Why Clark is unfit to be Democratic Nominee for President and Dean is

[Larkspur]

1) Clark has NO civilian political campaign experience. It's evident his campaign can't stop Dean, so what makes you think that he can stop the Bush-Rove "Goliath"?

2) By taking FEC matching funds, Clark has handicapped his campaign to fight Bush during the critical March - August months. Bush plans to attack Dean or any leading Dem starting after the State of the Union speech. Clark is too busy fighting Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt, and Dean to notice that he'll be slammed by Bush's machine. Dean is already prepping for it.

3) Clark has no elected civilian political experience. I'm not interested in living under a benign military state that Clark will run. His usage of military metaphors in his speeches and interviews turns me off. I support Dean's American Revolution theme and the Revolutionay language and ideals Dean uses to inspire us. Also, just because Clark has a degree in economics doesn't mean that he knows how to get legislation passed through a Republican controlled Congress.

4) Speaking of Congress, Clark has NO plan to win back the House or Senate. Dean has a plan and has already started executing it. Clark is too busy with himself to help other Democrats.

5) Clark does NOT have a dedicated band of followers who are willing to do the grunt work, like Dean's supporters are. Dean supporters not only write letters to elected officials but to ordinary Americans, who are still undecided. Dean's campaign is already rebuilding the American community. Clark's is not.

6) While Clark may cause Dean problems in the South, the recent polls don't indicate that Clark will walk away with the South. Dean's experience in rural Vermont is closer to that of many Southerners than Clark's military background.

Howard Dean is the Democratic "David" who will slay the Bush-Rove monster because
1) He is FRUGAL with his campaign contributions. He gets more bang for his supporters buck with his ads, so even if he can't outraise Bush, Dean runs a lean campaign machine and has the enthusiastic support of his followers who will do everything in their power to help him.
2) He has excited the Democratic base with Hope that we can take our Party and our country back from the robber barons plundering our Treasury. Clark has not generated the excitement among the base as Dean has because Clark's advisors have an aristocratic mentality and take the Dem base for granted. This is the same mentality that cost us the Senate in 2002 and has caused an exodus of Dem supporters from the Dem Party to either Greens or Unaffiliated.
3) Dean's campaign is Campaign Finance Reform in practice. With his followers support, Dean opted out of FEC matching funds so that we can continue to contribute to his campaign with the Hope that we can, with Dean's frugality, bang Bush's record to smithereens with effective media ads and many campaign tours.
4) Dean has sound judgment to make the right decisions on important issues and the political courage to weather storms of jingoism and negative attacks from the Sarumans of the Dem Party -- Clark, Kerry, Gephardt -- as well as Sauron himself -- Bush & Rove.
5) Dean is setting the foundation to rebuild the Democratic Party into a force for good and progress in the future. Clark supports the Dem aristocratic status quo.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Enjoy another 4 years of Bush

[Larkspur]

17. Clark would also push this nation towards conservative Totalism

Clark may mouth progressive rhetoric, but he's got no verifiabl record to back it up. The military is not a progressive sphere.

[Bucky]

50. Right. Clark wore a uniform, is therefor conservative. Logic rules.

Of course when you think about integration, affirmative action, experimental management techniques, total healthcare covereage, housing concerns, planning for integrating two income families into community planning, and flexible problem solving experience... you realize that the army is a very progressive sphere. The army has historically been a social experiment labratory for American society. The antagonism between liberalism and the military is a very recent phenomenon, dating only to the 1960s.

[Kolesar]

72. Clark voted for George Bush, what does that make him?

Bush 41, not the tyrant in the White House

[VT70]

62. Nice picture Jack!

I like it! :)

[hlthe2b]

2. Why must DUers persist in such flame baiting: Unfit? For God's sakes

You could post a civil thread that says why you prefer Dean over Clark and that would be just dandy. But, no, you have to make Clark out to be the anti-Christ.

I have not decided between Dean and Clark, but I would certainly not be convinced by an inflammatory approach as you have taken to convince me. I pray other Duers will not continue to follow your lead. It is purely antagonistic and disrespectful to others who may have differing opinions.

[dfong63]

21. why is it worse?

why is it worse for someone to say that Clark is unfit to be president, than for Clark supporters to say (as they constantly do) that Dean is unelectable? it amounts to the same thing in practical terms. and Clark supporters have been saying it from day one. why is it any worse than the constant chant of Clark supporters that "Dean fears Clark"?

i agree that Clark is unfit to be president, mostly for the first reason given by the original poster. Clark is no more qualified to be president than Al Sharpton.

[hlthe2b]

29. I'm not defending those who flame Dean either. Please reread my post.

But, if you don't know the difference in saying someone is "unfit for the Presidency" and saying someone is "unelectable," then I really don't know where to begin. Suffice to say, were you to make a post with distinct reasons why you believe Clark to be unelectable, I'd take no offense. To say someone with the credentials of either Dean or Clark is unfit for office is simply inflammatory rhetoric-- pure hyperbole. As such, it is offensive.

[Larkspur]

30. I don't see the difference between a Clarkie saying Dean is unelectable

and me saying that Clark is unfit.

The arguments I make show that I mean the same thing. They are valid arguments.

[hlthe2b]

31. See my response above.

[Larkspur]

35. Read my arguments again at the top of this thread

My arguments have been consistant and fair.

[hlthe2b]

37. Your comments lose all crediblity because you framed them in

such an inflammatory manner. I'm not wed to either Clark or Dean. I'm only pointing out that you lose the effect of otherwise cogent arguments when you frame it in a hyperbolic way. While you can argue that Clark is not electable or not the best candidate, and most will be willing to "listen," you lose everyone when you frame it as candidate x is "unfit." Mean spirted debate should be reserved for discussions of the Repug opposition, if at all.

[Larkspur]

39. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I still don't see my post as flame bait. My views against Clark have been consistant and fair and if people don't like it too bad.

[jmaier]

3. wow

This post is so filled with misstatements, half-truths, false premises and jaundiced conclusions that I don't even no where to begin -- or if I even should. Must go pause and think before responding.


"Republicans like weapons systems. Democrats like people." Wes Clark

[billbuckhead]

4. Dean is the NRA-Confederate flag-Cato insitute candidate

He's rebuilding the Democratic party allright. If we are misfortunate enought to have this preppie ex-drunk as our candidate, look for third party's to have their highest numbers ever in the next election as Dean will be behind by double digits in almost all states before the vote.

[dfong63]

18. do you really think Clark will win more Green voters than Dean?

not likely imho. a lot of Greens were against the Kosovo war, for one thing. Wes Clark's greatest career achievement. in which his forces used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and killed thousands of civilians. and Clark is still downplaying the dangers of depleted uranium. and on top of that, Clark's "visionary" remarks like, "let them do the software in India." if anything, a Clark candidacy is likely to lead to a greater 3rd party vote.

