, although only by one point. With the media hammering the meme: Dean=angry liberal, this may be a difficult perception to overcome.

That middle percentage of voters is known as the "sweet spot" among the pros. With the country divided as it is, it is what we are playing for regardless of the arguments at DU. Who can win the sweet spot may seem to be of no consequence to those of us who run threads into the hundreds hammering out differences that will matter not when one considers the differences that would actual be in play during a Democratic presidency vs a second round of the chimp. An example: the energy bill....all of the Democratic candidates, even liberman, would push for a bill that is much more people friendly as opposed to the current gas-oil-polluter give away. The same can be said of trade, the environment, education, women's rights, civil rights, etc. After all, any Democratic president will be relying on many of the same advisors, just as they are now.

But it is the sweet spot that does matter if you are seriously sick to death of what is happening now. So here is the choice we face, we can start voting smart, or we can continue to bash and trash at the primary level with a message sure to turn off the non-DUers who would love to crossover to vote with you, but will not do so if they are polarized and marginalized.

[Renew Deal]

12. I like your thought process and I agree.

Putting the two campaigns together would make everybody happy (provided no future nastiness) and gives us a good shot at winning. I would prefer the Clark\Dean ticket more than the other way around. Clark has more to offer. He has a better background, experience, education, and just knowledge. He is already a respected statesman. Clark has already had Commander in Chief in his title. Dean is a good fit for VP. He knows some policy. I think he could be a good fit for the leader of the senate.

Clark matches up better vs. Bush than Dean does. I don't think Dean would be as good against Bush because Dean's personality is shakeable. Bush is still likeable to people. Clark can go up there with the facts and slug it out in a way that he will still be liked in the end.

Dean vs. Cheney could be fun. We all want to see or guys just hammer Bush and Cheney, but unfortunatley decorum is still important. So I think Clark is the way to go.

[quaker bill]

14. No candidate is bulletproof

Clark has not drawn fire because his campaign hasn't gotten traction. If he gets traction and starts looking like the probable nominee the excrement will begin to fly in his direction.

No candidate, like it or not, is blemish free.

I do not buy the logic that one candidate is less vulnerable than another. Bush / Rove will attack any one of them with equal fury.

The more important question is how the candidate will respond. Dean has shown the willingness and character to take the fight right back to them.

Dean is not just running against the other democrats, he is already launched anti-Bush* ads in a number of places, including Texas. Is it any wonder that the right and their media familiars have been taking potshots at him?

Dean actually wants the fight. He is eager to mix it up with the right. Why else run anti-Bush* ads in Texas?

No one else on the Democratic side has engaged the enemy to this extent. I support Dean.

[mitchum]

17. Clark is shaping up as THE ABB candidate...

although he is not my candidate. I spend a lot of time talking to people who are not politically involved but still hate Bush/Republicans. Clark is the only candidate they are aware of (not, Kerry, Dean,etc..) I hear comments such as "That General sounds good" and "I like Clark" Take this for what it's worth.

[Hep]

19. You talk to some out of touch people

Who never read Time, Newsweek, or bother to watch any news at all?

Forgive me if I don't apply their ignorance to the populace.

[mitchum]

23. Well, many are musicians in the US's real college music town...

and being musicians they have a tendency toward solipsism. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, but that is the way it is. And unlike you Deanies, the only echo chambers in their daily lives are manufactured by Roland and Electro-Harmonix. Maybe you will have the pleasure of opening for said idiots sometime.

[Hep]

40. LOL!

They live in a magical land where nothing exists but them! Whatev. Make excuses all you want for them. But who knows, maybe we will get to open for them. It won't be the first headliner we show up.

[mitchum]

81. I am just describing and not "making excuses" for anyone

However it's my understanding that our most famous musical exports are throwing their support behind The Senator from Mass. (so apparently they are very well-informed)

[Hep]

83. Our most famous musical exports!

Oh well that's great, because all the smartest and coolest people use how famous a person is as the litmus test for whether they should be listened to. God knows I have to find out who Brittney is supporting.

I can't wait to see your next response. You gonna proclaim that all the hot people support Kerry, too?

[mitchum]

88. No, blm and I are the only two hot people supporting Kerry

And, of course, the only reason the other act was mentioned was as anecdotal evidence that not all of our artists are misinformed or naive.

[Hep]

93. LOL!

Were you under the impression that someone thought all of our artists are misinformed or naive? Or are you just practicing for your Statement of the Obvious certification?

[mitchum]

98. No, only those of you who confuse a Rockefeller Republican...

for a Democrat. I wasn't making a blanket condemnation (I know many intelligent artists in your area)

[Hep]

101. I'm not sure if you know what you're saying

from post to post anyway.

I also know many intelligent artists in my area. You'd be surprised at how many of them like Dean. We must be talking about different intelligent artists.

[mitchum]

104. Give it up, Skippy

[Hep]

111. What a thoughtful and eloquent post

You outdo yourself.

Keep that bar low, lou!

Damn, did I just make a Dinosaur Jr. Reference?

[mitchum]

145. Thanks!

[Renew Deal]

24. Actually, he is probably talking to republicans

and independants. I also have had people say that too me as well as I am a republican who voted for Bush, but... The original poster of this thread is on to something. Most people aren't paying attention, but when they do are they going to pick an percieved partisan lunatic or a person that has a lifetime of success, great experience, and a top education, who speaks calmly and knowingly?

[Hep]

41. Who knows?

They voted for Bush...

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. the later in the game that a voter decides, the more superficial

the reason. let's face it, if you have convictions, you know who you are voting for now. as time goes on, some people will be swayed by factors over which we have no control ie the economy and iraq....nothing we can really do to affect that.

in the end...those precious swing voters with few convictions go on image and last minute rhetoric.

who has the most attractive image and rhetoric? there is your answer.

[mitchum]

79. No, actually they are people who identify themselves as anti Repubs...

(which is always a good thing) They just aren't involved in politics as a vocation or an avocation. I wish it were different, but as long they pull the Dem lever in November I will be happy.

[Hep]

85. Blind hate is good enough for me, too

although I don't consider the argument "I don't know why, but I just hate Bush" to be very persuasive.

[Code_Name_D]

20. The “baloney sandwich” standard.

False Symmetry

For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a Dean supporter. I have his stickers on my car, and I have followed his campaing for many months now. I like the guy - he speaks to me. He was the first to tap into my anger, disgust, and hope for a new beginning in this country. For this, I rewarded him with my early support.

Ah yes, the tired “I am really one of you, but…” opening. This debating strategy is called “constructing false symmetry.” The author tries to build up his on credentials by announcing himself as being “one of you, so don’t attack me.”

I find these posts difficult to believe. Especially sense they seem to be quite popular among the Clark Kluckers.

The “baloney sandwich” standard.

So, who will appeal to this middle 5 to 10 percent? Dean or Clark - or both? I only include these two because at this time, it looks like they will be the ones who stand a chance in the nominations. I would bend over backward to get any of the other candidates elected (even Joe), but the signs are pointing to Dean and Clark right now.

I call this the baloney sandwich standard because the quality of the candidate simply doses not factor into this sort of thinking. The question is “who will the center vote for”, then try to build up your candidate to fit that standard. Clark may as well be a baloney sandwich, for he will be whatever the DLC focus group tells him to be.

It’s a failed policy, for the dems completely surrender to the GOP lie machine, and simply start lucking around the edges of the Republican loyalists, looking for the stragglers and doubters. The demns then try to appeal to whatever misconceptions the strangler has. Unfortunately, it is no more real than the GOP lie.

The McGovvern effect
Dean appeals to the base. He is strong and he has delieved a clear message as to his differences with GW. When all is said and done, 99% of the base will rally around Dean. He can even get the left leaning moderates. They want anyone but Bush right now. He will have no problem with this group. But can he get the middle 5 to 10? Will the media crucify Dean like they did to Gore? It has begun already - he is angry, he is a draft dodger, he flip flops. This pisses me off, but it is reality. This middle 5 to 10 is very influenced by media caricatures.

Clark, on the other hand, is not as easy to put in a bad light for this 5 to 10. Sure, they can spin some nasty stuff about him that will make the base shudder, but the base will vote for the Dem whoever he or she is. The middle 5 to 10 may be more comfortable with a Clark candidacy than a Dean at this time in history because of his military background. If Clark hooks up with Dean, then the Dean supporters will come on board and we have the best of both worlds

Ah yes, the old argument that Dean may be able to rally the party base, but will ultimately lose in the general election. This argument is used to justify a republican-light strategy that still serves the interests of the corporations before the needs of the public. Its success as a political strategy in the 90’s was questionable. But senses the 2000 election, it has be a complete and total failure. The problem with center mentality is the Dems often enjoy the same wrath as the Republicans.

