DU group proposal: clark/Dean alliance

[redsoxliberal]

there are obviously already both DFA and Wes Clark groups. I am supporters of both. On the Wesley Clark message board, there is a post proposing that it is in Clarkies best interest to support Dean for chair of the DNC. I believe, as do many other Deaniacs, that if Dean doesn't run for president (which he can't if he is chair of the DNC,) Clark would be a great option for the 2008 nomination.

Please do not go to either the Clark or Dean forum and bash the respective candidates. The idea is for a dean/Clark forum where lovers of both can get together and discuss ideas.

The Clark thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x891#1107
The Dean thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=244x338

Proposed Mission Statement:
This forum is for supporters of both former candidates for the nomination. We believe that both men are assets to the democratic party, and an alliance between supporters could further both. This forum should include discussions that expand areas of agreement between the supporters of both men, while exploring ways to cooperate where it seems appropriate. A goal would be to maintain constructive open dialog between two of the largest blocks of candidate supporters present here at DU, who though seemingly having much in common, have in the past fairly frequently been embroiled in bitter exchanges.

[WI_DEM]

1. I have no problem with this, I think Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean

would have been our strongest potential ticket in 2004--not that Kerry/Edwards didn't do everything in their power to win.

[St. Jarvitude]

2. Amen to that. But the Deaniacs and the Clarkie camps need to get together

There's a lot of bad blood between the two. I think that if Wes and Howard could see past their differences and run together, we could win in a landslide in 2008.

[WI_DEM]

3. I don't think they have many differences. I think their supporters

are the ones who have problems. From what I understand Dean and Clark get along fine.

[St. Jarvitude]

4. What I meant was the camps need to get together

I remember the Primary flame wars that were going on here... watching them from a distance.

Yet almost none of that bled out excessively into the actual debates.

[Sandra_Deaniac]

38. Bah

The Deanies and the Clarkies have totally joined forces in my county. We're pals.

Don't let the dumb flame wars on the internet color the whole bunch with the same brush :)

[nickshepDEM]

40. Im for it but,

Im still dreaming/drooling over a Clark/Warner ticket.

[janx]

13. Their supporters get along fine in the real world.

It's just a few here at DU who do not.

Frankly, I'm more worried about 2006 than I am who gets what position where/when.

That's why I've been pushing DFA so much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Camps can only get so close together without merging

By definition there will be differences or there wouldn't be "different camps" to begin with. Actually I think the supporters of both Dean and Clark can be proud of how well so many of us merged into the effort to elect Kerry/Edwards, though that wasn't the exact ticket that any of us wanted. It was my personal experience, and it is reported by so many others, that the Kerry campaign was full of hard working Deanies and Clarkies (not to dismiss backers of other candidates here, but I am staying on topic). So obviously we can cooperate for the good of the Party and the nation.

Other arenas of cooperation exist as well. Supporters of both men are deeply involved in the efforts to prevent voter disenfranchisement and fraud. When I have more time I could probably write up a pretty good summary of the major flash points of tension that flared up between some Clark and some Dean supporters during Primary season. Here are two of the most toxic ones: Deanies were accused of being "zombies" and Clarkies were accused of being "astro turf window dressing". I picked those to note because they each undermined the central truth of the strongest area of commonality between both camps. The overwhelming majority of the supporters of both Dean and Clark are extremely dedicated activists who are not part of the old Democratic Party "machine". We are idealistic to a fault, passionate to a boil, prone to thinking deeply about the roots of the problems we face as a nation, and committed to a long struggle to bring about fundamental positive changes in our Party and country and our world. That is a good starting point for mutual respect.

[Eurobabe]

21. Got over it, moved on, GO HOWARD!

I was pissed at Dean supporters in primary, but have since formed what I believe will be long term alliances with several of them.

We be sympatico now.

[arewenotdemo]

12. That's the ticket

uh, the second one. Dean at the top could mean a replay of 2004, or worse. Vermont does border Massachusetts, doesn't it?

