Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question: can surrogacy be the secret weapon of the Kerry campaign?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tedoll78 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:17 AM
Original message
Question: can surrogacy be the secret weapon of the Kerry campaign?
I'll use Wes Clark and Ohio as my first example:

Wes Clark polls/polled really well in Ohio. A very popular guy there, it seems. What if Clark were to do an inexpensive bus tour through the state for a two-month period as a representative of the Kerry campaign? He could communicate Kerry's vision for the country, listen to voters' concerns, spread the message on the local news every other night, etc. He could be basically the face of the Kerry campaign in Ohio.

And what about sending Gephardt and Kucinich on a bus tour through MN/WI/MI/PA/WV to shore-up the union vote?

We could send Dean as a liason to the West Coast, to keep the excitement going in California, Oregon, and Washington.

And how about a tag-team effort between Edwards and Graham in Florida and Louisiana? Imagine them carrying our message every night somewhere in these crucial states?

Bill Clinton could do a sort of homecoming tour through Arkansas, to remind people of the glory days of when things were going well.

And I can't forget Sharpton - we'd spread him all over the place! In particular, I'd like to try something involving him - call it the Georgia Experiment:
The African American population of Georgia is quite a large proportion of the overall population. Why not see if he can travel the state, register folks in person (rallies, concerts, etc), raise turnout, and just try to make the elections close? It'd be fascinating to see how close we can get things there.

I'm working with the theory that we can really rock this election if we spread the party's wealth to places where elements of the wealth are quite effective. Imagine if we were to sweep all of these states because of this strategy. A campaign of surrogacy would end-up being a campaign where Kerry is, in effect, running on the strengths of all of these people. People in Florida, for example, may not be that enamoured with him, but they see the more popular Edwards and Graham talking about him glowingly, and some of that glow is transferred.

The above are just off-the-cuff examples for this post; I'm kinda brainstorming aloud here to see what you all think. Surrogacy could be done cheaply. I think it may be worth a shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Semi_subversive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree tedoll78
The entire demo party has to spread the good word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keopeli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Um...Bill Clinton is not very well liked in Arkansas, I'm sorry to say.
He would do better to work New York and the International Stage. IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. I suggested the surrogacy idea to the Kerry Campaign a few days ago -
I hope that they act on the idea. Kerry needs all the help he can get and there are many good people that can go on the stump for Kerry. He can't be everywhere all at once. Since he does not have a VP to answer the idiotic charges made by Bush and Cheney, he needs to make good use of surrogates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. Great plan. I like it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. Surrogates don't work if the campaign disown them at every turn
As it was posted in another thread, if you are going to disown your surrogates every time they attack Bush, then you are undercutting yourself:

Some of Kerry's most prominent surrogates have ripped the administration's Iraq policies. On Monday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) called Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam," drawing rebukes from Bush's GOP allies. On Sunday, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," former Vermont governor Howard Dean described Iraq as "Bushgate, which is far more serious than Watergate in many ways because 600 . . . Americans are dead, in addition to countless Iraqis."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, said that even if Kerry is temperate in his criticism, he could be hurt by the comments of others. "I think the campaign needs to be wary of the risk of mixed messages," he said.

Rand Beers, national security adviser to Kerry's campaign, said, "Senator Kennedy did not clear his speech with us and Governor Dean did not clear his comments with us, nor would we expect them to, even though we talk to them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56064-20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Kennedy is not a surrogate, never has been, he has been a supporter
of john kerry. and continues to be. ted kennedy has given these speechs criticizing bush for months. and kerry has been getting him out there campaigning for him and with him during that entire time. it seems some people equate not agreeing fully with someone with "disowning" or trying to get them to shut up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. We be better off dumping Kerry for Teddy
At least Kennedy is not ashamed of being a liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Ted Kennedy doesn't want to dump Kerry
and neither do those who have always supported Kerry. and i really don't care to hear Kerry go around talking about being such a proud liberal. i want him to try to win the election which he wont if he goes around saying he is a liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. IG makes the mistake of thinking Marshall="the Kerry campaign"
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
6. I thought all politicians had surrogates - they might not call them that
particular name - but that is still what they are. I think it is usually just "so and so" is campaigning for Clinton, Bush, Gore, Kerry - whoever is running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
9. No, they can not have surrogates who speak bravely.
They do not believe in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Wes Clark never spoke bravely ?
he is the only one john kerry has called his surrogate. and recently he got john edwards to represent him on lou dobbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Then let him use Edwards and Clark exclusively...Leave Dean alone.
Leave Kennedy alone. Let them have free speech. Apparently Kerry only approves of Edward and Clark, and that is just fine with me. Dean and Kerry are not compatible, but he and his advisors should leave Dean alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. i asked if Wes Clark ever spoke bravely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I never said he didn't.
He just happened to approve of the war also. That is why Kerry uses him. They agreed on an unjust war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Wes Clark did not approve of the war
and you said they can't have people who speak bravely as surrogates. so far he has only called wes clark his surrogate, and more recently he had john edwards go on lou dobbs for him. so you would be saying wes clark does not speak bravely if you say they can't have those who do speak bravely since kerry has only called clark his surrogate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. From April 10, 2003, and there are others.
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:55 AM by madfloridian
"London Times, April 10, Clark article after the fall of Baghdad: Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. . . . Liberation is at hand. Liberationthe powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. . . . Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to comeeffective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf States will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights. . . . But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Wesley Clark did not and does not approve of the war.
Please stop repeating Rovian talking points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. These are Clark's words from Common Dreams last year.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