And now with Bush in power, the public is increasingly being polarized into pro and anti Bush camps. The center is being forced to chose sides. But over and over and over again, the dems fail to present a manful alternative. And Clark is yet another example of republican light in liberal clothing. Every other speech, Clark exposes his pro PNAC position. Already, he has come out in favor of the war on terror, of the war in Iraq, the need for more tax cuts to rescue the economy, the need for more de-regulation for the industry, pre-emptive warfare, and the defends the likely hood of “collateral damage.” He then counts on his supporters to perform logical gymnastics who are still trying to argue that Clark is anti-war, and a true alternative to Bush. At this rate, when November comes around both Clark and Bush will be clowns in uniform, sharing more similarities than differences.

[ozone_man]

22. Great reply.

Let's try to define success in terms of a fight over the middle 5% or 10%. Such middle of the road, mediocre thinking. This is the time to stand up and take back the country, not time to try to weazel in on GWB's turf.

Whoever can wake up the average American and create awareness of what is going wrong with this country will win votes far in excess of a meazly 5% or 10%. Is there anyone out there with such a voice? I think so.

[AmericanDem]

30. I find the original poster...

to be honest and posting what he really believes. You on the other hand, I find to be what I see so often here, a Dean supporter very quick to bring out a buzzsaw against anyone that speaks anything but positive about Dean.

[Stuckinthebush]

32. Ease up, pal...

I am a Dean supporter. Would you like me to photograph my bumper sticker for you to prove it? Ask a number of Dean supporters here and they will tell you that it is true. You will find a post about a week ago where I detailed a conversation with a woman who yelled at me in my car --- she was yelling, "Where'd you get that Dean sticker?" I gave her one. Yes, I am such a Dean supporter than I have stickers in my glove box to give to people in Alabama who are desperate for a change.

Now that I have clarified my allegiance to Dean, I must say, it is sad that I had to do that. This post was not intended to bring flames. It was a post to discuss this Dean supporter's thought process at the moment. I do not have blind loyalty to any candidate because if they lose in the primary, what do I do with my saddness and anger? I refuse to vote for the guy who won? Frankly, that is foolish.

Yes, there is a middle group. We here are very, very uncommon. Yes, this group of around 5 to 10 percent are very swayed by media. Yes, Dean is being unfairly caricatured as an angry liberal. But, yes, this group of voters responds to that. It is a very legitimate question to ask if Dean or Clark has a better chance at capturing this middle. Infighting about my candidate against yours is going to ruin us all.

Yes, there are things I don't like about Clark, but if he gets the presidency, will he be better than Bush? Will he support the main-stream Democratic ideals? Will he ensure that Medicare is not blown to bits, Social Security is not raided, the deficit is reduced, the Republican special interest are herded out of the White House, and programs for the disadvantaged are maintained? Of course he will.

Clark may have a better chance at capturing the middle than Dean. That is all I'm saying as a Dean supporter - it doesn't make me any less of a supporter.

Lighten up.

[HFishbine]

36. Question

For what it's worth, I take you at your word about where you are coming from. But I have a question.

Your whole theory of why you think Clark may be better able to capture the middle seems to come down to who has the best chance of negative portrayal in the media. Is that correct? Am I missing anything? If this is so, do you think that this consideration (assuming you have the candidates evaluated correctly by that measure) is paramount? Do you think it will be, for those 5% to 10% you say are vital, the deciding factor? Do you think it will matter more than positions on the issues, political experience, governing experience, grassroots support or financial strength? Just some honest questions.

[Stuckinthebush]

45. Honest answers...

First, let me say that I am not wedded to this postulation that Clark is better than Dean with the middle, I merely present it as a possible factor to think about.

But, as for that middle, I do believe that it boils down to media portrayal. My sister is a good example of that middle. She doesn't want to think about it, nor does she care to think about it - she buys that the media is objective and that Dean is "angry". In fact we got into a heated discussion about Dean's "anger" the other day. It could seriously affect her decision. You know, Bush is such a nice guy! Bahhh!

The other part of that middle is best illustrated by my neighbor. He is a strong independent and likes to think that he thinks for himself. He believes that he can distill the truth from the media, yet he told me the other day (in regard to my bumper sticker) that Dean doesn't have a chance because he is so angry and so liberal. I asked him to identify what makes him so in both of those cases. My neighbor couldn't pinpoint any concrete examples, but he did concede that this is what he is hearing.

So, yes, this great middle is very susceptible to media influence. Given that...since Dean is taking the media hits and heat early on, will that allow a person like Clark to sneak in without too much media portrayal and be the candidate that the great middle can project their desires on?

[HFishbine]

57. Thanks

I appreciate the honest analysis (although I'm always skeptical of anecdotes). However, I take you point. The question then becomes, will the media play favorites -- not between Bush and the dem nominee, but between Dean and Clark?

I suppose that remains to be seen, but my gut feeling (about as valid as your anecdotes) is that the media is not going to be negative on Dean through the primaries, and then go easy on Clark if he should win the nomination. It's easy to see the negative slant against Dean because it is happening. Will we really be surprised if next summer we see the media going negative on Clark for his lack of governing experience? I won't.

[Stuckinthebush]

59. Oh, lord...whoever gets the nomination can expect hell

There will be a full frontal assault by the media on Clark or Dean.

My fear is that they have built up the momentum on Dean-bashing that it will be an uphill battle come August. But, if Clark gets the nomination, that heat really starts in earnest in the spring. Clark would have plenty of time to bat away the criticism, whereas Dean might be worn down.

[HFishbine]

62. On the other hand

the accusations against Dean by then could be tired, worn, and well refuted. His campaign will have had months and months of expereince in dealing with negative attacks. We have at least a glimpse of where the assualt on Dean will come from so his campaign has an advantage in at least knowing the enemy's position.

Fresh allegations against Clark, on the other hand, could knock him off stride and his campaign will not have been tested in responding to negative attacks.

[Stuckinthebush]

68. True and possible

Dean has been very good at deflecting the crap. We really don't know about how well Clark will handle it. He did kick ass on Fox the other day, so that bodes well.

[Code_Name_D]

94. I will not "lighten up." I will continue to call you on your position.

I will not "lighten up." I will in fact continue to call you on your nonsense.

I am a Dean supporter. Would you like me to photograph my bumper sticker for you to prove it? Ask a number of Dean supporters here and they will tell you that it is true. You will find a post about a week ago where I detailed a conversation with a woman who yelled at me in my car --- she was yelling, "Where'd you get that Dean sticker?" I gave her one. Yes, I am such a Dean supporter than I have stickers in my glove box to give to people in Alabama who are desperate for a change.

Really. Then why do I not believe you? It is because your most recent post is a direct contradiction to this claim. In THIS thread, you do not support Dean, but in fact support Clark. And your "question" is supported by the stander pro-Clark mem that Dean is a modern day McGovern while Clark will handily carry the "center." The ambiguity of your wording is a poor disguise for this position.

There may now be a Dean sticker on the bummer of your car. But if I am to believe what you have posted in THIS thread, the 4Dean may be joined, or even covered by a 4Clark sticker. So apparently your "support" is worth very little. Perhaps you should have more carefully considered "your" candidate and done your home work BEFORE you declared yourself.


Now that I have clarified my allegiance to Dean, I must say, it is sad that I had to do that. This post was not intended to bring flames. It was a post to discuss this Dean supporter's thought process at the moment. I do not have blind loyalty to any candidate because if they lose in the primary, what do I do with my saddness and anger? I refuse to vote for the guy who won? Frankly, that is foolish.

Is it? I might remind you that the primary season has yet to even start. And the Democratic nominee has yet to be selected. When people say, "not in hell will I ever vote for Clark" now is the time to weigh in that opinion.

Instead, we have democratic apologist DEMANDING that we vote for Clark, should he be the nominee, as if the nomination process has already been decided. And certainly if the opinion of the DLC is to mater here, Clark is that nominee. And the DLC has even gone so far as to actively and openly attacking Dean.