[MoJoWorkin]

5. this Dean supporter likes Clark, too.

I don't see that many policy differences between them. Both were against the war, and that was my top issue.
I think they both were out there doing what they could, for the democratic team. Dean had to swallow a lot to do it, as I do know that all the candidates (except one) conspired together in a nasty attack ad against Dean(along with some other not-so-noble tricks) in Iowa. The DNC and powers that be did NOT want Dean and did everything they could to bring him down. The scream was just icing on the cake for them. The media saw to that. I think that is why some of the young Dean supporters, that were up there, have found it hard to get past. If only the Dems had been that nasty and underhanded against W---oh but I am a dreamer.
The fact that Dean has behaved in such an unselfish manner after that, just further enhances my respect and admiration for him.
He could have acted like Nader, but Dean put what was in the best interest of the country, above himself.

[One Taste]

7. I didn't like Dean at the beginning of the primaries

but I love him now!

[union_maid]

8. I'm for it

They're both people who are good for the Democrats, and given half a chance are good for the nation and for the world.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I just wanted to weigh in with a couple of thoughts.

First of all, I don't think that a ticket with both Clark and Dean on it is going to happen. I admire both men a great deal, but I simply don't think that they have the right chemistry, nor do I think that they complement one another's respective strengths and weaknesses in an effective way.

I could get behind a group for Deanies and Clarkies of good will who respect both men, but understand that there probably is going to be conflict when the subject comes up about who should get the presidential nomination.

I don't support Dean for the nomination, but I might be interested in such a group because I do really support what he's doing with DFA, and what he is doing for the party overall.

I agree for the most part with his message, but don't necessarily think that he's the best messenger as far as presidential nominee goes.

I do think he would probably be good for the DNC chair, and have pretty much decided to sign that petition. Not, I hasten to add, because I want to keep him out of the competition for '08, but because I genuinely think that the party needs the kind of shaking up that Dean would give it, and I believe that we can't continue with weak kneed hacks who are afraid to stand up for core Democratic principles.

Anyway, that's where I'm standing right now. If I offended anybody, I didn't mean to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Crunchy we are thinking much alike here, n/t

[cidliz2004]

10. Clrrk/Dean Dean/Clark would be the best of the best

I suggested this awhile back now. I feel that these two are the least of the the Washington Insiders therefore the least "beholdn'" to anybody. They communicate the most effectively to the "common folk" - what better combination to fix the country than a Doctor and a General? I would love to see a grassroots organization with these two leading the charge. NOTHING but NOTHING would be able to stand in it's way! Cheney would have a coronary while debating Clark, Dean would resuccitate him and prop him up so that Clark could continue to pound on Cheney. Clark could wear his General Uniform and point his finger at GWB and just laugh. Dean could write a Dr.'s order for GWB to get a brain scan....to see if there is indeed a brain present!

We would have so much fun while changing the face of the pathetic Democratic Party.

[sendero]

11. In my perfect world...

... Dean would be heading the DNC and Clark would be running and winning in 2008 :)

[Sparkly]

15. I could sleep well in that world!

:hi:

[robbedvoter]

16. I love your world! And we could all work for both goals.

But mutual respect is a must. No more "to a lesser extent Clark" digs.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. I'm In

What do we need, 10 people?

DTH

[CarbonDate]

18. I proposed such an alliance during the primaries....

...over at the Bartcop forum, and I think a lot of people were thinking along the same lines as me a long time prior.

Any such alliance, however, has to come from the top. Neither camp is going to abandon his guy in favor of the other, including me, unless their guy asks them to.

When Clark dropped out before I got a chance to vote for him, I voted for Dean (despite the fact that Clark endorsed Kerry), because the movements were so incredibly similar.