[MariaS]

5. Excuse Me?

5) Clark does NOT have a dedicated band of followers who are willing to do the grunt work, like Dean's supporters are. Dean supporters not only write letters to elected officials but to ordinary Americans, who are still undecided. Dean's campaign is already rebuilding the American community. Clark's is not

I beg to differ. There are literally thousand of clark supporters who are just as dedicated and just as organized as Dean supporters. Do you think Dean's campaign has a lock on dedication. I have sat down and gone thru the phone book writing letters to "ordinary Americans" not to mention door to door, driving hundreds of miles and making phone calls too numberous to count. And there are many many others doing the same thing. If anything I believe that we are more dedicated in the fact that we chose our candidate he didn't choose us.

[Larkspur]

8. Clark doesn't have the size of supporters that Dean does

Of course, Dean has been running for Prez longer than Clark and as the proverb says, "The early bird catches the worm."

[democratreformed]

73. Clark supporters,

numbering in the tens of thousands, even before he decided to run, organized to send hundreds of thousands to him asking him to be a candidate. After several months, he chose to say yes.

Since that time, not only have I done what you talked about, but I have also boarded a plane, leaving behind my husband and eight-year-old son to travel @1500 miles to work in New Hampshire for my candidate. What an experience that was!

One way that I see this campaign: It really was started by many with no political experience. Many early mistakes were made that were the result of that inexperience. Many people wanted to bash our candidate b/c of those mistakes. He hired professionals. Many people wanted to bash our candidate for becoming an "insider" (god forbid that he should hire professionals). Throughout it all, he has remained steadfast as our candidate.

So, he doesn't have enough prior professional political experience for some people. That is one thing that many people like about him. Is some people's dream that a non-politician can rise up to lead the people as silly dream? I, for one, am choosing not to accept that until I have to.

[webkev]

6. nothing here is accurate

Clark has never been elected to public office before?
why do people keep trying to make that a point? how many of the other generals who have become president's in the nation's history were elected to anything? they still became president..
people will trust a general on security.. that is why they have been elected before and why they will be elected again







Clark has no supporters?
Clark has thousands of supporters.. litterally tens of thousands..
50'000 people actually took the time to write to him and urge him to accept a draft
and Clark has a whole community of volunteers who are actively campaigning in NH, SC and Iowa.. and all around the country
Many tens of thousands.. and I can assure you that all are willing to get out and show their support for the General







Clark can't stop Dean?
he is already the 2nd frontrunner..nobody gets more press than Clark and Dean do.. and the idea is to stop shrub not stop Dean






Dean has a plan to win back the House of senate?
Lay it on for us?

[dfong63]

10. Clark is the "2nd frontrunner"?

what kind of Rovian doubletalk is that?

there aint no such thing as a "second frontrunner". the frontrunner is the guy out in front. a month ago, it looked like it might be Clark. now it's definitely Dean.

[dfong63]

25. actually, most of our general-presidents did have prior political exp

Clark has never been elected to public office before?
why do people keep trying to make that a point? how many of the other generals who have become president's in the nation's history were elected to anything? they still became president..

actually, you're wrong. look it up. most of the generals who became president of the US had been in politics before running for president. even George Washington. the only one i can think of offhand who had no civilian political experience was Eisenhower. and Clark is no Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a giant who directed the nation's total military forces, in a mortal struggle - against an enemy who was a dire threat to the US. in contrast, Clark's great war was a mere skirmish.

[Turkw]

70. Clark has direct experience with congress, getting such things as school

funding for the children of soldiers. The civilian population of his NATO command was LARGER than the popluation that Dean governed. Clark was involved in many civilian governing responcibilities.

[NewJerseyDem]

78. What about Grant and Taylor?

I don't think they were elected to anything before they became president.

[Larkspur]

7. And a few more thoughts

6) Dean has a proven record of making a bad situation better --
a) turned a deficit into a surplus
b) turned the worse bond rating into the best in New England
c) guided Vermont through the worse recession since the Great Depression during Bush I's term

7) Dean demonstrated political courage when defending the Civil Unions bill. He signed it when his popularity numbers were the worse in his political career and 6 months from his last re-election bid. This incident shows that "Gary Cooper" or "Harry Truman" type of American hero that Americans love.

8) Dean already has defeated the Radical Right in an election -- during his last re-election bid as Governor of Vermont. Dean was targeted by the RNC and his rightwing opponent received funds from Repukes outside of Vermont. Dean also had to contend with a less well-funded Left wing opponent. Dean learned in this election that when Dems fight back against the Right, the Right most often makes mistakes. Clark has no such experience fighting the Right in a civilian political campaign. He has though praised the PNAC crew in the recent past.

[webkev]

12. OK that's fine

I'll admit that Howard Dean was good at balancing the books in the town of vermont..

but we will be looking at a deficit of trillions.. and we may be at war with Syria or still under fire in Iraq?
what good will his experience in the town of Vermont do?
and if he was so brilliant in Vermont, why does Bush have a lead in the polls? i guess what we Clarkies want to know is why will people who don't oppose Bush see him as a better candidate than Shrub while the country is under attack by terrorist? (or the media portrays it to be :) )

[cindyw]

9. In fairness, this should be locked.

If topics on Dean having lied about being against giving the president authority to go to Iraq get locked. Then this should too. Clearly flame bait title.

Clark unfit to be president? hardly. Don't we reserve the term "unfit" for drug addict moms and criminals. Now Nixon was unfit to be president.

Clark was Supreme Allied commander of the NATO forces.

Dean was the governor of a small state, with less people than my hometown.

I may be a Kerry supporter, but back off Clark with these ridiculous assertions.

[Larkspur]

14. I'm not in the military so Clark's military credentials do not impress me

for President. In fact, all Clark has are his military credentials and experiences to suppport his case. The Presidency is a civilian political office, not a military one. I dont' want to live in a military dictatorship whether it is Clark or Bush running it.

[webkev]

16. how?

how is Commander-in-Chief a civilian political job?

[Larkspur]

20. Our Founding Fathers never wanted Commander-in-Chief to be a

military position. They always wanted a Civilian to be head of the military. That is how our Founding Fathers thought that a military dictatorship could be prevented.

One of our greatest presidents, FDR, never served in the military, yet he led us through most of World War II. As American history notes, Presidents don't have to be military experts to govern during wars.

[webkev]

23. I know that

but the country is under war at the moment and we need someone with credentials to say to Bush that he is an idiot when it come's to war

what right has a doctor to judge the foreign policy of Shrub in the eyes of the nation?

[Larkspur]

26. The War on Terrorism is an ideological war, not a military one

so a investment banker-turned-doctor-turned-governor who has a healthy American civics mind has as much right to critique Bush's misuse of our military and civlian resources as a general who became a consultant to the military industrial complex.

And Dean's foreign policy speech yesterday shows that Dean has a better understanding of that than Clark.

[Larkspur]

15. As a Dean supporter who sees Kerry supporters anti-Dean threads left

unlocked, there is no logical excuse to lock this one. I was merely expressing my First Amendment rights and my manin arguments against Clark have not changed.

[webkev]

19. excuse me

what main arguments?
oh right, you mean arguments such as Clark's supporters aren't willing to get their hand's dirty, I take that as more an insult,,

[Larkspur]

22. No, my main arguments are

1) Clark has no civilian political campaign experience.
2) Clark has no civilian political experience in elected office. He has not shown that he has made the transition from military to civilian sphere.
3) Clark's aides are the same type who lost the 2002 election.