What is foolish, is the attitude to dismiss the "green vote." We have already seen two dramatic examples of voters no longer willing to vote for the "lesser of two evils." The 2002 elections, as well as California. Quite frankly, the Dems can no longer count on the assumption that the Republicans are so hated that they will be given a chance. But it is exactly this sentiment Clark supporters are demanding of the voters. And it is insanity to continue to the same strategy over and over again, expecting a different result. The Greens have already indorsed Dean, and condemned Clark. They did not bluff in 2000, and I do not think they are bluffing for 2004.

Plus, from what I have read of Clarks past and of his character, Clark is another Bush. Every day, Clark's platform looks more and more like Bush's. The same arguments used by the freepers to defend Bush are now being used by Clark supporters. This includes the McGovern mem which you just sited. If Clark is like Bush, than voting for Clark will get me the same result as voting for Bush. Faced with this reality, one is forced to vote with their feet, and wait for a true alternative to surface.

Yes, there is a middle group. We here are very, very uncommon. Yes, this group of around 5 to 10 percent are very swayed by media. Yes, Dean is being unfairly caricatured as an angry liberal. But, yes, this group of voters responds to that. It is a very legitimate question to ask if Dean or Clark has a better chance at capturing this middle. Infighting about my candidate against yours is going to ruin us all.

And your argument surrenders to the Republican lie. Rather than supporting Dean, to try and convince the people that he is not who the "liberal media" claim he is, chose to let the lie stand, and take the path of least resistance. Buy your own argument, we should support the one whom every one else supports. But how in the world can you make the argument that Clark is that person, before the primary process is even started? Or am I to believe that you believe the polls presented by the liberal biased media?

Yes, there are things I don't like about Clark, but if he gets the presidency, will he be better than Bush? Will he support the main-stream Democratic ideals? Will he ensure that Medicare is not blown to bits, Social Security is not raided, the deficit is reduced, the Republican special interest are herded out of the White House, and programs for the disadvantaged are maintained? Of course he will.

Will he? Or is that just an assumption on your part. Remember that Clinton beat Bush Sr. in 1992. Undoubtedly, he was a better president. And yet here we are, despite that victory. And if you were to make a closer investigation to the foundations of power under the neo-cons today, you will find many of the bricks bare Clitnion's signature. And not a single brick was cracked or chipped under Clitnion's watch.

In large extent, you are asking yourself the wrong questions. Questions that I am asking are, will Clark give ME the means to protect my own liberty?" Will Clark govern within the law? Will Clark be beholden to corporations and special interests? Will Clark prosecute the Republicans for the numerous federal and international laws that they have violated? I am forced to answer, no. And that being so, what Good is Clark? And why would he be better than Bush?

And yet even this position is at odds with your original argument.

Clark may have a better chance at capturing the middle than Dean.

If you are considering giving your support to Clark for this reason, than your other questions on weather Clark can do a better job than Bush are moot. You would in fact let the unknown masses define your candidate for you.

That is all I'm saying as a Dean supporter - it doesn't make me any less of a supporter.

Words have meaning. If you would wish to stand on your argument thus far presented in this thread, than your position of being a Dean supporter is undermined.

[Stuckinthebush]

102. You kind of need to lighten up...

You paint me as a turncoat to Dean - of course, however, you don't really believe that I am a Dean supporter that I am somehow a Clark supporter in disguise. This is all part of my evil little plan, I guess.

The questions I pose are legitimate. This has nothing to do with ideology - it has to do with pragmatism. I have not said that I will now vote for Clark because it is the pragmatic thing to do, I have simply put forward an argument for pragmatism. I don't have to be wedded to that argument to state it.

Yes, I do believe that any of the Democratic nominees would be much better than Bush and would support most if not all of the traditional Democratic platforms. I think that voting for a third party at such an incredibly unstable time is irresponsible. I will not, however, get into a Green bashing exchange. I like the Greens, but I will not leave the Democrats to make a statement. When my daughters are sent to Iraq because Bush has reinstated the draft, I won't feel very damn good about standing on my principles in the last election, now will I?

You mentioned that we are barely into the primary season. Why, yes we are! So take a breath and engage in reasoned discussions. Ultimately, we are all on the same side here - there is no need to take affront when various issues are posed. Pragmatism versus ideology is a legitimate issue that should be explored.

[Julien Sorel]

110. Some of Dean's supporter's are emblamatic of Dean himself.

Angry, astonishingly arrogant, and certain that they, and they alone, are the 'true' Democrats, and anyone who doesn't agree with their outlook is the enemy. And yet, these very same people are the ones who claim Dean is a uniter. Sometimes...


At any rate, whatever you end up deciding, you deserve full credit for keeping an open mind, and not becoming one with the Kool-aid swillers. There are a very few Deanites I have a lot of respect for; if you stay with Dean, you'll add to that number.

But for the record, I think, and have thought for some time, that your analysis is correct, and that Dean, because of his polarizing attitude, represents the best chance for the Republicans if things get shaky. I think the difference between Dean and Clark might only be a percent or two, but it could easily be enough to make the difference. And then, there are the polls showing that Dean has negative coattails to worry about, especially in the South. The last thing we need is a jackass in the White House with a jackass super-majority in the Senate.

[Hep]

112. So true

If Dean wins, Osama will be president by 2008. It's a fact.

[Code_Name_D]

113. Than why do you ignore my posts?

Thus far, I have sevral points about your branks of "pragmatisem." You have not addressed any of them.

Instead, you stand indignet that I have the nerve to call your on your "pro-Dean" credenchals. Let me clue you into something. I do not care about whom you claim to support. It is the argument in THIS post that I am trying to address. That is the nature of the "reasoned discussion" to which you claim to be here for.

Pragmatism versus ideology is a legitimate issue that should be explored.

Unfortuanly, you are exploring neather. You are in fact touding the pro-Clark mem that Dean can not win, becase he is too libiral. That is the politics of fear. That is the politic of a heard mentality. And is evdince that you have no faith in Dean, and his arguments. In truth, if you wish to stand by yoru comments, you will vote for whome ever they tell you to vote for.

[Stuckinthebush]

123. Who are "they" telling me to vote for?

The argument of pragmatism in this thread is constrained to the probable nomination of either Dean or Clark.

You see, it really is all academic for me. I am in Alabama. By the time our primary election gets rolling, the decision will have been made. My primary vote is always inconsequential.

I do believe that regardless of the debates on DU, regardless of the fighting between Dean and Clark folks, Clark and Kerry folks, Kucinich and Dean folks, etc., the end result at this point looks like it will either be Dean's or Clark's win. So, if I can make an academic argument about pragmatism when it comes to these two fine men, I might argue that Clark is better positioned to get the middle 5 to 10 percent.

You say that I haven't made the point about pragmatism vs. ideology. I thought I had, but I'll state it one more time. I believe Dean is the guy for me in terms of his stances on issues. He affirms the ideological side of me and many here at DU. Clark, on the other hand, may be the man to get the middle 5 to 10%. So, given that, would it be better to support Clark who may have a better chance of winning the whole thing? This move - by me and other Dean supporters - would be a pragmatic move.

So, what is your argument against or for this move?

[Code_Name_D]

137. My answer.

Establishing who has the greater chance of victory is not an academic exercise, but rather one of pandering to self fulfilling prophecy. It remind me of ancient trails being held by combat, rather than by argument or evidence.

The field of Democratic candidates officially contains 10 names. While personally, I have a strong problem with many of the candidates. All have something to contribute to the debates. And all ten have a right to run. Let me say this again, for I feel strongly that it bares repeating. Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton, all have a right to run for President of the United States of America. Many of you may have noticed by commentary against Clark and Kerry. But at no point have I ever demanded, suggested, hinted, or implied that they should stand down and drop out. Regardless of my opinions, I demand of the worst of them, no lest than I would have the best of them.

But this sentiment that we should go with the strongest candidate? That we should go with the candidate most likely to defend Bush, to defeat the neo-Cons? I see us not only forgetting who are true foe is, by attacking each other. But I see us forgetting who we are, selling away out past, our heritage, indeed our vary name as Americans, for the expedience for one single victory.

Already, the field has been culled to only include two candidates. The primary has not even started, and already, it is over for eight, rendering their campaigns to be little more than jokes. But are we truly wise enough to discard eight of ten, unseen and unnerved? Is this how little we regard their worth? To discard them like so much trash, without even ASKING weather they have the capacity of greatness in them?