But it's a good idea on paper; we just have to get our "main men" (Dean and Clark) to get together and work towards some common goals as a team.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I don't think a working "alliance" means agreeing on who should be Pres

Electing the right President isn't an end in itself, it is a very important means toward reaching an even more important end, restoring Liberty and Justice, sanity and civility, wisdom and virtue, common purpose and compassion to our country and our relations with the World. As important as both men are, it isn't just for Clark or Dean that we are working. And pragmatically speaking, trying to elect the very best President, by itself, is not enough. We need to strengthen our Congressional representation, and we need them to be willing to stand up and fight when needed. We need to revitalize our Party, and elect bright and idealistic people to positions from the county level on up. We have to install leadership in the Democratic Party that is responsive to the constituency of the Democratic Party, not to careerist politicians, political hacks and mooned interests. We need new blood in our Party all the way around. We are about saving our country, not just furthering the career of an individual. We can agree on many things even if we don't agree on who would be the best candidate for the Democrats to run in 2008. And we can work together on many things so long as mutual respect is maintained, and as long as each of us can appreciate and understand how someone in the "other camp" might be drawn more to support "the other candidate" if it came to a head to head match up.

I make no apologies about thinking that Wesley Clark is a better choice to support for President than Howard Dean, for a number of reasons. That's my opinion. I know that some great Democrats make a different choice. I don't think Kucinich is the best person to propose for the job either, but that doesn't mean I don't have significant areas of agreement with both Kucinich and many of his supporters. I just think that, if the rivalry were somehow to be put aside, there is more intrinsic commonality between the supporters of Clark and Dean than between any other candidate supporters. I think this is about more than the Presidency. Four years out from the next election is a good time to explore areas of agreement and mutual respect, before intra partisan passions get inflamed again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. A reply to a madfloridian post from another Forum

I'm posting it here because it seems like the best place for a discussion, but I will send her the link to this post. She said in part:

"I like Wes Clark, I do not wish to support him for president. Hell, I am not even sure we will have a country to have an election in next time.

I think and I have said before, that we need to deal with past issues before getting to new ones. Am I outspoken, yes, I am. I think is way past time. I think what Clinton did during the primaries indicated that the Little Rock folks are not done yet. I am not sure that is wise.

I am only one voice at this DFA forum, but I never intend it to be silenced again. Clinton called Dean supporters, told them to vote for Clark because Dean supported the civil unions bill and was unelectable. Clark also was for civil unions, I think. Is there a little irony there? Sometimes when there is an elephant in the living room, it needs to be addressed. If it isn't, it gets more unpleasant. (Then this week-end Clark seemed to be changing a little on the civil unions and abortion issues...too questioning of them)

I am tired of being attacked. I do not attack, but I am accused of it over and over.. I am very tired of it. Questioning the actions and motives of the party's leaders is NOT attacking.

I am all for alliances, but not for the purpose of "keeping Dean out of the way" next primaries. And I am tired of being attacked."

In a different post madfloridian also said:

"I don't think it is wise to talk alliances without getting to the root of the primary attacks".

I agree, but only to a point. We can enter into a near endless time warp if we dwell excessively on the past. Up thread I posted that I I know during the old early flames fests some Deanies, and/or people claiming to be Deanies, attacked Clarkies for being "Astro Turf" or worse. At the same time some Clarkies, and/or people claiming to be Clarkies, attacked Deanies for being "brain washed zombies." Both attacks were equally unfair and untrue.

I never looked into it but Clinton may well have made those calls on Clark's behalf. I personally know for a fact that New Jersey was very much in play for Clark (because I was actively pursuing a possible Clark endorsement through a close confidant of New Jersey's Governor) until Al Gore called in his chips in New Jersey when he made his endorsement of Dean, leading to a lock step lineup of major NJ politicians behind Dean. I know a lot of Deanies, and others, are upset that Clinton, the last Democrat to hold the Presidency, played a behind the scene role rounding up resources and/or support for Clark. I know a lot of Clarkies, and others, are upset that Al Gore, the last Democrat to win the Presidency (at the time) called for Democrats to close ranks behind Howard Dean before a single primary vote was ever cast.