[libertarianforclark]

11. Why Dean is unfit to be Democratic Nominee for President and Clark is

He's not! Neither is Clark. They're both fit to be president. It's GEORGE W. BUSH who's not fit to be president! Focus on getting rid of Bush and stop the all the negative drivel against the other candidates.

[w13rd0]

13. thank you...

...I tend to agree. I support my candidate because I support my candidate, not because all the other candidates are the anti-Christ. Any one of them would be better than Bush on enough issues to justify a vote for them. And every one of them has a few issues with which I disagree with them, and I'll fight them on those fronts. Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Nazgul35]

24. As a Dean supporter...

the only thing unfit is the tone of this thread!

It's about time that supporters who don't like this kind of nonsense take to task those of us from the same camp that don't seem to have any level of decorum...

This post could have been so much more affective if you would have framed the argument as to why Dean makes a good nominee...instead you choose to attack another candidate, who I believe, and many others do as well, would also make a good nominee...

So in the future....do us Dean supporters a favor and keep your flamebait posts to yourself...cause you are doing anyone any favors....

childish....really....

[Larkspur]

28. My arguments against Clark have been consistant and fair

This thread is not a flame bait just because I'm challenging assumptions by Clark supporters.

This election is more about what kind of leader we want for the Dem Party as well as for our nation. I'm not an ABB. I want the best candidate to not only defeat Bush but to lead our Party and nation back to greatness as our Founding Fathers and Mothers wanted. Clark credentials as a Democrat are dubious and are a valid argument against him.

I was not a Dean supporter from the beginning. It took me 4 months after Al Gore bowed out to choose Dean, and I chose Dean because he earned my support with his leadership style and message.

This thread challenges Clark supporter's who keep saying that Clark is electible only because he was a general with foreign policy experience. There's more to being President than FP.

[robbedvoter]

27. 1. Wait until Jan 27 2. CFR is good - DU used to thinks so. Wait until

reports are due.
3.He does. Check Clark04.com
4.Dean wants the cockroaches now?
5.What am I? Chopped liver? We DRAFTED HIM!
6. Rural vermong? Cf, God? Dream on

Flame bait post - ignorant and offensive. Insecure?

[douginmarshall]

32. Assumptions wrong

We are not electing a grassroots organization, we are electing a president. I'm happy you feel good about Dean, that means you don't like Bush. We know that 47% will Vote Bush 47% will vote Dem. the question is who will get the other 6%. IMO Dean has all the support he will get. It is clark who will be able to attract that 6%. Vote Dean if youlike but ask yourself how is he going to get that 6%.
:think:
5) Clark does NOT have a dedicated band of followers who are willing to do the grunt work, like Dean's supporters are. Dean supporters not only write letters to elected officials but to ordinary Americans, who are still undecided. Dean's campaign is already rebuilding the American community. Clark's is not

The asumption is that if Clark wins the nomination only his supporters will work in the fall. Most of Dean's, Kerry's, etc. will work for Clark just as hard as they are now. Because you have people working hard now does not mean you should get the nomination. We will thank Dean, Braun, and Sharpton for bringing new voters to the party. Don't for a moment think they will vote for Bush.

Clark is the answer!!!!!

[Larkspur]

36. Dean's grassroots organization is the key to his success and Clark

hasn't been able to crack it, nor has Clark been able to actually increase his support to compete with Dean.

And many of Kerry's supporters, not activists, especially in Massachsetts, have Dean as their #2 choice, not Clark. In Connecticut, Lieberman is losing traction to Dean. Clark is third right now, but Clark doesn't have a strong campaign in Connecticut, like Dean does, so Dean is most CT voters #2 choice. Clark is not necessarily the beneficiary of non-Dean candidates' supporters, so to say that Dean has peaked, another Clarkie slam on Dean, is false.

[sandnsea]

43. The organization can be duplicated

There is no reason to think we have to nominate Dean in order to duplicate the grassroots organizing. That's the worst reason to elect him.

Clark or Edwards are my #2. They're alot of Kerry supporters #2. You bring up Lieberman, you think his supporters are going to go Dean? Don't think so. Or Gephardt's? The demographics of his supporters are closer to Kerry's. Dean's got all the yuppie nimby's he's going to get. There's none left. The rest of us will all move towards another candidate and whoever that is will be the next President of the United States.

And Dean can go skiing, he's good at that.

[Larkspur]

74. No it can't because the others haven't a clue how to rally the base

Dean did it by listening to the Dem base and championing our cause. The others acted like pompous princes telling us that war was peace and evil was good. Screw 'em!

[eileen_d]

33. Posts like this turn me off to Dean even more

I am planning on supporting Dean if he gets the nomination, but just keep posting this kind of garbage and I can only imagine how un-enthusiastic I will be.

At this point the only advantage Dean has in my eyes is "He's not Bush." Period. Sort of like saying "Vote for chlamydia, because it's not herpes."

Clark actually has qualities I admire, so it's a cinch to spread the word about him and maintain my enthusiasm.

By the way, Clark is a RETIRED general. Your insinuations that he would implement a "military state" as president are not just insulting - they are ignorant.

[Larkspur]

34. I never base my decisions to support a candidate on their supporters

The candidate has to be able to convince me to support him or her and Clark fails to convince me. He turns me off more than his supporters.

[Aloha_Texan]

38. The 1-2 knock-out punch

OK check this out, Clark-people. I'm a Dean-man, tried and true, but I'm certainly not going to claim Dean has more foreign policy experience then Clark. Dean lacks credibility on international affairs, and one would have to be living in a spider-hole for the last year to not think international affairs is going to be a big issue in the upcoming election.
However it's not going to be THE big issue. Every poll I've seen that asks people what their number one concern is in the next election, foreign affairs/security has been a distant third and sometimes fourth. What dominates the agenda are the economy, health care, and eduacation. The great trend of Americans caring about domestic issues continues, and heres where Dean out shines Clark. Dean was a "balanced budget Hawk" in Vermont and balanced it, despite the fact that Vermonts constitution doesnt require it, without cutting any necessities. As to healthcare, it is true the prez passed a sweeping health care bill, but polls show seniors arent stupid, and little more then 25% trust that bill. Stack that against a dude who's a doctor and has delivered health insurance to everyone in his state. This is one of those issues where doctor beats general (not to diss, general is pretty freaking respectable). I dont know anything off the top of my head about if Vermonts public education is significantly bad-ass, but it's gotta be better then "leave no child untested". Once the after glow of catching Saddam wares off, people are going to notice that there are still no jobs, the prescription drugs are still expensive, and their schools still suck.