I have met many a Kucinich supporter. And regardless of what you think of him, Kucinich is an honorable man. He deserves even the right to fail. But to have that, he must still have a chance of victory in the primary, and we all know this is not so, for the unspoken masses have already chosen. We may as well chose our leaders by crushed tea leaves. And it leaves us vulnerable to being manipulated by the GOP. One poll is all that it will take to crown a presumed front runner, and our gravitation too strongest takes over. I am lived with our weakness to let Karl Rove so easily pick our candidate for us.

Argue over policy. Argue over strategy. Argue over integrity. Debate policy. And through this prosses, the best man or woman will rise to the top. And that is what we are after, yes? The best candidate?

[Stuckinthebush]

138. OK

Thanks for your thoughts.

And, yes, Kucinich is an honorable man.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

21. I went to a meeting of Republicans and Dems against Bush and they

ALL like Clark and about half to 2 thirds liked Dean. They all said the perfect ticket is Clark/Dean. I think CLark is our best choice in the Pres spot. (Dean can take over 4 or 8 years later - he's younger!)

[hedda_foil]

28. In the interest of full disclosure ...

Was that, perhaps, a Clark meeting?

[Stuckinthebush]

33. This, too is a good point

Many traditional Republicans will vote for the Dem if they are not threatened by the Dem. The media may have set Dean up as a threat to this group (even though he is more like them than they will ever admit).

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I was a Dean supporter and still like him

I like that Dean is a fighter, God bless him for that. He was fighting when most of the other Dems were nuancing (that's how Kerry lost me). The Democrats need to nomeinate a fighter, we are in for a nasty fight. Honestly, the only Dems I think who have a shot at beating Bush are Clark, Dean, and Edwards, but Edwards is a weak third in my book. All have a capacity to to take it to Bush with some fire and sincerity. All are believable in the role of harsh critics of Bush. Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman had center stage between 2000 and 2002, and they came off as too complacent. It's hard for them to redeem themselves now.

Regarding Dean and Clark, a while back in another post I summed it up this way (this analogy probably works best if you are old enough to remember the 1968 campaign). Dean has the role of Eugene McCarthy, while Clark stands in for Bobby Kennedy. McCarthy spoke out first, with clarity and anger, which earned him tremendous loyalty and respect from anti war Democrats. When Kennedy entered the race many McCarthy supporters resented his intrusion. That was a real drama inside activist circles, but in truth, for the general electorate, there never was much doubt. Bobby Kennedy was the stronger candidate to take on Nixon, by far. This analogy is presented as shorthand for the difficult test of loyalty facing many of Dean's supporters. Obviously Dean isn't McCarthy, and Clark isn't Kennedy, it would be too much of a stretch to push the analogy further. But I do remember my conflicted loyalties back in 1968, and I came down on the side of Kennedy then, and I come down on the side of Clark now.

It wasn't a case of backing Humphrey, say, over McCarthy, for purely pragmatic reasons. Humphrey left me relatively indiferent while I really liked McCarthy. The truth is I liked both McCarthy and Kennedy a great deal then, and the same is true with Dean and Clark now.

That's the first point I guess I want to make. Lord knows there are those here who disagree with me, I've read their posts, but Clark inspires me, and I am a progressive Democrat. I am not anti military, which does help I realize. However I have organized against every Republican war in my lifetime. You could say I am highly supicious of the military, but I know we have to have one. Every once in a rare while I believe we have to use it. I broke with many leftists over Kosovo for example. I agree with Clark over the moral and political threat that ethnic cleansing presented there. Even more clear cut, we should have acted to prevent the slaughter in Rwanda. Clark speaks forcable about that. If we have to have a Commander in Chief, and we do, I think Clark will make a good one. More to the immediate point, Clark was warning about the Iraq mistake early in 2002. He wouldn't have gotten us into this mess and he is the man with the best experience to get us out of it. This is an incredibly important advantage Clark, and through him the Democratic Party, would have in a general election campaign against Bush. Dean has the right critique also of course, but not the personal experience to back it up.

On the domestic front, I love the notes Dean is hitting. I love his rhetoric in particular, and I do believe he means it. There are however statements from Dean's past as Gov of Vermont that are somewhat at odds with his stances now, and that will be used agaisnt him in the general election by the Republicans. Any Dem canidate will face that sort of attack for one thing or another, with Clark it will be over former positive things said about Republicans, and stupid slurs against him by some former military brass etc. We already know what that looks like and how it plays out. Clark is getting good at fielding those hits. Dean will be getting some vis a vis shifting stances around reregulation and the like, count on it.

Clark doesn't have a domestic policy past that is subject to "flip flop" attacks, because he spent his lifetime in the military. Odd as this sounds I know, a military life walks the walk. Affirmative action was practiced, health care was provided, personal greed was kept at bay with a maximum 12 to 1 pay discrepencie between a private's pay and that of a 4 Star General (compare that to the private sector). Clark was never beholden to any special interests in order to win any past elections either.

I know Clark starts out using the Clinton administration economic policy playbook, and I know it is somewhat out of date and needs progressive revision. I strongly disagree though with those who imply or state that Clark is the corporations guy. I think Clark is an intellectual populist. He has spent his life analyzing international geo political and military affairs, not domestic economic initiatives. On the surface to most, the Clinton years look a heck of a lot better than the Reagan/Bush or Bush II years. I am not surprised that Clark now uses that policy period as his base line starting point for his initial positions. But Clark gets angry about all the right inequities, they go against his personal and military "guradiian of his troops" values. I expect two things from a Clark Presidency: 1)genuine concern and compassion for the plight of average Americans, leading to increasingly progressive policy initiatves, and 2) No non sense full enforcement of worker, consurmer, small investor and environmental protections. Hence I honestly look forward to a Clark Presidency relavtive to domestic policies.

So that is my case, in abbreviated form, as to why a Clark Presidency will be something I would happily embrace, and not just as an alternative to a Bush Presidency. I will say the same for a Dean Presidency. So now back to the pragmatics, and that swing 5% to 10%. Clark's military career is a huge advantage with most moderate, centrist, and Independent voters. It is true that politicians can claim to be serving the public, and non currupt ones do of course, but the public always has a jaundiced eye about all politicians, with Washington insiders at the top of their suspect list. That is an advantage that a Gov like Dean has over a Senator like Kerry, but General trumps both, with Clark being instantly acknowledged to have spent a lifetime serving his country. Then of course there are all the current national security concerns, and the consistent national pollings of the American public over the last decade or more that show the public to inherently trust the Republicans over the Democrats regarding national security. Clark instantly demolishes that soft on defense charge that is thrown at Democrats. Regarding international affairs; Bush will say "I did such and such to protect America", Dean can say "I would have done such and such to protect America", Clark can say, "as NATO Supreme Commander I did such and such to protect America, and it worked". Big advantage Clark.

Clark had the fire in his belly to stand up to an "Oil Centric" Pentagon and advocate to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo at the risk of his career, he will stand up to Rowe and Bush on the campaign trail. His "smackdown" of Fox is a hint of things to come. I think Clark is a fighter. Geeze, Clark literally IS a fighter for heaven's sake. He will take it to the Republicans. And do not dismiss the importance of being able to be competitive in the South in a General Election. For anyone who looks at polls from a southern state now and sees Dean doing OK agaisnt Democratic opponenents, get real. It's a 9 person field and Dean can do "well" with a relatiovely small percentage of the vote of those Democratic activists who participate in primaries. That's not the same thing at all as doing well in a head to head agaisnt Bush.

We have to compete in the South EVEN if we do not have to actually WIN in the South. Clinton won some Southern states, so Bush spent real time and campaign resourses in the South in 2000 against Gore. Had the Republicans believed they could simply take the South for granted those resourses instead would have been poured into Michigan and Illinois, and New Mexico, and Ohio, and every swing state Gore won. Had they been free to ingnore the South in 2000, Bush would have walked away with the election. Clark will run much stronger than Dean in the South, he is from the South afterall. The South also respects veterens. Clark will carry his own state, had Gore done that Gore would be President now.

I know a number of Republicans who say they would consider voting for Clark, but no other Democrat. I am not unique in that experience. I know from my personal experience that many who rallied to Dean initially did so out of a sense of desperation that Bush has to be defeated in the next election. For that reason, Clark is my man.

[HFishbine]

43. You make an assumption

So now back to the pragmatics, and that swing 5% to 10%. Clark's military career is a huge advantage with most moderate, centrist, and Independent voters.

Thanks for the well-reasoned post. I'm not dismissing your other observations by focusing on one, but I think your conclusions are based largely on this assumption, so allow me to focus on your speculation that Clark has some appeal that Dean doesn't.