I never said that Howard Dean was anyone's puppet, but I have to hear that about Wes Clark ad naseum. Here's a post from today on the General Politics Forum:

"He couldn't even make it out of the primaries of his own party. Wes needs to hold SOME sort of office over the next four years if he wants to be taken seriously as anything other than a Clinton lap doggie."

It was just as insulting to Clark Supporters, many of whom were very active in the Draft Clark movement, to keep hearing that Clark was merely a straw dog set up to run by the Clinton mafia to stop Howard Dean, as it was for supporters of Howard Dean to keep hearing that Howard Dean could not possibly become President, he was too this or too that, don't throw away your vote. Clark supporters got angry when Clark was repeatedly attacked for being a Republican (factually untrue), if not in fact an actual G.O.P. plant to disrupt our Party. Dean supporters got angry when Dean was accused of cynically moving to the left to win the nomination without having any real convictions behind his positions. And so on and so on and so on and so on......

Anyone who believes that Wes Clark is just a Clinton puppet, or that Howard Dean cynically exploited the anti war vote for his personal advancement, isn't ready to support real cooperation between our two camps. Anyone who thinks Clark supporters were just tools of the establishment, or that Dean supporters were naive groupies, isn't ready to support real cooperation between our two camps. There are people who believe those things and worse, and attacks on both Wesley Clark and Howard Dean continue and I no longer expect them to end. But I won't be held hostage to them. There is important work to do, and I am open to working with anyone who holds similar beliefs to mine about what our country needs.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. No matter what else happens

DFA and Howard Dean will be spending the next two years encouraging and helping grassroots democrats get involved in the political process and run for office. He and we are involved in party reform, making the party more answerable to people and less to corporations. What will Wesley Clark be doing? Why would we take all of our genuine hard work and party building and hand it over to a candidate with no political experience who will be spending the next few years selling consulting services based on the new culture of fear?

I think it is way to early to be talking about who is going to run for President in 2008. But if you all are serious about some sort of coalition show me the grassroots. Join DFA (or start your own organization) and be a part of the solution...don't just talk about it online. And it is not enough for you to do that, Clark needs to do the same. He can't just show up in 3 years and start running for President again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Cheswick, I agree with a lot of what you said

And I will try to keep the emphasis here on our areas of agreement. I have been on record in many forums, both at DU and elsewhere (including "Clarkie" joints) as being highly appreciative of what DFA is about and is accomplishing. I am not yet a member, but that is more a matter of my own personal back log of things to get around to. I was active in the Kerry/Edwards campaign here at home and I went to PA to help the fight there also. I am a founding member of the new Democratic Party Club in my Township, and am active in it. I worked on the campaign of a local State Senate candidate, a progressive Ex Green. I am attending regional activist strategy sessions about rebuilding the Democratic Party. And I am an active Clarkie.

Wesley Clark was tapped by John Kerry (in large part I suppose because of his status as a 4 Star General during a National Security dominated Election Cycle) to be one of Kerry's primary campaign surrogates. He was on call for Kerry's campaign at all times and was extensively used by it. I know Howard Dean was there for Kerry also, this isn't meant to be a pissing match, I'm just saying it is a little premature, in late November, to be questioning Clark's ongoing efforts for change in our nation and our Party.

Wesley Clark has not been a life long member of our Party, for better and for worse. Some people had trouble with the idea of him running as our nominee for that reason. Frankly, I think it would appear even more audacious had Wes Clark immediately stepped forward as a personal leader in the fight to internally reform our Party. In my opinion he had the right priority, he went out on the stump to do what he could in "Red States" like South Dakota and Alaska, to go to bat for Democrats in the fight to hold onto or gain seats in Congress. It is part of earning ones stripes inside a political party to do so and Wes Clark did.