You may tell me not to repeat Rovian talking points. This was his stance last April after the invasion.

That said, I like Clark. If Kerry picks him, that is great. They agree on a lot, and he is more softspoken than Dean. That is what Kerry needs to win. Dean would not be good as a surrogate.

From the article:
SNIP..."As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didnt pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regimes survival. And what it produces, it sells....."END SNIP

These are not my words. They are not Karl Rove's words. They are Wesley Clark's words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sadiesworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Clark testified before congress in opposition to the war.
A show of support, once the deed was done, does not mean that he was in favor of the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LandOLincoln Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. You are not only repeating
Rovian talking points, but you're also using the Rovian strategy of cherry-picking quotes out of context.

And personally, I think Common Dreams is about as "fair and balanced" as Faux News (and the far left is every bit as screwy--and totalitarian--as the far right.)

Now, I'm in the process of preparing a long post in response to your claim that Wes Clark favored the invasion of Iraq, but it's not finished yet.

In the meantime, I found this in my Clark Rapid Response file. I don't know who wrote it, but I hope you will take the time to read all of it. It may help you to understand why some of us are puzzled (to say the least) at the elevation of Howard Dean into some sort of uberProgressive standard bearer. (I've bolded some key sentences for added emphasis):

"Now that Dean has been untruthful and claimed that 'Clark was for the war' we have once again to document the actual facts. For those who are interested in facts rather than political rhetoric, here they are:

"Clark fundamentally opposes pre-emptive warfare in the case of non-imminent threats. He opposed the invasion of Iraq because he didn't feel the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's possible WMDs was solid enough to justify diverting resources from Afghanistan before Bin Laden was captured and the Taliban destroyed. He would have supported a resolution that would have taken the case of Iraq's WMDs to the United Nations, but would not have supported a resolution that took us to war.

"When an invasion was clearly the Bush agenda, Clark called for as much international legitimacy and as broad a multinational coalition as possible for the operation. He wrote articles, books, and testified with a handful of other Generals before the Senate and House Armed Services committees (9/26/02) to warn against using force when diplomatic options remained and with the war in Afghanistan still unfinished.

"PRO-War? The illusion of Clark being 'pro-war' began over a gaffe he made in a small group interview on a plane with several reporters the first week of his campaign. During what he thought was an informal chat about the philosophy of pre-emption, Clark said that he "probably" would have voted for a resolution that gave Bush the opportunity to go to war. However, after saying that, he went on to explain why he could also see himself voting against it unless it also contained a clear resolution to take the case back to the United Nations first and not authorize Bush to go directly to war. This pseudo-ambivalence was construed as a 'flip-flop.' Clark said that not shortening his answer was a 'true gaffe,' but has repeatedly pointed out his constant criticism of the Iraq war. It is unfortunate that the false notion of Clark supporting the war has been used for political purposes by candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman.

"Advising Swett: Another area of criticism cited by those who accuse Clark of supporting the war was that Clark advised House candidate Katrina Swett that voting for the resolution could be used "as a means of reinforcing the current weapons inspections" and as leverage for America to take its case to the United Nations. Although this is the defense of candidates like John Kerry, Clark doubted Saddam Hussein had significant weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat warranting an invasion and occupation. Of all the Presidential candidates, it could be said that Clark's war stance was the most similar to Bob Graham's, who voted against the war (and of course, is no longer running now). It is important also to consider that Swett, who lost, now works for the campaign of Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.

"Reporting vs. supporting: When Hussein had been successfully ousted (well before his capture), Clark was a writer for the London Times.. He wrote an article praising the skill and speed involved in the operation's success. He was later attacked for inconsistency, but he feels once Americans commit troops, "they should fight to win," and that he will praise "The English, the French, even Republicans" if they do something right. He also praised the capture of Saddam Hussein, but stands by his arguments that the war was unnecessary and hurtful to the true War on Terrorism.