It's simply not being shown to be true.

According to the latest poll that examined independents and miliatry voters, Clark enjoys no advantage.

Military veterans and current members of the armed forces are no more likely than other Americans to support Clark, a retired U.S. Army general. Among this military subgroup, Bush receives 53 percent to Clark’s 36 percent. Furthermore, the military subgroup would vote strikingly similar to other Americans on all the vote questions.

Furthermore, among independents, Dean is favored by 16% while Clark garners 10%.

It may seem resonable to assume that a former general would have greater appeal to miliatry voters and independent voters, but that is simply not the case and one cannot build a case on assumptions that are demonstrably incorrect.

(source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103674,00.html)

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. That's intereesting data, agreed

but it is vague, and of course it is early. I found it interesting that Clark's support among independents was significantly higher after he first declared then during the recent polling period. What does it mean? It can be spun a number of ways, on the surface one might say when people got to know Clark they liked him less. I honestly don't see it that way though. I think the first figures reflect what Independents thought Clark represented as a candidate, and later figures reflect what some Independents came to fear Clark represents as a candidate.

I think Independents and moderate Republicans are paying less attention to the campaigns at this very early stage, than hard core Democrats are. We are the ones who need to decide now which candidate to promote in theprimaries. Republicans and Independents mostly won't tune in closely to what candidates are actually saying untill next Summer. I think the drop in Clark support among Independents is the result of the early hits he took after announcing, particularly the "character and integrity" smeers but also the "waffle on Iraq" flap. The smeers got much greater coverage than Clark himself got. Then the mainstream media moved on to pushing a mantra that Clark had completely fallen out of the running as a serious candidate. Then they ignored him. That is totally out of whack with the perceptions among Democratic activists, as is evidenced here at DU, where most everyone sees Clark still very much in the running, and many see it coming down to a two man race between Dean and Clark. The mainstream mantra is just now adjusting to the fact that Clark is still in the race, particularly as they now realize that his fund raising is on course.

It might be anecdotal, but almost everytime I talk to a moderate or Independent who actually gets a chance to see Clark speak in a format other than the 9 person debate sound bit stage auditions, they are seriously impressed by him.

[Demobrat]

26. This whole argument is based on the assumption

that people are impressed by military service. Some are. Some couldn't care less. Some are turned off by a guy who answers every question with "In the army.... Leave out the military aspect and what have you got? An empty suit with shiny silver medals.

[Renew Deal]

27. Doesn't Dean begin everything with: As governor of VT"?

He does because that's where his experience is. Edwards starts with the son of a mill worker line. All our candidates are different. THeir experiences are different. If Clark is elected president then he will say: As President...

[Demobrat]

34. That's the whole point. As Gov of Vermont Dean got

experience that is relevant to the things I care about, not to mention stuck his neck out for Dem principals, which ironically enough is now the reason he supposedly can't win, while Clark, who has done neither, can. Sorry, no. I'm sticking with the guy with the track record.

edit for typo

[Stuckinthebush]

35. Agreed...but I'm not talking about the base

The Dem base are the ones who are mostly concerned about the military's influence in politics. It is the 5-10% of the center. I would hazard a guess that this group is not anti-military. If anything, they would listen to a general in regard to defense sooner than a non-general. This effectively wipes away the GOP's "strong on defense" nonsense.

[Demobrat]

46. I would hazard a guess

that they care more about health care for their families than they do about foreign affairs. Dean didn't get those union endorsements because average working people are worried about terrorist attacks. He got them because people's lives are tough and they believe that he will make them better. Sure 9/11 shook people up, and W will exploit it to the hilt because it's all he's got, but people's day-to-day lives are taking precedence again. Which renders Clark irrelevant.

[HFishbine]

29. Interesting Analysis

If one accepts your well-resoned premises, then your theory that the dems need to capture a majority of the independent voters makes sense. But you leave objectivity behind when you begin to speculate on why Clark may best appeal to independents. He doesn't. Yes, yes, it's early, and yes, things could very well change, but the fact is that the most popular candidate among independents right now is Howard Dean.

In the latest poll I could find that measured independent preference (Nov. 18 - 19), 16% of independents identified Dean as the candidate they would most likely vote for. Clark garnered 10%. (Among the top five, Gephardt had the lowest independent support with 6%.)

As you observed, the media digs against Dean, which any eventual nominee will have to endure, are underway. And yet, Dean still leads among independents. I'd suggest that someting other than what you think gives Clark the edge is more important to independents.

(source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103674,00.html)

[Stuckinthebush]

37. You are correct on the polls

However, you are also correct on the relative earliness of speculation. I'd like to see a poll of independents that ranked their top two candidates.

[HFishbine]

51. Exactly

That's the whole point. It's not to say that Clark couldn't eventually build mammoth support among independents. He just might.

The point is to dispell the myth that negative media portrayal of Dean will supress his support among independent voters. They are two different issues. Could Clark build support among independents? Perhaps, he already has the second highest percentage among them. Will the media disuade independents from Dean? Not likely, he's already the most popular among them despite the rhetoric.

[CTLawGuy]

31. the reason dems lost in 2002

was because our base was unmotivated to vote. There are A LOT of reasons not to go pull the lever on election day; you're too busy, you have no time, your kids have soccer and ballet practice, on and on. A BIG reason not to vote is that you have to choose between two people who both voted for the War, both voted for the Patriot Act, both voted for No Child Left Behind, both like some of Bush's tax cuts, etc. That, coupled with the fact that you realize that you are only 1 out of 100 million votes, it is hard to go and pull the lever.

People forget about this when they analyze how to win elections. They talk about "support" but forget about "turnout". If you have 90% support and none of them go vote, you lose to the guy with 10% support.

Howard Dean is exciting to the base, yes. Maybe he's not as appealing to "swing voters" as Clark is. However, I can guarantee that Dean will bring more of his core support to the polls than any other candidate, and THAT will win. Dean is bringing people who have shut out politics in their lives back into the process and made them excited again. Do not underestimate that.

[Stuckinthebush]

39. I think our base came out in record numbers in 2000

But you do have a very valid point. Dean excites the hell out of the base and they will rally around him more than Clark. I believe that strongly. However, I think that the base realizes the dire situation that we are in this time. Bush has virtually no appeal to the Dem base, in fact, he scares the hell out of the base. They will turnout in droves no matter who the nominee is this time. Bush is a clear threat to everything the base holds dear, and they want him gone.

Given that the base will turn out regardless, does Dean do better with this middle 5 to 10 than Clark?

[MoonRiver]

42. Do you think there is any chance that Dean would

go for the Vice Pres. position on a Clark ticket? Personally, I doubt it. I think Clark was very open to doing that for Dean, before the bashing began. Now I wonder. This is very unfortunate as they could compliment each other beautifully no matter which one gets the nomination.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

49. Keep in mind

that much of the disharmony will be put aside after the nominee is chosen, and anyone could be anyone else's VP choice. Well probably not Dean and Kerry, but I don't think Dean and Clark have attacked each other enough to make a difference when chosing VP.

I don't know if Dean would accept VP -- right now, all of the candidates must behave as if they are only interested in the presidency, so as not to show any weakness. After the primaries this could change.

Among the candidates (and former candidates), I see Edwards, Graham, and Clark as the most likely VP choices. And there are many other non-candidate VP choices out there.

[MoonRiver]

61. You're probably correct. Perhaps Dean and Clark are holding

back on going after each other just for this reason. They each, I hope, know exactly what is at stake. It's no time for personal egos to get in the way of saving our country.

[Stuckinthebush]

54. I think so

I think Dean truly wants to do what he can to help the country. If that is becoming a VP candidate for Clark, then I think he'd do it.

[MoonRiver]

60. It could be an incredible team, especially, IMO, with Clark the nominee

For a long time I envisioned Kerry/Clark as unstoppable. That was before Iraq, however.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Thanks for Your Post

Most polls, taken as a whole, show Clark faring an average of about 2-3 percentage points better against Bush than Dean.

That is not "only 2-3" percentage points. That could very well be the margin between victory and defeat, especially when you consider that the electoral college breakdown favors Clark even more, as a Southerner with a military background.

If Clark gets the nod, he will be practically forced to pick Dean as his running mate to heal the divide in the party, thus keeping Dean's money and the great majority of his organization on board.

It's a winning ticket.