I find the tone of your comments about how you characterize your expectations of how Wes Clark will be spending the next few years not to be particularly helpful.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. I am sorry, but it is not my intention to be helpful, just to be honest

Actually I could characterize being honest as extremely helpful because any coalition that will be built will be built on reality, so we may as well start with it.

Clark can prove me wrong by doing something besides selling his brand (the military guy)over the next few years. Maybe he will, maybe he wont' If he doesn't then I don't see how he (or any of you who continue to support him in that case) is compatible with anything being done by DFA.

I don't have any idea if Dean was "chosen" by Kerry to be a surogate or not. I do know that he did as much if not more than any one and in addition to that he did all the work he did for DFA. It is the work with DFA which will make the changes I feel we need to see in this country. Again... why would we take all of that effort and use it to support a candidate who after three years of contributing nothing to our process, suddenly shows up and starts running for President again? If you want my answer to be different then Clark has to prove me wrong.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Being honest is almost always helpful

If anything I was reacting to my perception of your attitude: "Again... why would we take all of that effort and use it to support a candidate who after three years of contributing nothing to our process, suddenly shows up and starts running for President again?" We are talking about the future, right? Something that hasn't happened yet. My point was that you seem to be making negative presumptions about the future. And I really did try to go out of my way to make my comments about Clark working for Kerry's campaign non competitive in nature, but I still picked up a sense of one upsmanship from your reply ("Dean did at least as much, if not more, PLUS he also etc. etc.") My intent was only to say that it has just been 3 weeks since the Election ended, and Clark was engaged until now. Yes Clark has more of a focus on international affairs than Dean does (which doesn't mean that Clark doesn't care about domestic affairs or that Dean doesn't care about international affairs, or that Dean doesn't put a greater focus on domestic affairs than Clark does etc.). Clark has some energy tied up in that direction.

Second, I consider who gets elected President in 2008, and what we do at the local level to restore Democracy to be two separate but related fronts in the same war. I can see a strong case being made that restoring Democracy, and all that that entails, is a higher priority, with more long reaching implications, than electing the ideal President in 2008. I think Dean has been a real leader toward revitalizing our Democracy. Have you noticed that I keep saying positive things about Dean and you keep saying suspicious things about Clark? It is your right to have your own opinion of course, but I do feel a need to point that out.

You say "Clark can prove me wrong by doing something besides selling his brand (the military guy)over the next few years. Maybe he will, maybe he wont' If he doesn't then I don't see how he (or any of you who continue to support him in that case) is compatible with anything being done by DFA." Well, there is a lot left unstated in your assertion about Clark "selling his brand" that falls into the realm of opinion. Look, you may just not like, trust, agree with, or support Clark period. If so you are not alone. Some feel the same way about Dean, but I am not one of them. Look around you though, there are many Dean supporters who hold a generally positive opinion of Wesley Clark, even if they would rather see Dean elected President than Clark. By the logic of your own statement, many active members of DFA then are not compatible with anything being done by DFA. I told you about some of my own activities in an earlier post above. Are they "non compatible" with DFA? If I follow through and join DFA, do you think I should be purged from the organization because of my support of Wesley Clark for President?

It will not help any of our ends to see the Republicans retain control of the White House in 2008. Personally I don't count John Kerry among the ranks of those who are contributing to the process of making the changes I see necessary in our country either, beyond the fact that many of his policies would be more humane and just than those of our Republican opposition. That was reason enough for me to support him, once he won the Democratic nomination. Defeating the Republicans in 2008 is important. For example, if I were convinced that the person who I believed best represented my views in 2008 was unelectable by the Democratic Party that existed at that point I would 1) continue to work to change the Democratic Party and 2) would back the person who I felt best about who I believed the Party could support. To an extent the same holds true in regard to who could be elected by the American people in the 2008 Presidential Election.

