I don't see how 1 can make a case that Kerry is more electable than Clark

[Bombtrack]

I'm NOT an anti-Kerry guy, not by a longshot compared to what kind of crap is thrown at him on this board.

But I just can't get my head around why people don't agree that when one looks at the big, abstract, pros and cons as a candidate to take on George W. Bush, that Clark shares in some way almost all of Kerry's pros, with none of his cons.

Yes, Kerry could get more of the military(family) vote than a democratic candidate who hadn't served, but isn't Clark more likely to get an even larger percentage? They both volunteered, they both were highly decorated and wounded in Vietnam, and they both followed their Vietnam experience with lifetimes of public service. But Clark's roots are much closer to the average military family voter, who rarely make the upper middle class, much less, the worth(married to or otherwise) of 9 figures.

There are many other issues Kerry would have to overcome that we all must acknowledge. Again, I haven't and will not make a habit of posting anti-Kerry stuff and I will continue to defend him from baseless attacks. But since I am a Clark supporter, I must say that the "the republicans are going to attack anyone" proclamation is really not cogent in any way no matter which candidate a person is defending. Almost every potential negative(electability wise) Clark has been levied with that I've seen has been either baseless or very, very, minor. The most common one, I think, that he has no elective experience, I think should be considered with the fact that I believe more former generals have elected president than sitting members of congress, and the same number in the last 50 years.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I think people are concerned as much about domestic issues

as terror. I don't see Clark gaining confidence on those matters. When it turns to the economy in the debates, I expect Kerry's legislative memory to kick in. Clark has done OK in the debate but I don't think he will debate Bush as well as Kerry.

[Bombtrack]

7. Have you SEEN Clark in a long, one-on-one format?

whether it's Russert, Matthews, or some faux-news guy he controls the debate, and doesn't allow anything to slide by.

Also, I think it will be alot more effective for someone to sell a domestic agenda to the middle and working class when they never made more than 60 grand a year up until a few years ago, much less inherited more money than most could spend, and married more money than God

[EXE619K]

17. Exact reason why Clark is not my #1 pick.....

If Clark had even a 2 yr. experience as a mayor of a two-bit city, he would certainly be my #1 choice.

The good General is weakest in doemstic policy credentials of all the candidates. For myself, I think domestic agendas are much more important than foreign policy experience in this election(but, like I said, that's just my preference for 2004).

If Clark ran as Governor of Rhode Island...he would certainly be a formidable candidate for president.

It's difficult to prove to the general populous when one lacks the record of accomplishments in certain areas.
All the other candidates are being pounded by what they "have done" and whether their actions were better or worse. However, not having any experience in domestic agendas is certainly worse than having a bad record.

Now, do I think Clark is "unelectable" because his platform is "one-dimensional"?

I certainly think not....Clinton had a "one-dimensional" platform as well.

on edit: Schpelling thing again...

[Crewleader]

28. Clark has experience on domestic issues

he made positive moves to improve housing, education and health care for all US military families. He was in charge to see to it that Affirmative Action was first and center for promotions to where he has many soldiers endorsing him for his great efforts of equality.

The General will show that much needed experience and knowledge for all Americans to succeed with creating jobs and raising the minimum wage and seeing to it that the rich pay their fair share. And those families making $50,000 or less with two children are exempt from the income tax paying...that's a family value that is very much needed to alot of Americans.

There's so much more the General offers, he's the whole package that is needed and comes from a background of humble beginnings that relate to most working Americans that is an asset to all of us that people feel he understands their pains, worriment and hopes to take care of their families and have a better future for their children.

[EXE619K]

29. Please see below...post #26

n/t

[Crewleader]

43. I've heard this from Gert's own words

and others that served with him...The General fights for the underdog, military families and really cares...he'll fight for all Americans! Wes Clark comes from humble beginnings like most of us who love the relation knowing he KNOWS what it like to go without and struggle like how so many families are doing now!