The other weakness I see in Clark, is the man is so stiff he makes Al Gore look like Al Sharpton. Hey I got plenty of love for Clark, but you all saw him in the last debate, waiting for that applause that just didnt come. To put it nicely he lacks the Clinton magic. Meanwhile Dean sets his crowd on fire no matter who hes talking to. Dean is witty, can think on his feet and argues well with a combo of logic and passion. Remember 2000 where Bush was the guy people would rather have a beer with? Bush really aint that charismatic of a guy, he comes of as a combination of self rightious and...... slow. So dems, lets not run a guy who's less charasmatic then Bush. I'm sure if given time Clark will improve his showmanship, but think about it: The Bush-Dean Debate would be mohammad ali vs Urkel.
So in summation, just as Dean lacks credibility on foriegn policy, Clark lacks credibility on domestic issues. Remember domestic issues is what Bush campaigned on, all the things he was going to fix are still broken. Now as I notice how well both of these great candidates compliment each other I'm going to propose a shockingly unoriginal idea, the ultimate sink Bush ticket is the Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket. Dean beats Bush in the domestic arena, Clark beats Bush in the foreign policy/defense arena. That frankly is the only 1-2 punch that I can see giving Rove a hard time.
As to whether it's a Dean/Clark ticket or Clark/Dean ticket, well may the best man win. I got no beef if people think Clark is a better candidate to take Bush on. I've given my opinion and you know who I'll be campaigning for. Rest assured, however, that if Dean loses fair and square, I'll be right there behind Clark, as I hope you would be if the situation is reversed. If Clark wins, I certainly hope he picks Dean as VP and if Dean wins I think alot of Dean-people are going to start lobbying for VP Clark to balance out the ticket. All right rock-on with yo bad selves, Clark-people, and remembe - Right now it's the primaries, its perfectly legit to be behind different candidates, but once someone wins it is very important we all get behind that person and let the past in-fighting go.

Peace
- Aloha_Texan

[eileen_d]

57. And Dean fails to convince me

Regardless of his supporters. You didn't seem to get that point in my post. The choice between Dean and Bush in my eyes is between two mosquitos - one who is out for blood (Bush) and one who is just plain annoying (Dean). May the best insect win!

[dogman]

40. You have the POWER!

I'd explain it to you, but it would be a waste of my time and yours because you have the power.

[sandnsea]

41. I'm not excited

I'm a part of the Democratic base. He offers me no hope, only disappointment and shame at abandoning so many core principles. I know of two groups of Democrats Dean has backing him according to the recent Pew polls. 69% describe themselves as financially good/excellent. He also has another group of college students. He is behind Kerry and Gephardt in actual union voters, family people who are the real core of the Democratic party. I have never been a yuppie nimby, that's a different part of the Democratic Party. The part that chases the core Democrats away.

Just my penny.

[Aloha_Texan]

45. I'm just one dude but..............

Sorry to hear your not excited, and I certainly would never imply that you arent a part of the democratic base. The enemy of my president is my friend (I so have an FBI file now). You are correct that college students are a huge Dean-force, but surely you dont think college students are all bad. In the 60's they stood up to a corrupt president and an immoral war. When I see regular first time political virgin college suddenly getting excited about politics, I think that maybe young people will be a political force again one day instead of a generation of cynics. It gives me hope.
As to the 69% that are apparently in good/excellent financial condition, well i've never seen such a poll. I've been to several Dean meet-ups in Texas, Iowa, and Hawaii and the crowd is not just a crazy fringe element of the democrats. Its always a coalition of Nader-Voters who cant bear to see another 4 years of bush, Mcain republicans who feel betrayed, clinton democrats who are sick of losing and young people who have never been involved before bc no candidate gave them a reason to vote before. Now perhaps 69% of these people are living the phat life, I dont really know, it never occured to me to ask. If it makes any difference to ya, I for one am "dirt-ass-po" (I cant even afford the extra "or").
Anyway if Kerry is your boy, no problem but remember, fellow member of the democratic base, we are the big tent party. I cant say chilling with yuppie preps is a strong social desire for me, but I'll certainly welcome them into the party and happily deprive Bush of their votes.

- Aloha Texan

[loyalsister]

48. Another group I know of

People with disabilities. A marginalized group that isn't measured in polls often. NOT rich, either. Dean has a disability platform and has even discussed mental health issues. The other guys created more people with disabilities.

[PassingFair]

64. Screw the Pew polls...

Come to ANY meet-up and look about you. Though I would LOVE to see more people of color at the functions I've attended, we are as diverse a group (financially) as I've seen. Most of us are "lower" middle class here in Macomb County MI. I am a family person who is also a part of the democratic base, and if you're statement implies that all Dean supporters are "yuppie nimbies", then pardon my bluntness, but you are dead wrong.

[Demobrat]

42. It's the second one that scares me.

If anybody but Dean or Kerry is the nominee we will be toast before the general election campaign season even begins. Rove will have all summer to spin and lie, and there will be nothing we can do about it.

[TexasPatriot]

44. well, keeping just to #2

seeing as soros is committing $25m... and there's nothing stopping people from donating to groups like moveon... i'd say that's not true. Not only that, but clark has shown he has the ability to REALLY bring in the bling.

[Demobrat]

46. Except that the outside groups and the campaigns

are not allowed to coordinate. Sure, MoveOn and the others can bash Bush, but run ads for his opponents, or even work with his opponent's campaign? Nope. Clark should have had the guts to opt out. His failure to do so is his funeral. I just hope he hasn't snuffed the whole party's chances along with his own.

On edit: Clark's fundraising ability means squat. He's limited to $45 million. Dean will have $200 million, or whatever he can raise.

[TexasPatriot]

47. i disagree

"His failure to do so is his funeral"???

Lets start from the premise that you have an open mind - and this isnt just flamebait.

The argument is that the difference between Bush's $100m he's raised for the primary - and the $44,600,000 that is the spending limit for matching funds is an insurmountable obstacle.

Let's explore that. First off, i think we can agree that the primary campaign seems likely to soak most of the dem primary campaign warchests - meaning whomever ends up as the candidate will be facing a $100m warchest without a lot in the bank. Dean and Kerry can both go out and say 'hey, remember me?' - and try and refill the bank - the rest of the candidates have chosen to take matching funds.

Right now, hints are that Clark is looking at 12 for the quarter. So that doubles to 24. Dean was downplaying his numbers to the 9-10 range but I dont buy it. I'm betting on a number closer to 20. Most of the others are sub 4 - but they'll each double up (so Edwards can keep running those Iowa ads even if he likely wont poll 15% in any caucus). Having the matching money makes Clark viable against Dean. Otherwise, in all honesty, a lot of people would just call Gore the kingmaker and we'd all wonder when this became the Canadian political system.

I said there were plenty of opportunities to fund non-campaign specific PACs. This is generally the big loophole in McCain Feingold, and you see lots of orgs (from moveon to Delay's weasely help the children fund) out there taking advantage of it. All that PAC money is going to be out there hammering away at W - and all of the rest of us that will be out there banging on doors and attending Punkvoter Rock the Vote concerts. The question of coordination is silly. The broadsides will be pretty general until the GE cycle truly starts - anything more specific elicits news coverage, and thus opportunities for candidates to get on Larry King for free (it's not the real campaign yet - so equal protection wont count) By the time of the real campaign the question of taking matching for the general is re-examined.