For various reasons that we have years yet left to debate, I now support Wes Clark for the Presidency in 2008. I am devoting some of my energy to that end because, in contemporary politics, a realistic effort to elect someone President, especially someone without strong insider backing, requires years of effort. And if Clarkies aren't willing to begin that type of planning for Wes Clark in 2008, who the hell else would? If we ever found ourselves working together on some reform effort within the Democratic Party, I wouldn't expect you also to be working to elect Clark in 2008 unless that became a personal priority of yours also. I guess it boils down to this. I do not see a conflict between working for positive changes in our country or the nation and backing Wes Clark for President. Maybe you do, which would probably limit our personal cooperation, but not necessarily end all of it.

I seem to think much more highly of Wes Clark than you do. I think backing him for President is completely consistent with my ideals, That is why I am willing to organize on his behalf. But even if I thought less of Wes Clark than I do, a good case can be made that he might be among a small handful of Democrats who have any real chance of winning the votes needed to become President in 2008, given the current political climate, or the one likely to still be in place in 2008 despite our continuing efforts to change it. That could be reason enough to support him for President if one felt Clark were the best of the bunch who could win. Again I think much more highly of Clark than that, but I am just making a point. Winning the Presidency in 2008 is important. Reshaping our Party is important. Because I see Howard Dean as a strong force and leader in the latter, I respect him and am willing to do what I can to further those ends in cooperation with others who feel the same, most of whom are grouped together in DFA which I strongly commend for all that it is doing.

[JNelson6563]

25. Heartwarming thread

I have to say I agree whole-heartedly that we need to put our differences behind us and work together. I've ventured into the Clark forum a couple of times. I marvel at how, if we trade "Dean" for "Clark" in those threads, they resemble Dean forum posts very closely. I will put my name to the idea of a joint effort between camps.

There are certainly some Clark supporters who I respect a great deal and would love to work with you all toward our common goal.

As to the matter of an 04 run, I won't be proclaiming support for anyone until I see what they do between now and then.

To a powerful and constructive alliance! :toast:

Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I wanted to let you know

that I really appreciate the way you've been reaching out to the Clarkies and working to heal the wounds left over from the primary season. I especially appreciate your posts on the Clark forum.

All of the Dean people who I know on a local level are really great people. They include people who I worked with as precinct volunteers, as well as an English comp teacher who is a DUer and was the catalyst for my going from lurker to member and participant on this board.

I very strongly believe in the need to reform the Democratic party, make it a party that stands up strongly for core principles and is actually responsive to ordinary voters. I believe very strongly in grassroots activism rather than a party of functionaries who only listen to each other. For that reason, I support what Howard Dean is doing with DFA as well as everything else he's done for the party.

Unlike has been suggested above, I don't believe that this position is incompatible with my being a Clark supporter.

I would be happy to see a forum here where Dean, Clark and maybe even Kucinich people, who have a positive opinion of the relevent men can get together and talk about areas where we have commonalities of interest.

Thanks again for reaching out.:yourock:

[janx]

30. ...

:hug:

[Crunchy Frog]

32. Happy Thanksgiving.

:pals:

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Not sure there is enough energy for a DU group yet

What do others feel? I keep this thread bookmarked and I visit it from time to time. With only this degree of use it can serve adaquately as the meeting point between groups of supporters until there is need for something more formal..

[BootinUp]

29. I'm behind it Tom

I have been pre-occupied and want to say I am sorry for not getting over here sooner. Recently I signed the Dean for DNC Chair petition, and I have done some advocating here at DU for Dean as well. I do believe he has the stuff our party needs. I have also been impressed with Dean supporters efforts and passion. And I am ready to listen to Dean Supporters and find ways to work together for the good of our country. Lets do this. :)

[janx]

31. "It's not time yet. But it's almost time."

This is what I keep telling my two dogs, while pointing at my watch, when they're gearing up for their breakfast or dinner or walk. (This can happen at some bizarre times, as you can imagine.)

