How would Clark or Dean have done against Bush ?

[kentuck]

With all the talk about how Kerry should have done something different, what do you think a Clark or Dean campaign would have looked like?

Personally, I think the Repubs would have tried to portray Dean a "crazy" and unstable because of his scream. They would have also portrayed him as too liberal and a proponent of "gay marriage". In the final analysis, I do not think he would have done as good as Kerry. Just my opinion.

With Clark, they would have portrayed him as a "flip-flopper" that did not even know which Party he belonged to. I think Clark would have been a strong candidate but I'm not sure that the Repubs would not have been successful in tearing him down. I supported Clark over Kerry but I am not convinced that he would have survived the race in 2004 any better than Kerry.

[Skittles]

1. I think Clark would have done better

he was my choice, and one they could not label as a "Northeastern Liberal" Much to my resentment, the choice of Kerry was already made before the voting was even close to getting to Texas.

[Mizmoon]

27. I too planned to vote Clark in the primary

but the truth is he was too green. He had a lot to learn about dealing with the press.

That's not to say he won't develop his skills further and take the White House one day. He has integrity. I hope he does.

[nickshepDEM]

44. self delete

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I might get dragged into this thread eventually

But it will mostly be under protest. I supported Clark, still do, but I find that these threads more often than not invite divisiveness more than real discussion. If we are going to speculate I would rather speculate on the future than on alternate reality histories. Not surprisingly I think Clark would have done better. I suspect most who supported Dean will think he would have done better. Most who supported Kerry will think no one would have done better. And many will say the election was rigged and no Democrat can win until we clean up voting.

[Clarkie1]

9. Well said.

I fail to see the point of engaging in speculation on what might have been.

We need to move away from this.

[KittyWampus]

46. I Think Clark As VP Would Have Made Swift Boat Crap Irrelevant

it's one thing to smear one veteran.

it's another to try and smear TWO.

edit- as someone says downthread... Diebold would have yielded same result most likely.

[napi21]

3. I agree with you on the Pubs trying to portrey them as you say,

however, I don't think it would have stuck! Remember, it's the job of the opponent to tear the other guy down. It will happen to every candidate on all sides! It's going to happen again in 2008 so be prepared. It's up to each candidate to dispell the charges and prove the opposition wrong!

I think Howard would have done very well. Tine would have proven them wrong on the crazy theory, as it has since he's become DNC chair.

I think Clark would have done well because he had less of a background for them to tear down.

I think both of these candidates were unprepared to deal with the nastiness of a federal election. Both have learned a lot since then. Who knows what they will do in the future.

[pacalo]

4. Same result: The election was stolen.

[gumby]

5. BINGO!

I really get tired of saying this over and over again.

Reflections to the past or speculations about the future mean nothing when our votes don't count and are not counted.

[eleny]

6. Right - as good as the machines would allow

[cloudythescribbler]

10. Excellent point, and there's more to say

Yes, destroying the possibilities for progressive victory has many dimensions. Getting people to give up hope is a key strategy, as often promoted by having people champion the concerns of progressives, like Clinton did to some extent in 1992, and then betray them utterly and do everything possible (Bill the Shill) to promote Republican gains in politics. (See Walter Karp's classic Indispensable Enemies). This poli sci classic, although from 30+ years ago, is as relevant as ever, and fit the Clinton Administration like a glove -- and without any mulligan!

But there is more. The question is to what extent do you have Democrats AND OTHERS willing to buck the machine? Not only the Kerry 'reporting for duty' campaign, but all those 'independent' (of the Democrats but not of the power elite's underground repression) as well as the media, until after the Republican Convention (as in The New Republic's article by Jonathan Chait, the cover story on Oct 18) ever pointed out how bogus the flipflop spin was. (Chait's article, which I have on file, did a decent job of outlining many of the main points, but too late). Nor did the "diversity" of voices address the falseness of Matt Bai's article in the Sun Oct 10 NY Times Magazine, which at RealClear politics one could see was the basis for what I then described as a tsunami of columns across the country as well as daily speeches by Bush/Cheney on how Kerry was 'soft on terrorism'. Bottom line is that if you are already committed to throwing in the towel, and everyone avoids being naughty and remains disciplined, the progressive cause is lost.

Only if progressives are ready and willing, in large numbers,to speak out, including about the 'glass walls' of underground repression that prevent issues like the suppression and not mere 'herd instinct' of speech (as Jonathan Chait tried to palm it off), and if authentic progressives are ready and willing to similarly to confront the problem of the swarms of 'red-headed league' type (as I call them) or inauthentic progressives that serve to stifle authentic progressive political expression and organizing CAN THERE BE ANY CHANCE OF VICTORY FOR AUTHENTIC PROGRESSIVE POLITICS.

[Protagoras]

34. yup

yup

[snowbear]

7. Kerry vs. the others..?

I was a Clarkie too kentuck. When Kerry become our nominee though, hey.. it was time to support our guy and I did 100%! I even became a moderator at the official Kerry campaign site ~ :patriot: (we had some fun times there :) )

It's hard to say how General Clark would have differed from Kerry because Iowa ensured he'd never get the chance to show anyone. :shrug:

Senator Kerry totally kicked ass in all three presidential debates though. :headbang:

But there were problems too.. Not standing up to the swifties immediately was definitely one of them. It should have been nipped in the bud.

And when he was asked ..."Knowing what you know today about NO WMD's, would you have still voted for the war in Iraq?" :( ...geez, his response confused most of America.

As far as the GOP a-holes putting Clark down for not knowing his party.. I say bullcrap. He was a registered INDEPENDENT during his military career. Like he said, he spoke at a GOP event that he was paid to speak at. He did the same for Democrats. Whoopteedoo. As far as his voting record, he explained his reasoning and his supporters could have cared less. We didn't examine any other candidates past voting record. It was a GOP talking point, but it wouldn't have swayed anyone away from him. Not running in Iowa though.. it did him in.. :cry:

Senator Kerry is incredibly intelligent and he blew us all away countless times during the campaign, but wow.. I seriously want a fresh start in 2008.. :toast:

~~~~ :kick:

[Lexingtonian]

8. don't go there, kentuck

It's probably best to let the people who are arguing for their non-Kerry candidate raise the issue themselves and on their own terms.

The more conservative wing of the Democratic Party did its best and dominated the Party during the Nineties, but it ran out of relevance- adequate answers in the eyes of the electorate- starting at or after the Lewinsky scandal, overtly in the problem posed by Gore and Florida in 2000, and ending with Sept. 11 '01. It couldn't find a way to adequately counter the hardline Republican ideology/policies/agenda, whereas the liberal wing then- picking up the pieces- ultimately did. The meaning of Kerry's becoming nominee is that the liberal wing of the Party has become the ascendent and prevailing one...and probably fully dominant soon.

What Clarke, Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, etc. advocates are really doing is asking the rest of us to explain/argue this to them properly.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'm not sure I understand how the closing line of your post .......

..... squares with the rest of it.

If I understand you correctly (and I may not be), you're saying that the DLC is irrelevant today. Okay. I agree with that. Then you say the defenders of 'the others' should bring these up on their own terms. Okay again.

But then you say the defenders of the others are asking the liberal wing of the party to explain to them why the liberal wing is ascendant.

And then you go on to list Clarke (sic), Dean, Kucinich, and Edwards.

If memory serves me, Kucinich is to the left of Kerry. Clark, if his position papers are reflective of the man, is also to the left of Kerry (at least on a lot of issues). Dean, it can be argued, is more centrist, although I'm not so sure of that anymore. I see him more to the left than he was originally thought of by his critics, if not his supporters. That leaves Edwards. And at the risk of incurring the wrath of his supporters, I'm not sure where he stands on many issues (although his record shows him to be pro war and pro worker - kinda divergent positions).

Given that at least three of the four are at least as liberal as Kerry (at least in an overall sense), I'm not sure I understand your point.

[Lexingtonian]

13. well...

First of all, I do think that being Left and being conservative are not exclusive. I dallied with but ultimately walked away from some minor Left groups in the early and mid Nineties, and I've seen more than enough to consider the Left remarkably conservative. They want the social and economic order of masters and servants reversed, and they tend not to be ready to see it transformed or redefined or made more equal before they get a chance to see what living the role of master is like.

Kucinich had some real trouble at the beginning of his campaign with his anti-abortion rights position and his giving way on it particularly, and while I didn't follow his campaign much I never got the impression that he really was a convinced social liberal. Not many prominent people with Left politics really are, though they variously give it a bunch of lip service.

For Clarke, I'm not really sure what particulars you mean and I'm woefully uninformed. Perhaps his ideas about Iraq. He did best in Oklahoma and Arkansas, so I doubt he had a lot of social change in mind.

Edwards was deliberately vague. His line was classical FDR-to-LBJ Democratic positions, though he tried not to nail them down too much. He talked all economic policy all the time and social policy as little as possible.

Dean has moved liberal to the point where he's something of a chameleon, which is right for his present position. He got the DNC job in order to rebuild the Party where Democrats liked him and the state organization is/was on life support- Florida, Ohio- and he has to find a golden middle. He was most popular during the campaign in the mildly conservative woodland/rural states near or on cultural North/South divide(s) where the Party needs more oomph, like West Virginia and Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado (in a fashion), Oregon, and Washington. I don't ascribe it to anything as simple as gun politics, it's that people genuine understood him to be their closest kindred in personality, as a recognizeable kind of woodsman persona at bottom.

I think the key thing is that all of them, with exception of Kerry, worked out of political positionings that predated 1992 or 1994. The theory all of them implicitly worked with, except Kerry in my opinion, is that the whole psychological Civil War that built up in American politics between 1990 and 1992 has just been some kind of accident or aberration and that there's a going back to a status quo ante. In a sense that's what people lacked at the Convention- Kerry didn't assert that there was a comfortable set of arrangements that, if he won the office, would just be dusted off and reimplemented. He tried to use images and suggestions to convey assurances of the kind, which couldn't really work all that well. People construed it all as "no plan" despite there being lots of paper with specifics. Kerry, as I see it, was trying to avoid saying outright that there was a lot that was going to be renegotiated from the basics when the present set of Republicans and their policies are defeated.

[blm]

17. Kerry had the most lifetime record of ALL, including Kucinich. Clark

pretty much aligned with Kerry on every issue from the get go. So, I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Clark's positions put him to Kerry's left.

Kerry's lifetime voting record over 20 years, in fact, put him closer to Wellstone's lifetime record than any of the other nominees. Not easy to do over that many years.

People forget that Kucinich voted with the GOP base for years on abortion and flag-burning legislation which factored in to a lifetime record that was to the right of Kerry. I supported Kucinich for years knowing full well that there was a liberal underneath those votes, and I'm glad he's found himself, since he's a great voice for common sense liberalism.

BTW....When Kerry advocated for gays to serve openly in the military back when few supported it, it was Wesley Clark who stepped forward to back him up. No surprise to me that the two are so close on their policy positions.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. It is as much about perception as fact

And I *think* that was the OP's perspective with this thread.

Kerry indeed had (has) a fine liberal record .... that he pretty much ran away from in the general election.

Clark had to overcome the perception (among some) that he was a right wing nut in Dem clothing, so his stake had to be quite hard left.

[blm]

37. I think people mistake Kerry's use of thoughtful, mature language in

presenting his progressive ideas as running away from a liberal record. The nonthinking news readers that populate the broadcast newschannels certainly wanted folks to think that.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the

duck hunt ... it was obvious to me (and I **like** the guy and worked for him) that it was unadulterated pandering .... i.e.: running right.


Whereas this one (much as I hate this fuckwad) seems natural.

[demwing]

12. Okay, take Clark and Dean, run them through that weird machine

in the movie "The Fly," and create one candidate. Take Dean's executive political experience as governor, his populism, his stand on the issues, and his blunt outspokeness, and merge it with Clark's amazing military strengths, his ability to straddle party lines, his southern appeal, and his Rhodes Scholarship and academic credentials and you would have the PERFECT candidate.

Bush could lie, cheat, and try to steal the election, but people would have taken to the streets, stopping the clockwork of government, and demanded free elections. We would have loved Howard Wesley Dean-Clark, and he would have lead this country into history books as the epitome of the free society.

It would have been the golden age of pace and democracy, and the world would have followed.

I mean, since we're using our imagination and all...

[sandnsea]

15. That's what we did

And we came up with John Kerry.

[NYCGirl]

18. Yes, minus the experience as Governor, blunt outspokeness, military

strengths, southern appeal, etc.

[sandnsea]

19. No, it would be

Military service PLUS the experience as Prosecutor and Lt. Governor, 20 years legislative experience, and actual record of fighting for the people, not big business. Duty to country is always a southern appeal. Too bad Democrats were embarrassed about his war service.

[NYCGirl]

21. Kerry doesn't have anywhere near the military experience of Clark,

so that's a non-starter, and Kerry's southern appeal is non-existent. Too bad Kerry forgot to mention that 20 years legislative experience. And before the BCCI/Iran-Contra stuff is brought up, why was that kept such a secret in the campaign?

[sandnsea]

23. Excuse me, but

How would one get 20 years military experience, 20 years governance experience, and 20 years legislative experience, all at the same time? YOUR arguments are non-starters.

As to the legislative record, I do not know why the campaign didn't push it more. Not just BCCI, Iran/Contra but the whole thing. It doesn't change the fact that it exists and it doesn't change the fact that people on DU know it exists. Why they try to pretend it doesn't is a real puzzlement.

[demwing]

25. Yes it does change the fact

If he doesn't bring it up, are people just supposed to know about it?

We're not talking about the membership ranks at DU, but about the millions of sleepy eyed sheeples out there that need to be told who Kerry is.

Especially when BushCo is the only other easy source for information.

And yes I know Bush cheated.

But this little mini-thread was in response to my playful attempt at merging the personalities of Clark and Dean. You're welcome to disagree that my fictional "Wesley Howard Clark-Dean" would have been the perfect candidate, but you didn't.

You're just whinning that John Kerry would have been better, and wondering why I'm dissing your boy.

• I'm not.


• You're tiring me.


• Stop it.

[sandnsea]

29. Hmmm

You're just engaging in a little playfulness, but I couldn't possibly be engaging right back. I see.

[demwing]

33. You see? Fine. See your post 19

And explain how this was playful.

[sandnsea]

35. Was that to you?

No? Didn't think so.

[demwing]

38. Neither was my original post directed to you

but you decided to act as if it were anyway.

Is there a DU rule here that I'm missing?

[sandnsea]

39. I will spell it out

I posted to you, that's permissable, right?

Somebody else posted to me, which is also permissable, but went another direction, so I posted to them.

You came back as if the posts to her were in response to you. Referencing a post to somebody else as if it were in response to you just doesn't make any sense.

Get it now?

[demwing]

41. Nope. Don't get it

You claim you were just having fun

I call bullshit, and show that the general content of your posts, including the way you defended the post that you made in response to me, was not indicative of someone who was just playing around.

Giving me a play by play doesn't explain you behavior, it just retells the story.

Anyway, if you insist that you were playing, I'll accept that, but in the future don't bother. I know you of old, sandy, and you've often been touchy and tempermental regarding your support for Kerry, and your dislike of Dean.

[sandnsea]

42. And when I am

I'm pretty clear that I am, correct?

[demwing]

24. You're making me Laugh! Stop that!

I supported JK as best as I could. I'm sorry for you that you were offended that I don't think he was the perfect candidate, but my post was written tongue-in-cheek, obviously.

But since you couldn't just let it alone...

There are apparently TWO John Kerry's. There's the John Kerry that you (generously) described (embellished), and the JK that ran against Bush. During the campaign, I didn't see the first JK. He just wasn't there, so what good was he?

What good was he at all?

And I'm not sure what a southern appeal IS, except for "being born and raised in the south." I know that sounds shallow, but there it is.

Kerry let himself be attacked on his military record--thereby letting go of his service to country credentials--and thus he didn't look as if he had the fire to stand up for himself. Is THAT a southern appeal?

Kerry never ran on his populist appeal. Is THAT a southern appeal?

He never brought up his fights against the Reagan machine, nor did he mention his role as a prosecuter, except for a few routine references. There was no passion, no belief in himself. Is THAT a southern appeal?

I wasn't embarrassed by Kerry. He was a good guy, and would have made a good president. But he wasn't/isn't perfect, and his flaws were mostly swelf inflicted. America didn't get passionate about Kerry because Kerry wasn't passionate about Kerry.

[demwing]

26. Wah

but I want MY guy!

[sandnsea]

30. No yours

You got your guy and you didn't even know it. You're the one who ought to be crying.

[demwing]

32. Actually, I was mocking you

sorry :)

[sandnsea]

36. I'm shocked!!

Shocked I tell ya'! Mocking me! How could you?

[JNelson6563]

14. Note to self

Kentuck likes the river of shit we called the "04 primaries".

[Stinky The Clown]

16. The 04 Primaries

The debates on teevee ...... good thing

The front loaded nature of the primaries ..... not so good.

[kentuck]

20. No, I wouldn't want to swim the same river again...

under the same consequences. I apologize for believing it still may need a little more analysis ..

[GreenArrow]

22. Kerry, with Clark

would have won. Clark would have roped in the West.

[Cha]

47. MAYBE..but I don't Clark wanted

to be VP if I remember correctly.

[JaneQPublic]

31. There's no way we'll ever know. And speculation gets us nowhere. n/t

[LittleClarkie]

40. Indeed. All I can say is

I don't think losing this election was an option for Bush and Co. By hook or by crook, they were going to win. Against anyone.

[Schema Thing]

43. At one time, I would have said Dean no-way, Clark win easily

Now, I think both would have been better candidates. Clark much better, imo, but both better.

I saw too many people who consider themselves "independant" (no matter how much I personally think they'd drank the konservative koolaid) who just couldn't see past Kerry's being a "professional politician" nor his (what they percieved as) highbrow mannerisms. They just did.not.trust him, no matter what his real record is. American's vote mostly with emotion, this I learned. John Kerry's story, vs GW Bush's story? Should be no contest... but there ya go.

A governor with a lack of polish but plenty of passion, or a peace loving warrior Statesman, either one could have done better, by my guesstimation.

[nickshepDEM]

45. Dean would have done worse than Kerry... Clark would have...

done better than Kerry. How much? I guess we'll never know.

[WLKjr]

48. Dean/Clark ro Clark/Dean would have been a kick ass ticket

I would have loved it either way. They were both my favorites.

[jen4clark]

49. with the msm

and the vote tabulators controlled by the radical regressives, we could have put up Jesus himself and he would have lost.

imho, our #1 priority should be media reform. As long as the regime is controlling the news we're kind of fucked.

[XemaSab]

50. I think both of them

would have done a better job of putting Bush on the defensive.

[Joey Liberal]

51. The GOP would have trashed Clark's war record

Although Gen. Clark was airborne/ranger qualified, a West Point graduate, and a respected, decorated career infantry officer, the republiNazis would have trashed his military record anyway. In light of Bush's AWOL status during the Vietnam War, this is incredible - but true. The republicans have no shame. Leave it to them to mock the Purple Heart medal during their hatefest/convention.

[kevsand]

52. What if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub?

Inquiring minds want to know. That and: how come there's no smilie for olive branch?

[kwolf68]

53. Lost

They were already getting the hatchets ready for Clark. They would have smeered Clark and would have used standard cliches' on Dean (Liberal, Communist, Vermont radical, Godless)...

Clark would have been tougher to take down, because the standard cliche' would not have worked like it did on Kerry (and would have on Dean).

But in the end, Clark would have been ripped as not being experienced enough and they would have also come up with stories about his military service. I had a Republican that told me he begged for his 4th star and only got it because Clinton was his friend, that type of shit.

No candidate we run will be immune to this...Just strap in and get ready. I don't care if Christ himself came back to earth and offered to run A1 on our ticket....He would be destroyed by these people.