DTH

[RevolutionStartsNow]

53. I would vote for it in a second!

Would rather see Dean/Clark, but Clark/Dean is almost as good. Clark can have the first 8 years, Dean the next 8. :)

This is shaping up to be very interesting.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. You Know What the Chinese Say About Interesting Times

:o

;-)

:toast:

DTH

[HFishbine]

64. Polls

That show Clark with a 2 to 3% advantage over Dean when going head-to-head against Bush are as valid as polls that deemed Dean the front runner for the nomination when he had a 2 to 3% advantage over Clark.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. I'm Not Contesting That Dean Is the Front-Runner for the Nomination

I think there's no question he is. I also think there's no question that Clark is more electable in the general election than Bush.

DTH

[rumguy]

48. Is Clark really more electable than Dean?

It's easy to think this...but who's a more seasoned campaigner? Who has a more dedicated and creative staff? Who is drawing new people into the process? How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

Sometimes Clark, while a great guy, looks like he's struggling to stay afloat out there...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. You Haven't Been Watching Clark Lately

He has hit his stride. Look for him on Face the Nation and CNN tomorrow.

DTH

[Evanstondem]

120. Good quotes from Dean

Thanks for reminding me why I support him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

143. Any Time

The quotes aren't designed to paint Dean in a negative light; they're designed to remind Dean supporters here who bash Clark how their candidate feels. They're also designed to provide an effective counterpoint should Dean ever go nuclear against Clark.

DTH

[Stuckinthebush]

56. That's what I love about Dean

He is so engaging and he has the momentum.

However, we are still talking about the base here. The base is energized, the base is rallying around Dean. What about that 5-10% in the middle?

[Demobrat]

58. Dean can't win because

he has actually stuck his neck out for Democratic principles, while Clark is bulletproof, because he never has. In which case, I'm going down with the ship. So long, cruel world.

[LouisFC]

69. Sticking your neck out

I always find it interesting that people who have served in the military are not given credit for defending Democratic principles. Your rights, my rights and the rights of every American are defended by our Military.

Further, I would assert that Clark is less vulnerable to the "liberal" label precisely because he is not bulletproof and has four scars to prove it.

[Demobrat]

78. And the home of the brave.

Now what has Clark, himself, personally done to make life better for anyone? Sorry, just being in the military doesn't cut it. Lots of people do that, for lots of different reasons, just like people become cops for lots of reasons, good and bad. It's not enough.

[arkyclarkie]

91. "And the home of the brave."

What has Clark done? How about saving 1.5 million Albanians
when the Serbs were gathered to "cleanse" them?

Even then, he was speaking truth to power!

[Code_Name_D]

97. Has he save any one?

From what I read, Clark's delibrit targeting of cavilans resulted with more casulties by American bombs than has Malosivich even have been acused of killing.

The lives tha that Clark "saved" is built upon proaganda making Malosavich a far more sinister person than he was. And when press on this mater, Clark Klukers blaim Clinton. The fact is that Clark's leadership in KFor was so disonrable, it resulted with him being fired by Clintion.

You are eather ingorant of this, or have already chosen to ignroe it. Regardless, these are not admirable qualitees, and certainly none worthey of being Presdent.

[LouisFC]

116. they think so

I have a friend who survived that nightmare and I assure it was not propaganda unless you consider lopping off a woman's breast while she's breast feeding, leaving her to die and the baby in the street with the breast of her dying mother still in her mouth a good form of PR. I assure you that she credits Clark and our military with saving her life and the lives of countless others.

How the Kosovars really feel:
Gerry SMITH continues to send occasional emails from the Balkans and
recently made some observations that are quite laudatory of Wes
CLARK. " As I travel around Kosovo and visit business owners and
presidents, so many have calendars, posters and photos with Wes
Clark's visage in their offices. While they speak with respect of the
Clintons, Holbrookes, and Walkers, they speak with awe and reverence
for Wes. I am always treated nicely by those I visit. Invariably, in
the small talk that follows, Wes Clark comes up and I mention that we
were in the same West Point class. From that point on, I am treated
like royalty even though I point out that I knew him very little. You
would think I was the hero. I am certain they go home that night to
tell the family they met somebody that knew Wesley Clark."
http://www.aogusma.org/class/1966/66notessep01.html

Targeting Civilians
Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(online at ahttp://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#Vrecommendations)
“in the particular incidents reviewed by the committee with particular care (see paras. 9,
and 48-76) the committee has not assessed any particular incidents as justifying the commencement of an investigation by the OTP. NATO has admitted that mistakes did occur during the bombing campaign; errors of judgment may also have occurred. Selection of certain objectives for attack may be subject to legal debate. On the basis of the information reviewed, however, the committee is of the opinion that neither an in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a whole nor investigations related to specific incidents are justified. In all cases, either the law is not sufficiently clear or investigations are unlikely to result in the acquisition of sufficient evidence to substantiate charges against high level accused or against lower accused for particularly heinous offences.
On the basis of information available, the committee recommends that no investigation be commenced by the OTP in relation to the NATO bombing campaign or incidents occurring during the campaign.

Retirement:
I don’t pretend to understand either military strategy or Pentagon politics, but the speculation (http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm) at the time centered on his push for ground troops and their reluctance to use them.

In The Joint Statement on the Kosovo After Action Review dated October 14, 1999 it appears that both Cohen and Shelton believed
“the buildup of NATO ground combat power in the region (e.g., Task Force Hawk in Albania, allied peace implementation forces in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and visible preparations for the deployment of additional forces), combined with the increasing public discussion of the possibility of and planning for the use of ground forces, undoubtedly contributed to Milosevic's calculations that NATO would prevail at all costs.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1999/b10141999_bt478-99.html

So despite what they may say now, Clark was right and they were wrong.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Thank you for that post

I am so tired of the small handful of posters whose idea of discussing Clark's canidacy is to smeer him as a blood crazed serial murderer. Then they take offense when anyone points out anything negative about their own candidate.

[moz4prez]

126. not to nitpick but are your spelling errors deliberate?

i'm not trying to be petty, just wondering.

[MoonRiver]

65. I think its pretty incredible that he skyrocketed to the #1 and #2

positions on most polls since he announced his candidacy, way after Dean had built up his base. Give Clark a couple of months and who knows how far he'll be ahead.

I don't think he looks like he's struggling at all. In fact, he seems more confident and sure of his positions than any candidate. He doesn't look slick and polished, which, IMO, makes him appear more human and approchable. BTW, his brilliance is obvious every time he speaks, in stark contrast to the Selected Moron. A debate between those two would be simply delicious!
:evilgrin:

[rumguy]

67. Clark got a bounce from the media

Coming out of the gates Clark had a lot of attention focused on him.

Will it last? Or is it a media mirage? I don't know yet.

[Stuckinthebush]

70. I'll admit

It would be sweet to see GW standing on a stage next to Clark in a debate. W would look so small and ignorant.

[chimpymustgo]

71. Be still my heart! That image is priceless. Clark v Bush.

They'll never let it happen.

We'll be under a "scarlet" terra alert.

[slinkerwink]

73. Your concerns about the media attacking Dean for the flipflops, etc

are unfounded because they're happening a full year before the 2004 elections. The attacks will become worn, and no longer have that effect. It'll be like Republicans already knowing GWBush went AWOL and they no longer care because they consider that to be a dead issue. (We'll make it come alive again in 2004).

Dean's going through a baptism of fire and Clark's barely doing that. I sincerely believe that Dean's baptism by fire is going to help him in the general election. Clark, however, won't be really prepared for the full Republican onslaught due to his political inexperience. Dean's already experienced the Republican onslaught in the last election he had over the civil unions bill. He's a survivor, and the politics of Vermont are very intense so he's already used to this. I'm worried about how Clark would fare in the general election if Bush brings up that picture of him wearing a hat of a military dictator in Kosovo with the narrator saying, "Clark sure likes to get buddy-buddy with military dictators whereas Bush's been going after dictators like Saddam Hussein---which man do you want to be President?"

Whoever the nominee is, they're going to get the FULL Republican onslaught and I believe that Dean can survive that and win the Presidency because he's excited the Democratic base and that excitement will eventually sweep up the 5-10% in the center.

[SahaleArm]

130. Right now Dean's being treated with kid gloves.

The first mainstream press article attempting to put a chink in Dean's armor was in todays NY Times. Based on AWOL, Dean's draft status is a non-issue. His Democratic primary teflon will melt when the GOP starts firing away. Don't confuse 'attacks' from fellow candidates with what will occur during the general election.