What I find interesting is here we are, with Dean's campaign that started from nothing and was built up out of giant non-threaded discussion boards and a cheesy imitation of evite - all on a shoestring budget - and somehow now the barrier is going to be money? The Clark campaign built its entire CCN environment on open source software - they didnt buy a product from Convio that had a bunch of CRM contributor analysis tools so they'd know when to push what political hot buttons with what campaign contributors - and they're still managing to compete favorably for quarterly campaign contributions and 'internet buzz'. With Kerry's campaign - well - there just isn't a lot of money flowing in that direction. I dont know what to attribute that to - but that's probably a discussion for another thread (and for people who might be able to comment). I wish he had more - I think he's one of the better candidates in the race (and he's my #2).

If the argument is that it requires big cash to defeat bush in a big money pre-convention retail campaign - then that argument defeats part of the value proposition Dean brings to the table, namely the value of the grassroots movement itself - unless the point of the grassroots campaign is all about money (the I have more sheep to be sheared than you analogy). I dont buy that. A Dem is a Dem - and I'm just as likely to donate to a Kerry or a Gephardt or a Dean campaign in the fall as a Clark campaign - and if my perception is that I need to donate to Moveon.org in the summer because that's the way to put up a defense against pub attacks, then you bet I'm going to be there - along with a lot of the rest of you.

Personally, I think the idea of getting into a 'lets drop trow' money fight with the pubs pre-cycle is a terrible idea. Today here in Austin we had all the chairs of the texas committee to re-elect meet (CREEP 2). Generally speaking, if W* told them 'guys, go get me another $100m' he'd have it. I promise. One way or another.

Denying Bush a candidate he runs well against is more important than the question of whether that candidate will have a couple million dollars in his pocket in the doldrums before the GE begins - especially when Soros is committed to putting up the cash to defeat W*. There are more like him - one way or another let's not see their money go to waste.

[Mz Pip]

49. What a bunch of crap

Sorry, I don't usually bother with posts like this because they are moronic and serve no useful purpose. But...

Take comfort in your illusions that Dean who has zero foreign policy experience will somehow slay the Goliath that is the Bush spin machine.

DO NOT assume that Clark supports are less committed than the Dean supporters. They may not be as obnoxious in their support but they are none the less committed. And yes we write letters...

Dean is polling at about 22%. That means that 78% aren't on his bandwagon to oblivion. Thank God for small favors.

MzPip
:dem:

[mikehiggins]

51. The only way Clark will beat Bush

is if he beats Dean first. That's the point. If he can't beat Dean, he can't beat Bush.

Sooooooo...what?

So we have to look at WHY Dean could win, which you list as five reasons.

1. frugal. <<ahem>> That's the first time I've ever encountered an argument like that in a political campaign. I guess you're right. Who cares?

2. a romantic construction praising Dean as the savior of the Democratic Party confronting the aristocrats surrounding Clark. Many of us Democrats don't really think our party has to be saved. What we are mostly concerned with is winning this election. So far, nothing to bolster your case.

3. Dean is Campaign Finance Reform in practice. Black is white. Up is down. Bush is capable. Dean has turned his back on Campaign Finance Reform by opting out of it. Is your argument that we have to save the village by destroying it? Been there, done that, didn't work.

4. Dean is Gandalf? That is just too embarrassing. Let's just forget you wrote those sentences.

5. (or 4, if we forget about the Saruman stuff) Dean is going to make the Democratic Party a force for good and progress in the future. Now that is funny. Most of us are Democrats BECAUSE this party is a force for good and progress. I'm a Democrat and belong to my county Democratic committee. No aristocrats around here.

Larks, you seem to overlook or be ignorant of the fact that Dean is an ambitious politician who served as Governor of a fairly small state and has been seeking higher office since at least 2000. He has developed some new techniques, and new approaches but there is nothing actually "new" about him at all. He is still just a politician, which is one reason he infuriates people like Kerry and Gephardt and Lieberman so much. They have known him for a decade or more, and frankly, no one was particularly impressed. It is not hard for a politician like the former Governor of this state or the Congressman from that state to support Howard Dean. They are politicians too. He has the money and he has a lot of volunteers. He's even willing to raise money for them.

When Bush does stuff like that you'd think he was trying to buy their support. When Dean does it, its some new and innovative way of shaping a new and vital democracy. Larks, how on earth do you think Ronald Reagan managed to become a force in the GOP? He went around for years campaigning for politicians all over the US. When it came time to call in the IOU's he had plenty and to spare. Nothing new about it at all.

So now Dean has walked in and announced a new sheriff in town, and told all the old guys to get the hell out of Dodge. Well, they aren't buying it, and they're not going anywhere without a fight.

Now us Clark supporters, on the other hand, are concerned about one thing. Beating Bush. For a lot of reasons we have come to the conclusion that Clark has a good shot at doing it, if he gets past Dean. Trying to beat your candidate does not make Clark a villain. He's just a guy with a neat uniform and a snazzy resume that has been campaigning for a grand total of three months. He is a man who we think has something unique to offer this party and this nation. And just like Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman have difficulty accepting Dean, so, it seems, you have difficulty accepting the fact that a man who has been in politics for less than three months is likely to give your guy a run for your money.

That's politics, Lark. Sometimes the underdog wins.

In the next couple of months the primary voters will decide the question for us.

And judging by your post, if the nominee is Dean, and he does win, you are going to be very, very disappointed.

[TexasPatriot]

54. Keeping to #4

I love when people do this, it always makes me laugh... and today of all days i'm going to indulge myself and be a wiseass (i have a minor in parageography (classics), and have read all of Christopher's works)

"4) Dean has sound judgment to make the right decisions on important issues and the political courage to weather storms of jingoism and negative attacks from the Sarumans of the Dem Party -- Clark, Kerry, Gephardt -- as well as Sauron himself -- Bush & Rove. "

As for Clark/Kerry/Gephardt as Saruman-esque I'm really not sure what he means by that. Saruman wasn't really a source of jingoistic attacks on anyone, and i dont see any of the dem candidates espousing such an extreme sense of nationalism and belligerence as to be deserving of the term. If he wanted to be cute, he could have made a Radagast comparison - as Radagast was a master of shape-changing - but i think perhaps that argument might well apply to just about any politician. Perhaps he simply misunderstands the concept of Saruman.

Also Bush as Sauron... i dont buy that one either. I think Ungoliant is a better maian comparison.

But he didnt actually suggest Dean as Gandalf. He compared Clark/Kerry/Gephardt with Saruman, and Bush with Sauron.

Though, as Dean has admitted to smoking a bit of pipeweed, and if the idea is that all dem presidential candidates are Maiar, I'd suggest a couple more viable alternatives than Gandalf. Alatar is a better comparison - as the blue wizards, in theory, enlisted and organized followers that would outlast the fall of Sauron. Another might be Tom Bombadil - who had tremendous power within the Old Forest but would have struggled mightily to be effective against the forces of darkness had he ventured into non-aligned territory.

I love silly discussions like this... but ultimately, they're just silly.

[QC]

52. Larkspur, if you really want to help Howard Dean,

you could start by not spending your every waking hour giving credence to the nastier stereotypes of his followers.

[Padraig18]

53. As a Dean supporter, I must disagree, Larkspur.

Neither General Clark nor, indeed, any of our candidates, are 'unfit to be Democratic Nominee for President'. Frankly, I have never bought into the theory that a lack of either civilian elective or civilian administrative experience is reason to disqualify a candidate for President. General Clark has a proven record as an administrator, and he furthermore has a proven record of supporting progressive ideas withing the Army, e.g., setting up the first pro-active spousal-abuse intervention program.

I support Gov. Dean because I view him as the 'total package'--- the candidate who most closely represents my views on the entire range of issues facing America--- but I could easily and enthusiastically support Gen. Clark, should he gain the nomination; he would make a fine President, as would any of our candidates.

[Larkspur]

59. And I could never support Clark enthusiastically

He's a faux Democrat and always will be in my eyes.

Clark is a political opportunist and that is why he entered the Prez race late, but he's also a political neophyte and it showed up in the beginning when he flopped in his bid to crack Dean's support base.

Clark is a major liability if he becomes the Dem nominee. His inexperience at civilian campaigning and his lack of civilian elected office will trip him up against the mildest of Bush-Rove attacks. Clark would also be a major liability as Dean's VP for the same reasons.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

55. Dean uses anger to fuel his campaign! That will fail in the...

general election. If Dean is the nomminee then we should concede the election in May.

[returnable]

56. And once again...

...you stain this community with an attack on another Democrat. To call someone "unfit" is beyond the pale.

Way to go, champ :eyes:

[Larkspur]

58. Your welcome!

.

[w4rma]

60. I disagree that Clark is unfit to be the Democratic nominee. Both are fit.

I also disagree about Gen. Clark not having a dedicated band of supporters, willing to do grunt work. However, Dean's dedicated band of supporters is larger and has had the time and leadership to organize better than Clark's.

I don't think that Clark would run America as a military state. He seems very pro-democratically inclined, to me.

I don't have a problem, at all, with military speak. Every profession, just about, has their own lingo. When someone comes from a military profession, I expect them to sometimes use their military lingo. When someone comes from a doctor's or lawyer's or mechanic's or programmer's background, I expect their profession specific lingo to get used, occasionally.

The rest I agree with, particularly the positive points made about Gov. Dean.

[maxr4clark]

61. It is very impressive

How this thread has attracted rebuttal from supporters of so many candidates, including the candidate that the original message supposedly supports.

As for me, I'm content to let your arguments, Larkspur, be rebutted by the voters. Clark is a strategist; he rose in the military primarily as a strategist. The race for the nomination is not over, not by a long shot.

[VT70]

63. No way

Dean is more unfit than anyone to be president. He is dead last on my list of favored candidates.

From favorite to least favorite, I rate them like this:

1. Lieberman
2. Gephardt
3. Clark
4. Kucinich
5. Moseley-Braun
6. Sharpton
7. Kerry
8. Edwards
9. ..........maybe Dean.

I can't stand Dean's pompous attitude, and I pray every day that he does not get our party's nomination.

[Le Taz Hot]

65. As a Dean supporter

may I say that you do the Dean campaign a disservice by posting this type of flamebait. ANY of our Democratic Presidential candidates (with the exception of Lieberman) would be better than Bush. Regardless of who eventually wins the nomination, we're all going to need each other at the end and posting this type of flamebait only exacerbates that necessity.

[Larkspur]

67. My arguments against Clark have been consistant and fair

this is not a flame bait post

[Turkw]

71. You mean "Fair and Balanced" !

taking your *points* one by one

1) no votes have been cast yet, so it is impossible to tell who can stop whom. As Kucinich pointed out Deans surge in the poll happened AFTER the media started to feature him excessively, they helped cause the surge in polls, not report them. Polls have been shown to be wrong, so lets vote, count them and then see. Also it is very evident that Clark is a FAST learner, his campaign is doing very well, despite the media's treatment of ALL the other candidate but Dean.

2)This is your belief, you are entitled to it, but it does not make it a fact. A lot of Republican and right wing proponents have urged Republicans to give money to the Dean campaign during the primary. This money will dry up. Also, if, as you don't want, we have a competitive primary, a LOT of Deans money will be used, so we don't know what he will have IF we wins the nomination.

3) Clark has experience working with members of congress, the state department, the pentagon, foreign countries, NATO, the UN, and the world court. Clark also had to govern the civilian population of the various bases under his command, in different countries. The civilian population rivaled or was larger than the population of the state that Dean governed. Clark was involved in civilian issues such as education, school curriculums, funding (with which he had to get from and work with members of congress).

Saying that Clark will run what mounts to a police state because he uses military metaphors is ridiculous. If this were true then because Dean uses revolutionary metaphors, we will have the streets run red with blood as we overthrow the government. As I said , ridiculous.

4) A popular presidential candidate have coattails, (Bush did not- he was not popular, was not elected) But beyond that, after reading the policy papers written in the THREE months of his campaign, I am interested to see Clark's plan when he becomes the nominee. It is during that time that any such plans will be appropriate. But Clark may have plans, I don't know, and neither do you.

5) We are doing a lot, there are a lot of us, and your campaign is doing a lot to cause a division within the Democratic party, much less rebuild America. Your argument here is purely opinion.

6) But the South LIKES the military, and does not LIKE liberal yankees. Clark is a Southerner. Again, lets vote and see.

7a) Any Democratic nominee will be the David against the Bush/Rove Goliath. Clark is frugal with his contributions, is raising a lot of money, and has enthusiastic supporters also. Can be said of all the candidates

7b) your diatribe here is long on attack, short on fact. Dean is an aristocrat, Clark is not. Both Clark and Dean have been exciting different parts of the Democratic base, both have been getting independents and greens interested in their candidacy. I strongly object to the negative rhetoric you use here instead of facts.


7c) this is the opposite of Campaign Finance Reform. Again, other candidates, such as Clark are also Frugal.

7d) Clark's sound judgment saved thousands from ethnic cleansing. do you really want to bring up Dean's judgment?

7e) This is a negative attack, no basis in fact, and I will point out that this kind of attack tears the party apart.

Your vehement and negative attacks against several Democratic candidates shows that there is not rebuilding going on. You are alienating people who you need to vote for your candidate.

All in all I give this an D-, you did manage to say a few positive facts about your candidate. You did a lot more attacking with opinion, though.

Rove gives this a A+, says please continue.

[catherineD]

66. Taking your points one by one...

1) "Clark has NO civilian political campaign experience. It's evident his campaign can't stop Dean, so what makes you think that he can stop the Bush-Rove "Goliath"?"


Too early to tell. No votes have been cast. Just saw a cspan group of Dem or Dem-leaning voters focus group and half of them couldn't even recognize all of the candidates.


2. "By taking FEC funds...

Money is helpful, but whoever the candidate is, he will get lots of news coverage. Dean would need much more money, in my opinion, to try to combat ads showing gay men kissing and questioning his foreign policy abilities.

3. Clark has no elected civilian political experience. I'm not interested in living under a benign military state that Clark will run.

I understand your concern, but nothing in Clark's career suggests that he would be that way. And our benign military state includes many lovely socialist values, like excellent medical care for everyone. Clark is used to fighting in Congress for the families under his care -- about 200,000 when he was Commander-in-Chief of the European Command, which translates to political experience and an interest in helping those he is responsible for. He is respected by European leaders (he's received many awards from them for his work in Kosovo) and has much political experience from working with other countries as the head of NATO.