"Democrat Attacks: Despite Clark's clear record on opposing the invasion of Iraq, candidates like Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman pounced on Clark's opening week gaffe. 'Wes Clark has six different stances for the war,' said Lieberman in a Democratic debate. Dean repeatedly said Clark supported the war, and continues to call himself 'the only candidate who opposed the war.' When Bob Graham first corrected Dean on this way back when, Dean's response was that he was the only 'major' candidate who opposed the war. After Graham dropped out, Dean continued to use this claim, to the anger of many supporters of pacifist candidate Dennis Kucinich. Even though Kucinich might not be considered a 'major' candidate, Clark certainly is.

"Howard Dean felt Saddam should be disarmed, multilaterally if we can, unilaterally if we must. He was not 'anti-invasion,' unlike Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham, Carol Moseley-Braun, Al Sharpton, and Wes Clark. Here is Dean's position on the war before we invaded:

"As I've said about eight times today," he says, annoyed, "Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

"Trusting Bush's judgment: Like Clark, Dean also felt that the President could be trusted to tell the truth on WMD claims, saying "I think we have to trust the President to tell the truth on this," and believed that the President's judgment on the threat of WMDs warranted an invasion, multilaterally if possible, but unilaterally if we must.

"Unlike Clark, Dean supported the Biden-Lugar amendment to the congressional resolution, which was not likely to stop Bush from going to war, according to a comparison by the Congressional research service. It is now widely believed that with Bush being hell bent on invading Iraq, nothing short of a demand for a formal war declaration by Congress would have been strong enough to prevent a pre-emptive strike.

"So to summarize, Dean first believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that were a threat to national security. He then called for:

Another hoop for Bush to jump through on his rush to war (via Biden-Lugar);

Giving Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm (as of Feb. 6th, 2003) before resorting to military action;

A unilateral invasion 'if the UN chooses not to enforce its own security resolutions;'

He proposed NO alternative coalition (NATO or otherwise), and felt pre-emptive warfare was justified if the UN wouldn't get involved.


"The UN weapons inspections process hadn't been completed before the United States invaded Iraq, but this is an important distinction to make between Dean's stance and the stances of candidates like Dennis Kucinich, former candidate Bob Graham, and Wesley Clark, who opposed the invasion of Iraq unequivocally (in the case of Kucinich and Graham, they voted against it--Clark testified against it).

"To conclude, Dean's stance on this critical issue is far from solid, and this is one of the many reasons opponents of the Iraq war have switched to Clark--because he is the only remaining major candidate who consistently opposed the invasion and the notion of-pre-emptive warfare.

"Whether or not the Iraq war should be a litmus test for the Democratic nominee is subjective, and also a question of strategy in the primary election vs. the general election. In recent polls, a majority of Americans do not care if the nominee was against the war from the start and a small majority support the invasion's link to the war on terror--although the approval ratings go down on the question of whether or not the war was worth the costs.

"It is clear that unlike the primaries, the general election will be about getting results, not proving ideological purity. Clark is another candidate who isn't pinned down by his vote, but this opening-week slip-up undoubtedly cost him in terms of crossover anti-invasion supporters who aren't familiar with all the actions he took in his attempts to persuade the administration not to invade. Like Dean, Clark never had to vote for the resolution, so the full range of his actions and words must be compared for voters to make their final judgment. The record shows that Clark completely rejected the possibility of a unilateral invasion for what he didn't think was an imminent threat."
___________
Sources:

Clark Myths.com Debunk: A pack of beltway reporters announced that General Clark had "flip flopped" on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Digby sets the record straight.

Ian Masters Interview with Elizabeth Drew on the Media Smear Campaign Against Clark 11/02/03 Audio Clip: Renowned journalist Elizabeth Drew explains the smear campaign against Clark, the difference between military reporters and civilian journalists, how Clark was misreported as being "for the war," and theorizes about Clark's chances after seeing him in action.

Judy Woodruff Interview with Elizabeth Drew: Drew defends Clark on CNN. It's just too bad she had to do all the reporting that everyone else passed on.

John Kerry: "Al Gore Backed the 'Wrong' Howard Dean"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keopeli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Dean and Kerry are teammates. Deal with it, madfloridian.
Teammates can have differences, but they still work together.

Kerry said nothing that would impugn Dean's freedom of speech, and he did not criticize his remarks.

Me thinks you need a xanax or a glass of wine. :)

Keo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I doubt they will ever be comfortable with each other at all.
Deal with what? There is nothing to deal with. Kerry can not bring himself to speak out against the war. That is going to be his problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. So what? It's not about their being comfortable
It's about winning the elction and changing the direction this nation is headed towards.

WTF does their comfort have to do with anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC