Establishment Politicians Have Already Lost

[Tom Rinaldo]

This is an opinion piece. It is not presented as fact. Like everything else in my life, a significant possiblity exists that I am wrong wrong wrong. Furthermore, I do not necessarily think ill of those I think have lost. End of disclaimers.

Regarding the race to become the Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, Dean is a solid favorite to win it. Certainly over a 50% chance. Clark still has a reasonable chance to pull off an upset. Everyone else is a real longshot.

When I speak of Establishment Politicians I refer to Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards. Let me explain my terminology, because there certainly are major differences between those four men. More than anything else I refer to the fact that each of them more or less charted a conventional campaign path towards winning the nomination. Each of them hold Washington based offices, and have been players on the National scene for several years or more (Edwards, the newest of the bunch, was considered as a possible VP choice for Gore). Each of them sat in Congress during the crucial three years after George W. Bush slipped into the White House with a one vote Supreme Court majority and less popular votes than Gore. During those three years Bush then managed to largely have his way with Congress, and one year ago the National Democratic Party carried a fuzzy and frankly meek message into the Congressional elections. Each of those four men have been running for President for well over a year now without very much to show for it, after each was touted as an early favorite by many. For those reasons and more, there is a subtle but pervasive perception that those men are part of politics as usual, and politics as usual has been found severly wanting by the Democratic party activist base that participates in primaries.

In a smaller field of candidates, if two or three of those men were not now running, the establishment curse, fair or unfair as it might be, might yet be overcome. In fact one of those men might still manage to emerge from the earliest votes as the leading anti-Dean candidate, but if one does it wil be too little too late, and a mere political footnote to this years campaign, and Deans ultimate victory. The emergence of one of those four men as Dean's primary opponent this Spring would ensure that Dean wins the nomination. It would be the electoral equivelent of the type of "tune up" boxing match that a heaveyweight Champion might schedule between more challanging matches. The champ against the honorable and game designated opponent, who everyone knows is outgunned heading into the match, in this case the later primaries and super delegate sweepstakes.

If there was any doubt about this, Gore's endorsement of Dean settled it. Gore's endorsement blurred the divide seperating Dean as an insurgent on one side, from most established national party leaders on the other. It makes it harder for them to make the case that a Dean candidacy will hurt the party, and it makes them more nervous that if they don't back "the eventual winner" soon, they will lose influence in the Fall campaign. Even if they personally believe that a Dean campaign will be a losing campaign, they still don't want to be locked outside of it looking in, once it appears inevitable. By now I believe the conclusion is rapidly being drawn that the traditional style Democratic Party candidates took to the field and subsequently were routed.

The perception, leaving aside reality for the moment, is rapidly setting in that only an insurgent can excite the core Democratic voteres this year, and therefor it logically follows that a non insurgent candidate will not emerge victorious from the primaries. The combination of true Dean believers, coupled with pragmatic party leaders and elected officials taking their cue from Gore, I believe, is too potent for any of the current Establishment Candidates to now overcome. If there is yet to be a serious challange to Dean it will need to be mounted around someone who shows some of the winning characteristics of Dean's campaign. It is sort of like the way the previously girl group dominated American pop music scene of the early 1960's began promoting groups like the Rolling Stones once the Beatles established that there was a new game in town, played by new rules.

Wesley Clark may or may not emerge out of the first two weeks of contests as the only obvious alternative to Dean, but if Clark doesn't, Dean has it in the bag. Clark's campaign is not dog eared, it still seems fresh. Clark does not fit any of the criterea of Establishment candidates as I outlined above. Clark's fund raising efforts are building, not waning. Clark has a strong internet component to his campaign, dating back to the Draft movement and continuing with his lively blog participation. Clark generates fervent support from his followers, and his core following has grown rapidly in just a few months, as is reflected by surging activity here at DU on his behalf. Clark gets press coverage that none of the candidates other than Dean can buy. It is not always positive, but increasingly the media has found that Clark can not simply be ignored, love him or hate him, he is too good a story.

A chance remains that Clark can keep building on the excitement he has already generated, that he can finish second or a very close third in NH and use that as a springboard, much like Clinton, into the contests that follow on it's heels. Clark has a chance to win two or more contests the week following NH. If he does he will have momentum and excitement on his side. At that point some party leaders who have held back might back Clark, and then it would become a real horse race with Dean. Maybe more important, then it would become a media event. Any of the other "Establishment candidates" doing well here or there would not produce the same buzz. They might be able to drag it out for awhile, but it wouldn't alter the conclusion.

That's how I see it. How about you?

[wiley]

1. That sounds fun!

Very astute!

[gristy]

2. A thoughtful piece you have here, Tom.

I can't argue with any points you raise. Others I suspect will. They will probably even argue with you on points you don't raise!

[Cleita]

3. I think you're right.

The country really wants a change from the same old thing and it is reflected in their choice of candidates from outside the Washington insiders club.

[imhotep]

4. Clark is the establishment

how could anyone think he is an outsider?

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. For a brief moment

I am not arguing the content of your assertion. Brief mostly because I took time off to write my original post and now I have a list of things I need to get done over the next hour or so.

I don't think Clark is the establishment, and I see him as an outsider, so I guess I am one of the people who could give you an answer to that question, and I will try to find time later to do so. For now though I am talking about perceptions. Everyone has their own perceptions, and it is my opinion that Clark is perceived by many as an outsider to the traditional political process, though I know there are some like you who don't see it that way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Clark as Outsider

First off, all terms are relative. No candidate for President capable of polling more than 3% nationally can truly be called an outsider. I am an outsider, I suspect you are an outsider. Even if I had straight down the middle politics, which I don't, I have no connections to power. Strictly speaking no complete outsider has any chance of winning the Presidency. Someone who is still an outsider today might have a chance ten years from now, but that is a different story.

By many definitions Howard Dean would not be called an outsider etther. Only 50 people in the nation get to sit as Governors. More to the point perhaps, Dean served as past chairman of the National Governors Association, the Democratic Governors' Association, and the New England Governors' Conference. That means to me that Dean was intimately familiar with the Democratic Party machinery, and it's operatives, long before he declared for President. He cultivated those ties and relationships. Dean is very good at being a politician.

Clark entered the military right after High School and stayed there for virtually his entire adult life. Obviously Clark has political skills or he would have been unable to rise to the top as he did in his career. However far more than is the norm, Clark had to fight to climb every step of his career ladder based on his unsurpassed peraonal abilities. Clark was just too damn bright, too highly motivated, and too incredibly disciplined to easily be side steped.

Clark didn't even have the personal connections to arrange an insider appointment to West Point by one of AK's Senators, he had to win a statewide competition to secure the one slot awarded strictly on merrit. Clark has always stood out for his abilities wherever he has "competed". He had the ability to be a world class swimmer, and he led his High School team to a State Championship by swimming two seperate legs on their relay team. With Clark his success has always been less who he knew than what he did. Clark doesn't come from a well connected family with an Ivy League peer group. He had to finish first in his Class at West Point to truly stand out there.

Throughout his career Clark has won the occaisional critical backing of some well connected people. If he hadn't his rise would have been blocked, because Clark did not fit the standard military mold. He wasn't one of the good old boys that most other senior military brass liked to surround themselves with. Clark was given his last two major assignments agaisnt the official recccomendations of the military which backed other candidates. Clark was able to move forward despite not being a typical insider, not because of it. He won the attention of a few key backers because he performed brilliantly in every task he was assigned and, all too rarely but occaisinally, true ability is recognized by someone influential, who cares more about results than connections.

Now you may be one of those who equates the military with the Establishment. If you are, and that formular is fixed, it would be difficult to say anything that would alter your views on this matter. I don't feel that way. I think the true insiders are more likely found within the close interplay of professional politicians and Corporaate interests. That's the real Establishment. True, there are those who throw in with the devil from every conceivable vantage point. There are CEO's of Non Profit Charities who are corrupt. There are Church leaders who are corrupt. There are Democratic politicians, and there are Military leaders, who play that currupt insider game. But no, I don't see the military as the Establishment. The military literally is a tool. It is a Hammer. How it is used depends on who is holding the handle. Clark was an independent thinker in the Pentagon who challanged the status quo assuptions of how U.S. strategic interests were to be defined and defended.

Clinton owes a lot to Clark, because Clark was able to facilitate and implement military policies that were attuned more to Clintons more benign world view than that embodied by the Reagan Bush mind set that preceeded him. Clinton had little natural support in the Pentagon, but Clark came through for him. It was disgraceful how Clark ended up being treated by his enemies, and Clinton let that happen on his watch and he knows he blew it. It doesn't surprise me now when Clinton makes small gestures to repay small parts of the debt he owes Clark. If Clinton didn't I would think far less of him as a man.

[Bandit]

11. I think you have expressed a reality quite well and I hate to nitpick but.

"one of AK's Senators," is what you said and I believe you were referring to Arkansas. However AK is Alaska. Sorry I just couldn't resist. I know I know petty petty petty.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Yup. Thanks for the correction

I certainly did mean to indicate Arkansas, not Arizona. Somewhere I knew that AK was Alaska, but obviously nowhere I was in touch with when I typed that. I don't think your correction was petty. I just tried to edit the original post but too much time has passed to allow that.

[shance]

6. I like the way you think and i like the way you write.

Great piece. Hope you will submit it for publication.

What you said about the establishment candidates is insightful and I agree with you.

I agree with everything, and would add that as an observer and a supporter, Howard Dean's candidacy has revealed to me how progressive and smart our nation in fact really is, and essentially, that we are the antithesis of what mainstream media tries to portray us and our beliefs as being.

Despite the upstream swim against the neverending currents of fear, mistrust, envy, and narrowly skewed minds, I have repeatedly witnessed Dean's message and presence awaken a dormant,unconcious, and ironically enough*, a spiritually starved nation with a hope-filled and honest message.

If Clark is able to convince America that his military and diplomatic skills are sufficient for the White House, which I believe they are, I cant help but think we may have sold ourselves short to a plan B of sorts, or a runner-up*, instead of a person who would be one of the best presidents our country could ever have.

After following his campaign for over a year, I dont think there is a substitute or even a runner up for Howard Dean, certainly no one with the vision, strength and overall consistency he has. His candidacy and his actions have proved this time and time again and continue to prove it. When Dean meets individuals, most are very drawn to his common sense approach and overall tone. I have a friend who I invited to a recent fundraiser who has voted primarily Republican in the past and after she saw Dean, she said that she wants to switch over to the Democratic party.

How many other Democratic candidates have that kind of impact?

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Thank you

I forgot to thank both you and another poster who thought I should submit this. Anyway this morning I did submit it as a proposed DU article. Thanks for the encouragement.

[Jacobin]

7. I wouldn't quibble with much, if anything in your piece

I would also encourage you to submit it for publication, here at DU, maybe truthout, or some other such place.

After some idiocy takes place in the WH or congress, and the media is trying to spin it in a positive way, I can always count on Howard Dean to issue a statement that eviscerates the current administration and spells out constructive ways that the problem could have been approached.

I like him and I send him money and I fervently hope he wins.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It's interesting to me that Dean Supporters

are the ones who picked up on this post, since personally I am supporting Clark. I am pleased though, because I am in no way associated with any Stop Dean effort. I was trying to simply present what I believe is really going on, even if that presentation acknowledges the likelyhood of Dean winning the nomination.

Dean earned his front runner status the hard way, and he has done it convincingly against a seasoned political field. It gives me hope that my fears that Dean would present Democrats with some significant liabilities in a National Election could be offset by his and his teams skills at mounting a powerful campaign.

For the record I believe Clark gives us our best opportunity to regain the White House, and I honestly think he would make a great President. But I give sincere credit to Howard Dean and his supporters for all that they have accomplished. They have reformulated the way Democrats organize and fight for what we believe in.

Fellow Clark supporters, I hope you do not find this post discouraging. I am not discouraged. I am proud of what our candidate and we have already accomplished in such a short time. We are still very much in this race, and I can easily forsee a scenario by which Clark can win the nomination. That scenario does require that Clark's momentum continue to grow however, and it depends on a general perception taking hold relatively quickly that Clark is gaining strength. Dean's supporters have consistently gone the extra mile for their candidate, and I believe Clark's must continue to do the same in order for him to have a real chance.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Dean is a symptom of a reactionary movement

This I will acknowledge. You make many excellent points.

[frank frankly]

12. I think you've got it right and a great read

very good analysis!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I agree, despite the DLC moaning.

Neither Clark or Dean are any sort of "leftist" knights. But, they (particularly) Dean reflect a leftist backlash against the "play it safe" slide to the right that the party has undergone. They represent the part of the Democratic Party that yearns for a change of direction from the "only way to beat the Republicans is to become Republicans" mantra so often chanted here in the guise of "too liberal", "we have to win the middle", "we can't win without the south", etc.

As I see it, the Democratic Party either becomes a true alternative to the republicans, or will drift into irrelevance.