4. "Clark has NO plan to win back the House or Senate"

Visit his website, though, and you'll realize that he is putting out policy papers at an incredible rate. You can be sure he will get to that. Meanwhile, I've read that southern Democrats are concerned that if Dean wins the nominations, the recent retirements in the south of Democratic governors and senators would leave Democratic challengers for these positions unlikely to experience any coattail effect.

5. "Clark does NOT have a dedicated band of followers who are willing to do the grunt work, like Dean's supporters are. Dean supporters not only write letters to elected officials but to ordinary Americans, who are still undecided.."


You don't seem to have checked your facts here. My impression from a recent poll here is that there are slightly more Clark supporters in DU than Dean ones, suggesting a certain level of dedication. I've heard elsewhere Dean supporters referred to as people who seem to be enjoying the movement, while Clark supporters revere the man. If you saw the Florida Convention recently, you know that Clark had nearly as many supporters as Dean there, and he didn't have to bus them in from the unions. And Clark supporters are, of course, writing letters to people in New Hampshire and elsewhere, as I'm sure is true of all of the campaigns.


6. "While Clark may cause Dean problems in the South, the recent polls don't indicate that Clark will walk away with the South. Dean's experience in rural Vermont is closer to that of many Southerners than Clark's military background."

Dean's experience is also of being raised in boarding schools and spending a year skiing in Colorado. I don't think southerners relate to that. Clark's family didn't have money and until Clark left the military, his paycheck, even as a 4-star-general, was decidedly middle-class. And being raised in Arkansas doesn't hurt.

Your comments after this seem more promotional than accurate -- I can understand resentment with the Beltway insiders -- that's how I feel about Gephardt -- but trying to connect poor kid Clark with the aristocracy when you're supporting a guy born with a spoon in his mouth like Dean seems a strange stretch.

Clark has been the candidate among the first tier candidates least likely to attack Dean, along with Edwards, so that accusation seems out of place. Clark has also generated Hope and Excitement. The media has focused so exclusively on Dean in recent weeks, however, that all of the other candidates have had a hard time being noticed. My impression is that this is not, however, because the many people answering polls are really very decided. If they were, these polls wouldn't keep leaping all over the place.

And I see that you are most interested in rebuilding the Democratic Party. Which is certainly nice, but my feeling is that Clark's goal is rebuilding the country.

[Larkspur]

68. Refuting your responses

1) Clark made major tactical errors upon entering the Dem Prez race which show that he is a major liability on the campaign trail. Some of those errors are:
a) Entereing late and not having the fundraising machine behind him to challenge or upend Dean right away. Seems Clark and his supporters didn't pay attention to the fact that the 2004 primaries were front-loaded. 2004 will not be a replay of 1992's Bill Clinton come from behind after NH. Bill had time after NH to regroup. In 2004, after the caucus and primary race begins, there won't be enough time to regroup AFTER a loss.
b) Flip-flopping on the IWR vote. This cost Clark any hope of cracking Dean's core anti-Iraq war vote
c) Giving an anemic announcement speech. Compared to Dean's June 23 speech, Clark's speech was a bore. Combined with the media hype wave that Clark rode to enter the race, Clark's performance to-date has been disappointing.
d) Pulling out of Iowa not only cost him a chance to win IA supporters and potentional delegates but also cost him the AFSCME union endorsement, which went to Dean. Losing that endorsement was a major blow to Clark's campaign and one that his campaign has not recovered from it; meanwhile, it fueled Dean's campaign to greater heights. The publicity from that loss and the lack of human resources from that activist union to man his campaign is haunting Clark to this day.

2) You said
Money is helpful, but whoever the candidate is, he will get lots of news coverage. Dean would need much more money, in my opinion, to try to combat ads showing gay men kissing and questioning his foreign policy abilities.
If Clark spends over the $45 million limit, HE CAN NOT CAMPAIGN and the media will keep reminding the voters that Clark is impotent against Bush because he can't campaign while Bush-Rove, with their $200 million war chest, will steamroll over Clark.

But Dean will easily surpass that spending limit fighting for the nomination, which is why he asked his supporters to decide if he should reject matching funds. By doing so, he could raise as much funds as we supporters can give and he can continue campaigning. And this is where civilian political campaign experience tops a 4-star general. If Clark really had the grassroots support that Dean had, he would have done the same thing. This also answers #5

3)Civilians are not military people, who are expected to obey their superior's orders whether they like them or not. Civilians are the "boss" in our democracy, not our elected officials, who are the people's servants. While the military is also the public's servant, within the military there is a strict code of command that must be followed. That code is much losser in the civilian world where dissent can frustrate or embarrass politicians, including ex-generals. Clark has not shown me enough evidence that he can handle dissent within the democratic framework and still get a policy passed.

4)Issuing policy papers does not win back the House or Senate, and hoping for Republicans to retire does not guarentee a Democrat winning that seat. Those seats must be contested and the Democratic challengers must have funds to do so. That is where Dean is light-years ahead of Clark. Dean did a trial-run fundraiser for the only Democrat in Iowa's Congressional delegation and it was a success. Dean is teaching his followers that it's not enought to win back the White House, we must also fund efforts to win back the Senate and House.

5) DU does not reflect reality of the campaign ground forces. Clark's dedicated band of followers is much smaller than Dean's, whose band keeps growing. If Clark's band of followers were equal to or larger, then Clark would be in better position in NH and not losing SC, AZ, or NH. But Clark's poll numbers are descending, even on the national scale. And this is where Clark's late entry is really hurting him. He pulled out of Iowa because the other campaigns networks were very solid and he didn't have time or the manpower to challenge there. Also, if Clark's band of followers were equal to Dean's, Clark would have immediately tied Dean for the 3rd quarter fundraising goal. He didn't.

6) Regarding the South, Dean leads Georgia and SC right now after having been in the middle or back of the pack. This is the result of a great campaigner and organizer who can earn endorsements that appeal to voters in those states. Dean has Rep Jackson Jr. and most of the CBC. Clark was suppose to stop African Americans from going to Dean. He failed and the African American vote can be a strong influence in Southern primaries.

Dean may have been sent to boarding schools, but he was taught the value of hard work and managing money responsibly. Those are values shared by most Americans, regardless of their economic background. Of all the candidates, Dean is the hardest working one. Andrew Stern, President of SEIU union, said that he told all the Dem Prez candidates the same line about winning his union's national endorsement -- go through the union's grassroots. Stern supplied all the candidates the names of the local SEIU unions, and Stern said that only Howard Dean took him up on his offer. Not even Dennis Kucinich made the effort that Dean did. Howard Dean has worked his butt off as well as devise superb campaign strategy to win this nomination, and that is why he will win the nomination and defeat Bush in 2004.

Regarding the Dem Party and Country, I want my country back from the robber barons plundering it and I want my Party to stand up for its principles again. The two, for me, go hand-in-hand.

[maxr4clark]

76. ...and likewise

1. "Clark made major tactical errors upon entering the Dem Prez race"

Clark entered the race late because neither Dean nor Gephardt nor Kerry nor Lieberman took a commanding lead before he entered. It has hurt his campaign that he entered so late; however, the fact that he has attracted, and continues to attract supporters even with such a late entry is a testament to how strong a candidate he really is.

The time that Dean spent complaining about little George's war at the beginning of the race, Clark spent writing a wonderful book about what America's current situation is and what its future should look like. Take a look at "Winning Modern Wars", especially the last two chapters. Clark shows he understands the macroeconomic issues and other international concerns well enough to map a good path forward. That's what we want, isn't it? Someone who knows where America should head and how to get there?

2) "Dean will easily surpass that spending limit fighting for the nomination, which is why he asked his supporters to decide if he should reject matching funds."

Dean and his supporters have ignored the anger the American voter has regarding campaign finance tactics. It is possible to beat Bush without as much money as Bush has, by having a better vision for the American people. Dean needs more money than Bush because he is running against Bush, not running on his own ideas.

3) "Clark has not shown me enough evidence that he can handle dissent within the democratic framework and still get a policy passed."

Then you haven't been paying attention. Clark has dealt with many civilian governments, both American and foreign, international in scope and national. He has better credentials for working with others than Dean does by far. I have no faith that Dean can attract Southern Democrats, much less Republicans to join him, whether to vote for him or to agree on policies. Dean's "fiesty" reputation doesn't gel with your view of him as a dealmaker at all.

4) "Seats must be contested and the Democratic challengers must have funds to do so."

Dean had best keep his eyes on Bush; if he doesn't, it won't matter whether he has coattails or is wearing a Bolero jacket. Besides which, Dean can still help other Dems campaign whether he gets the nom or not; do you mean to say he'll pick up his toys and go home if he doesn't get the nom?

5) "If Clark's band of followers were equal to Dean's, Clark would have immediately tied Dean for the 3rd quarter fundraising goal. He didn't."

Dean's band of followers sounds quite impressive. At the four visibility events I've been at in Seattle, though, Clark has had more people holding signs, handing out literature, waving, etc. than Dean has. So while you may see Dean people, I see Clark people.

6) "Clark was suppose to stop African Americans from going to Dean."

No, Clark is aiming to attract African American voters, not keep them from going to Dean. There are some big differences between Zogby's poll numbers and other polls. Clark also has some impressive endorsements from African Americans. To date only Dean of all the major candidates has said anything that alienated African Americans. One of the few places I have seen African Americans in Seattle is working for Clark's campaign.

Dean reminds me of a recent Texas governor in that he was born rich, has a tendency to keep his past out of the public view, and responds to most things with an attitude of defiance. None of these things are particularly welcome.

"Regarding the Dem Party and Country, I want my country back from the robber barons plundering it and I want my Party to stand up for its principles again. The two, for me, go hand-in-hand."

I couldn't agree more. I see Clark standing up for Democratic principles by (1) conforming to campaign finance limits, (2) running a positive campaign, and (3) supporting the Democratic process of government both at home and abroad. Read the last chapter of "Winning Modern Wars", it does an excellent job of laying out Clark's position on the economy and his vision for America.

I would love to hear Dean's vision for America. I would very much like to hear it explained without reference to George Bush. The campaign literature I've picked up from Dean supporters and the e-discussions I've had with same have not convinced me that Dean has ideas about what to do after getting elected. I very much want to vote FOR a president, not AGAINST a president.

[democratreformed]

75. I have read

that the "opting out" currently being discussed only applies to the primaries and that any candidate can then choose to opt out in the GE.
Can someone clarify this?

[Clark4Prez]

69. Gosh, where to begin...

Since it has been said that it is easier to sling mud than to clean it, I will address a few of your "issues" as a grassroots Clark supporter (you know one of those people Clark doesn't have)

You said of Dean:

1) He is FRUGAL with his campaign contributions. He gets more bang for his supporters buck with his ads, so even if he can't outraise Bush, Dean runs a lean campaign machine and has the enthusiastic support of his followers who will do everything in their power to help him.

That is your most telling error, if you are going to compare frugalities, how do you explain Dean's spending $50,000 for a reception room at the Florida Democratic Convention, the Clark team used a RV in the parking lot (for the record there was quite a large crowd for Clark at the convention). Frugal points- Clark 1, Dean 0

2) He has excited the Democratic base with Hope that we can take our Party and our country back from the robber barons plundering our Treasury. Clark has not generated the excitement among the base as Dean has because Clark's advisors have an aristocratic mentality and take the Dem base for granted. This is the same mentality that cost us the Senate in 2002 and has caused an exodus of Dem supporters from the Dem Party to either Greens or Unaffiliated.

While it's true that Dean has generated excitement, he is not the only one. Clark has brought both the Moderate and Liberal vote with his positions on gay unions and the need for a strong America. Clark can deliver the Military vote, one that has traditionally voted GOP, something Dean cannot do (although Dean does have an edge with the skier vote). Cross appeal Clark 1 Dean 1

3) Dean's campaign is Campaign Finance Reform in practice. With his followers support, Dean opted out of FEC matching funds so that we can continue to contribute to his campaign with the Hope that we can, with Dean's frugality, bang Bush's record to smithereens with effective media ads and many campaign tours.

If that is so, Dubya must be the same since he opted out too. Fund raising Dean 1 Bush 1 Clark 0


4) Dean has sound judgment to make the right decisions on important issues and the political courage to weather storms of jingoism and negative attacks from the Sarumans of the Dem Party -- Clark, Kerry, Gephardt -- as well as Sauron himself -- Bush & Rove.


You mean like when he got angry at the reporter who challenged him on his flip-flop on NAFTA. Anger management Clark 0 (don't question his patriotism, he will beat the sh*t out of you) Dean 0 (don't question his waffles, he will beat the maple syrup out of you)


5) Dean is setting the foundation to rebuild the Democratic Party into a force for good and progress in the future. Clark supports the Dem aristocratic status quo.

If by "rebuild" you mean destroy, sort of like we are "rebuilding" Iraq, then yes. But, rebuilding after attacking a destroying is not always the best strategy for those who have to live there, just ask the Iraqi people. Rebuilding vs reforming Clark 1 Dean 0

For those of you keeping score at home it is Clark 2 Dean 2 Bush 1. Looks like this game will go into overtime, stay tuned after these important messages...

[NewJerseyDem]

77. Dean isn't going to help win back Congress

Most of the competitive senate seats will be in the south where open seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Oklahoma will be seriously contested. Also, democrats may be able to oust incumbents in the border states of Missouri and Kentucky. Dean has the definite potential of repulsing southerners who are bothered by how he talks about the south like they are all just a bunch of racists who pray 24/7 and do nothing else.

Also, the many competitive house seats are in the housein the south. There are 3 in Georgia, about 3 in Louisiana, 1 in Alabama, at least 1 in North Carolina, at least 1 in Florida, and many in Texas. Dean could put all of those at risk.

Dean may have a plan for Congress but Clark may work with them once he is the nominee. I know that Dean may think that he is already the nominee and may be annoyed that he has to go throught the primaries but Clark is probably worried about winning the nomination and then worry about congress in a couple of months from now.

There is a serious potential that Dean will actually lose us seats in congress instead of gain any.