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

[Skwmom]

132. Dean has been given a pass from the media

Woodruff was practically gushing over Dean yesterday. I don't even think the draft-dodging skiing bit will get traction until after the primary election is over.

[Classical_Liberal]

74. I don't think it is pragmatic to choose someone who has never

one a seat to elected office in his life.

[slinkerwink]

77. I'm betting that Bush would beat Clark on this very same issue.....

Clark's lack of a domestic policy record...is going to hurt him.

[Justice]

133. Bush Has Only a Negative Domestic Policy Record

so how is pointing to Clark going to make Bush look better?

Hmmm.

[ajacobson]

128. Look at this list!!!

Here is a list of all the Presidents who never were elected to lower office. This doesn't mean that they didn't have government experience, some were generals, some were appointed officials, one (Arthur) was elected VP without previous elected office and became president with the death of Garfield.

Zachary Taylor
Ulysses S. Grant
Chester A. Arthur
William Howard Taft
Herbert Hoover
Dwight D. Eisenhower

So, it is uncommon but not unheard of (14%-6 of 43), to elect a President who never held a lower _elected_ office.

Any corrections to this post graciously accepted, but I am pretty sure about this.

[Rowdyboy]

80. Remarkable achievement, Stuckinthebush

This thread has been around for hours and has nearly 80 responses, and only ONE is a tacky cheap shot. That must be a record here in GD. You framed your question well.

For the record, I agree with you. Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean would be my strong preference to face BFEE next November. Dean has already been tarred by the media while Clark remains largely untested. Its hard to say who would actually do better. Clark is obviously depending on using southern/western primaries in early February as a springboard to emerge as a serious candidate. We'll know more if his strategy works then.

[Stuckinthebush]

82. I know...it's spooky!

But really, the majority of Dean and Clark people are reasonable about their support. Most can discuss the issue in an intellectual manner without resorting to flame fests. It does the heart good to see this!

[FrenchieCat]

100. I disagree...

Clark has been tarred and feathered from the onset, by the media and his opponents, both.

When he came "stumbling" out of the gate...as the press put it...he was called an "empty suit".....and Clinton's boy General..."The man with an impressive resume, but what else does he have" meme.

He was attacked by the press on 9/18, the day after he announced, for flip/flopping on the war stance during 9/17 interviews on plane.....which turned out to be a myth repeated via circular reporting from the media whores.

The he was attacked for the "would have supported the resolution"....according to Lieberman campaign chair Swett.

Then Clark was attacked for "praising republicans and voting for Reagan"....to discredit him has a Democrat, in hopes that Democrats would be turned off......

that was the heavy coverage that he got initially from the press......


then came Generals Larry, Curly and Moe bringing up "character issues on Clark", the Perfumed Prince accusations and "most in the military don't like him" meme....that is still going on.

We even had the "Clark believes in Time Machines" meme to make him look crazy.

The "Clark almost started world war III" was used quite a bit...and let's not forget the "KOSOVO war criminal"....

add the "Clark was involved in Waco"......meme put out for the sake of the right wing talk shows

Then we had "Clark praised Bush" as late as May 2002....that was for Afghanistan, so it didn't last long.

Then we had "Clark campaign in disarray", with the widely publicized Sterling Newburry open letter posted to every blog there ever was including this one and the Fowler "I quit" interview.

to the "fading Candidacy of General Clark" meme that has hit every pundit show there ever was...

The most apparent "Clark has dissappeared" from pundit's mouths....CNN refused to say his name for an entire 3 weeks.......

Now we have Clark is "uneven"...great at foreign policy, but what about his domestic policies? ...being raised by NTY today.

Coupled with Clark can just be Dean's VP. mantra coming out of the Dean camp...Following the Dean "Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago" that was repeated over and over by Dean...

To Dean's "I was the only anti war candidate......Clark has flip/flopped" routine

to Lieberman's "Clark has 6 positions to his war stance"....

.......NO, I am sorry ....but Clark has been attacked from DAY ONE....

and I believe that all that can be thrown at him by Repugs is being used.....there may be some more...but they are really, really trying to discredit him now....before if he gets to a General Election...the Repugs understand that it will be Bu-bye BUSH!

When I look at Dean coverage....it's been much friendlier...Dean proclaimed as only frontrunner by all media pundits, the entire time that Clark, although tied in most national polls was only a fading whisper.

Dean fundraising abilities and net organization has been heralded throughout the media.

Dean as the anti establishment candidate has been greeted with glee from the right wing rags.

Furthermore....Dean has the tax raising issue that doesn't seem to be discussed.....in it's true liability that it will have during the General election.

Dean has the "No foreign policy Experience" (not even addressing the no military experience issue which I think is not as severe as the no foreign policy issue) that can not be neutralized..not even with pinning Clark onto to his breast pocket... and if that's what it takes, it shows that Dean is too vunerable on the issue.

Dean has the perceived "Rich liberal from New England" label that will be hard to shake.

Dean has the "Anger" issue with a vision that is utopic by not realistic or pragmatic.

Dean also has the "Republican National convention will be held in New York City and the closing date of the convention is 9/11/04" liability that Dems will have to contend with.

AS I SEE IT, IT IS DEAN THAT HAS BEEN SPARED FOR THE MOST PART...AND IT IS CLARK THAT HAS BEEN ATTACKED FROM SO MANY ANGLES, IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY!

Go back to the archives of news...and you will see that I am correct.

[vdeputy]

84. These are the voters I consider

I live in a conservative area of Indiana. I work in law enforcement, which tends to be a generally Republican profession. I belong to the American Legion. In fact Democrats around here often refer to themselves as "American Legion Democrats". The Legion Democrats (and I'd say our membership is about 1/2 and 1/2 between D's and R's) may or may not vote for Dean. Some of them would consider him too weak foreign affairs and would probably stick with Bush but they'll eagerly support Clark - one of their own.

The majority of the cops will probably continue to vote for Bush but I am surprised at how many have expressed an interest in Clark. In fact, one of the most conservative people I know shocked me yesterday by saying he caught Clark on Letterman and that tho' he wants to know more, he wasn't very happy with Bush and Iraq and he thought he could vote for Clark.

It is these people who will make the difference. As you say, we will get the ABB Dems, whoever we nominate. Bush will get the hard-core right-wingers (although, as I said, I was amazed my Repub friend was thinking negatively about Bush). Whoever gets those people in the middle I've been describing will probably win the 2004 election.

I like Clark but beyond that, I think he has much the best chance of bringing those voters into his camp.

[Stuckinthebush]

86. Welcome, vdeputy!

And thanks for the comment.

I have the same supposition at this point as you. Although I like Dean better in terms of overall positions, a Clark/Dean ticket may pull those disaffected GOPers into our camp.

Of course, there are a number of excellent points on this thread to the contrary.

[DrFunkenstein]

87. I Think You Mistake Political Junkies For Americans

I don't buy the Dem "base" argument. The base you speak of is largely the hundreds of thousands of foot soldiers that help get out the message, not the millions of Americans who get their news from Katie Couric (hardly 5-10%). There are many people who feel passionately one way or another - whether it is against the war, or against the gay agenda (trust me, this will be coming up soon enough).

Beyond those who are committed to certain elements, the rest of Americans are 1) fairly fluid and will go either way OR 2) not show up if someone on "their side" doesn't appeal enough to get them off their fat asses.

I find it hard to believe that someone who polarizes the Dem party itself will somehow manage to unite the entire party PLUS some of the others.

I'd like to comment on a line of yours that stood out for me:

"He is strong and he has delieved a clear message as to his differences with GW."

Although you didn't do this intentionally, you highlighted a point that will come back to haunt Dean. Namely, his platform is defined by his opposition to Bush. 1) The personal nature of this opposition will undercut his criticism, and 2) People want someone with a stand alone vision. It is possible that somehow Dean could drastically change his modus operandi, but I'm still not sure why he hasn't already, despite being the clear front-runner. I'm beginning to think it is simply a matter of temperment. Dean has done very well in attack dog mode, and I guess he's thinking that if it's not broken don't fix it. Honestly, though, I'm not sure why.

Clark is going to considered weak on domestic issues because of his inexperience, but I think that he has a much more Presidential bearing. I would trust him with a Cuban missle crisis. Although the Chief Legislator part of the job is a little light, I think Clark compensates nicely in the commander-in-chief role. I prefer Kerry because I think he has the chops for all the roles of the Presidency, but Clark is an excellent choice as well.

Plus, I'm dying to see a candidate take Bush down on the AWOL issue. Chickenhawk motherscratcher...