In a very important sense, it *is* time, but that involves our common goal of keeping people involved and important in the voting process. The 2008 prospects are silly to talk about at this point, because we really don't know what will happen in the next four years--or three, or even two and a half, if we look at it with campaign logic.

But there's 2006 to consider. Forget the rock star presidential stuff for a bit and think about that. The outcome of 2006 will directly affect the presidential factor in 2008; more importantly, it will affect all of us on a local level.

WesPac, as I understand it, has other priorities for now. But you might think of partnering with DFA or the organizations it is currently working with to get out the vote for 2006. We have to rebuild. The Democratic party is reshaping itself well beyond the DLC concept of "new democrats." The DLC is very far behind. And nobody elected those guys anyway. ;-)

[redsoxliberal]

33. we have enough, I'm posting in ATA

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Why don't you give Skinner the link to this thread?

I can't post to your ATA thread, only you. I would suggest you give Skinner a longer reply to his question to you. Essentially, there are a number of individuals in both the Clark and Dean "camps" who either were flamers during the Primary wars, or were burnt by flamers during the Primary wars. The last thing we need is to invite people with ill feelings toward Dean or Clark or the respective supporters over to the support group for the other man.

I would propose this group as an "experimental forum", with one primary purpose being to lesson negativity between those supporting Dean and Clark. Should it instead lead to an overall increase in tensions that would be reason to abort the experiment. However if it instead leads to increased cooperation, than it earns its keep.

[ibegurpard]

34. Only way I would support this

Is if the focus is NOT on a top-of-the-party personality but on a push to make the party in general more responsive to "grassroots" and more sympathetic to its traditional bedrock message of economic and social justice.

[Leilani]

35. I like the idea of Clark/Dean people working together

because we have many similar goals. I see the Dean/Clark people looking for more than a "candidate." I think the 2 groups feel something is wrong with the party, & we're all looking for ways to fix it. And as we both support grass roots candidates, we're looking at a ground up movement, rather than the "powers that be" making decisions.

I know there are many differences between Clark & Dean, but after viewing them both for a long time, I see some remarkable similarities.
They are both honest, painfully so at times, to their own detriment.
Neither speak in political soundbites; when questioned they give honest & thoughtful answers, because they've obviously been thinking seriously about issues. I find they're both at their best in in-depth interviews, because their thoughts can't be incapsulated into sound bites. I think they were the 2 intellectuals of the candidates running, although Kerry had the reputation. Maybe Kerry's long stint on a national stage has robbed him of his spontaneity, but I never really understood what he believed.

Although Dean grew up on Park Ave, & is comfortable financially, he doesn't live in a rareified world. Clark has made some money since his Army career, but they live in suburbs like real people, & because of their lifestyles, I think they relate to people more than some of their counterparts.

Both also trained as non-lawyers, in fields requiring much different knowledge than that of politics. Although medicine & the military are quite different, each field requires a concern for those in one's care, a quality I find lacking in most politicians, who are more ego-centric.

I don't mean to analyze this to death, but I see many shared goals between our 2 camps. I think we can accomplish more with strength in numbers. Will we always agree? Hell, no. And as far as candidate selections, that's a long way off.

I don't know if Dean wants to be DNC chair, but I signed the petition, because he'd be great for the party, & also, if he wants the job, a petition with strong grass roots support may help convince the powers that be, that he's the right choice.

[llpoperations]

36. Dean/Clark

It seems that the weakness of the Democratic currently is that it is too embedded in Washington, for its creative ideas, policies, and most importantly, money. This situation absolutly must change.

And the best change agent is Howard Dean.

And the party needs, IMVVHO, to abandon all the Beltway think-tanks and get their goals and stratagies from the activists on the ground via the blogs. There are so many wonderful ideas out here.

[mrgorth]

39. I'm for it

the alliance and the group. I wish Dean and Clark could've gotten together in '04. I think they would've won.

[Vektor]

41. I love them both...

That would be a great ticket.