[Stuckinthebush]

89. What do you think Bush would do...

If Clark nailed him on AWOL during a debate?

I giggle thinking about it!

No, you have good points. Is Dean too polarizing of a figure to pull the base together? Or is this just the natural progression of party politics?

I do think that Dean has defined himself by his opposition to Bush, but all of the other candidates have as well. That is not necessarily bad...Bush is in office now and he is the guy that we are trying to defeat. We have to have candidates define themselves as 'not Bush'. However, if any candidate does not progress from that definition to then defining themselves as the candidate for something (besides defeating Bush), then we will have problems.

[slinkerwink]

92. it only polarizes the political junkies, not the large american population

in DU, we're all a bunch of football fans cheering their favorite team on.

[Stuckinthebush]

95. Do you think that just because I watch CSPAN at lunch

and Washington Journal in the mornings
and read DU all of them time
and have watched all of the Dem debates thus far
that I am a political junkie?

That hurts.

(My wife has mentioned this before, however)

[slinkerwink]

99. oh, I'm a beginning political junkie....

[Stuckinthebush]

103. It's a downhill slide!

I don't know how many hours I've spent here on DU...

Gotta get a DU fix every hour at least!

[MoonRiver]

105. Yeah, I'm doing my 'in preparation for winter doldrums' house cleaning.

Every break I take involves running back to the puter for another dose of DU! Ya gotta love the comraderie!
:grouphug:

[Rowdyboy]

106. I've spent the morning avoiding housework

and this is my last swing before it begins. However, I will have the Ole Miss/LSU game on in the background so at leasr things will be exciting.

[MoonRiver]

107. Chocolate helps too!

:D

[Rowdyboy]

127. Chocolate always helps

Everything

[Stuckinthebush]

108. You wanna hear something sad?

I have been working and cruising DU all day. I popped over to Yahoo Sports to see what games are on today, and I yelled to my wife,

"Oh my God! Today is the Auburn/Alabama game!"

I am an (almost) life long Alabamian. To forget that this is the big day borders on sacrilege. I was very ashamed of myself.

But it didn't prevent me from coming back to DU for a while!

[MoonRiver]

109. Spoken like a true addict!

I should know!

[MoonRiver]

96. I think Clark should only indirectly lure * into an AWOL discussion.

Leave the real juicy confrontations to Soros and other interest groups out to destroy His Lowness.

Clark would be better served by having a "civilized" debate with * about their experiences in VietNam, ha, ha, sorta like veterans comparing battle stories. What a hoot that would be!! ROFL at the thought!
B-)

[slinkerwink]

90. welcome back Funkenstein...

was wondering where you were....

[Myra]

114. Can you support both until the Dem convention?

Molly Ivins says vote your heart in the
primaries and your head in the election.
In the election there'll only be one Dem to vote for.

No reason to agonize over who to go for now unless
you're in a primary state or you're throwing
yourself into volunteer work for one candidate
or donating. Even then you could do the last
two for more than one candidate.

Right now I'm for:
Clark
Kucinich
Dean

And I donated to both Clark and Kucinich.
I didn't donate to Dean is because he clearly
doesn't need the money; he bypassed the matching
funds, and in fact that bothers me 'cause I think
he said he wouldn't do that earlier.

[Evanstondem]

115. The base has to be earned

Your analysis oversimplifies the task amongst the 40-45% who are inclined to vote Democratic. In a typical election we only get the votes of half of these 40-45% because the other half don't ar more votes to be gained by better turning out our core supporters than by hoping for more than our fair share of the 5-10% in the middle.

Clark MAY be a better candidate for these 5-10%. I'm not convinced, because I believe that much of his support is based more on hope than on anything he has done as a candidate. I like him, and he sounds good on international issues, but he sounds like he's reading from somebody's else's test sheet when he talks about domestic policy.

Dean is better for getting out the 40-45%.

[FrenchieCat]

117. The election has to be won.....

The base has to be earned?

That's not my priority....

that priority is THE ELECTION HAS TO BE WON. BUSH MUST BE OUT.

It ain't about nothing else....don't fool yourself!

[vdeputy]

119. I'm a political junkie

I work for an elected official, a Sheriff, and most of the people I deal with during the work day are seriously involved in politics, at least local politics which is their bread and butter, but still, they mostly skim the surface of what is happening nationally. They may read the local paper which is light on substance and watch one of the national news program at night. They dip into MSNBC, Fox or CNN when something major is going on but over all, they aren't hugely passionate one way or the other politically. A lot of them vote a particular party just because they've always done it and furthermore, they don't want to be bored by being told what is going on. I have to be careful about getting on my bandwagon because their response will be - "ho-hum, Vic is ranting again". Their apathy can be so frustrating. They will definitely all vote but how they make their choices will probably be based on just a few appearances on t.v. and just a generic "liking" of a particular candidate (not that it really matters in Indiana since the decision will have been made long before we get a chance to vote).

Sometimes I feel as if I'm wasting my time here on DU because you guys ARE informed and committed so even posting is mostly preaching to the choir. It is those others we need to convince and talking here isn't doing that.

Still, there are times when you just need to be around people who think the same way you do.

[NNN0LHI]

122. You are not wasting your time posting here.

I know where you are coming from too. Been there. Done it. Welcome to DU.

Don

[Evanstondem]

121. And that's why I'm supporting Dean

I hope that whomever we nominate cares more about the base than you do. Otherwise we will get creamed.

[MoonRiver]

124. I think you just missed the entire point!

Which was, GETTING ELECTED!

[Stuckinthebush]

125. Certainly it is an oversimplification

Everything in politics is messy.

But, I think this time in history is unique. I think that between Dean and Clark, the base will come out for both of these guys. The base is actually more like 33%. I put the 40% to 45% out there because I believe that 7 to 12 percent of the independents are firmly on our side. They will vote for either Dean or Clark.

The base is important, but remember, we are mostly on the left side of the base. The Dem base is made up of center and rightward tilting Dems as well. Just look at how many support Joe Lieberman, an admitted right leaning Dem. We all know what is at stake here if Bush gets four more years. Hell, my apolitical wife has already mentioned Canada! So given that 40 to 45 percent will support Dean OR Clark, which of these candidates can get 6 more percent of the voters to his side? Perhaps both.

[moz4prez]

129. Clark trails Kerry, Dean in NH "under 20%"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031122/pl_afp/us_politics_clark_03112204184 1

make of it what ye will =\

[Justice]

134. Echoes What I've Said on DU

Clark can pull votes from the Bush column.
The other issue is that it is not just the votes, but rather the electoral votes - so the candidate has to be able to win in enough states.

[CWebster]

135. Because I am a Democrat who wants to strengthen the Democratic party

I will not vote for a Republican in either party. My pragmaticism only goes so far. The line is drawn when the sacrifice isn't worth the victory.

[Rowdyboy]

136. And as another who wants to strengthen the Democratic party

I pledge to only vote for a Democrat. Preferrably General Wesley Clark, but if Democratic voters differ, I will accept their decision. I urge everyone to make that committment or STFU.

[Stuckinthebush]

139. Done

I think that after all of the debate and angry words here at DU, the vast majority of us will vote D for president.

[BigBigBear]

140. Without reading the whole thread

My take is this:

There's a core Dem contingent that is pleased that Dean hates Bush as much as they do.

Rove and Company have only one issue in 2004 - national security. Clark gives moderate Republicans and swing voters someplace to go. Dean, in my view, does not.

I'll support Dean if he gets the nomination...enthusiastically. But in my heart of hearts, I don't think he can win the general election.

DO I trust Clark? Not entirely.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll climb into my asbestos suit now.

[Stuckinthebush]

141. Thanks, B3

May I call you B3? :)

No suit required. This has been an amazingly flame free thread all day.

I get excited about the possibility of a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket. Together, they have most everything we need to beat Bush.

[eileen_d]

142. Good take, and I didn't read the whole thread either

"There's a core Dem contingent that is pleased that Dean hates Bush as much as they do" - yes indeed. And it's certainly questionable whether that's enough to win an election. Personally, it doesn't do anything for me. I'm not looking for the anti-Bush; I'm looking for the positive alternative to Bush. Some see the latter in Dean too; I see it more in Kerry and Clark.

As for "trusting" Clark -- frankly if there was a politician out there that I did trust one hundred percent, I would start seriously distrusting my own judgement. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

144. and since Clark

just became a politician, I trust him more than the others with their pandering and their platitutes.....