[John_H]

2. That's obviously not true. They have NO means to attack Clark.

And have at least a few roads to go after Kerry--his record, the medals, etc.

Clark can easily counter the "caracter" thing with hundreds of other officers defending his character, the "picture" thing by producing the picture of Chimp with his arm around a guy charged with terrorism, and the "waffle" issue by comparing Clark's "waffling" with Chimpco's lies.

[lancdem]

3. I think both are electable

[Bombtrack]

8. I do too, but one signifigantly more than the other

in my, and as reported in the WP, and most strategists opinions, the whitehouse would rather face Kerry than Clark.

[Qutzupalotl]

4. They will attack Kerry's voting record.

Specifically, voting for the IWR but against further funding, which they will spin as "not supporting the troops." (I know, I know, it's bull.)

One Republican strategist said, "If we could make Al Gore look like a Massachusetts liberal, imagine what we'll do with a Massachusetts liberal!"

Clark has an outstanding record of public service, which Rove can't touch. That's why he's afraid of him.

[progressivebydesign]

15. If Bush wins against Kerry...

.. I will not be surprised. Everyone is basing their opinion on Kerry on nice t.v. commercials, and a strong jaw, at this point. The voters polled have no clue what Kerry, or most any candidate stands for, yet we have people already urging us to jump ship and support him. We have voters in the primaries saying that he is their number two choice, but they think he could beat Bush. Hmmm... if he's not really THEIR first choice, what makes them think he'd be any one elses? This could be the only nomination in history where the second choice wins. Playing it safe is death knell to our Party. When it comes time for the General Election, we'll see if the safe bet works out for us.

[krkaufman]

19. That's the biggest story

The importance of that statement cannot be underestimated: "We have voters in the primaries saying that he is their number two choice, but they think he could beat Bush. Hmmm... if he's not really THEIR first choice, what makes them think he'd be any one elses?"

Just frightening. Whether Kerry or whoever, this mindset is frightening.

EDIT: JUST NOW, on MSNBC, a Missouri voter: "I'm tempted to vote for a candidate that's going to be able to beat Bush, rather than somebody that I really feel in my heart is going to make a great President." Moments later, he whispers that he voted: "Kerry, I don't mind telling ya."

Sheesh!

[Bombtrack]

22. what makes my think Clark is anybody elses first choice?

maybe the fact that I am somebody, as well as everybody else I work with for Clark

[bowens43]

21. Clark was fired and you say Rove has no ammo????

You're kidding right? Rove has Clark's entire career at his finger tips to spin any way that he chooses. They are praying to their evil gods for a Clark victory. His actions in Kosovo alone are enough to destroy him.

[Bombtrack]

23. Saving a people from ethnic cleansing without a SINGLE American casualty

how is THAT going to destroy him against this president.

Silly, silly, silly

[charlie]

30. No, what's silly

are assertions that MY GUY is invulnerable, has secret ingredient Z28, and scares the pants off Rove. No Democratic candidate is going to have an easy ride against the Republican machine and a complicit national media. Just because you have a ready and reasonable answer to a charge doesn't mean it'll get traction in a shitstorm of ads, pundits, and TV sensationalism. And there'll be plenty more until something sticks, true or not, fair or not, substantive or not. Rove isn't afraid of any of the candidates, some will just be harder work for him.

[Bombtrack]

34. I agree with almost everything you said, other that what you said I SAID

I never said or implied that Clark was invulnerable or that the election would be easy.

[charlie]

36. Wrong post

It was meant for NRK.

[Qutzupalotl]

40. What's going to stick in people's minds

about Clark vs. Bush is...

Hero miliary strategist vs. guy who lied about WMDs

I'm not saying Rove won't try, but it'll be hard to paint a decorated 4-star General as unpatriotic. They've tried to call him insane, which is belied by his calm and resoned responses in the debates. They're worried.

[KingofSwords]

5. Here's why

Clark has a message and everything but his only strategy can be to speak his message and hope people vote for him. Kerry has a large campaign network that can actually go out and get him votes.

The difference is Kerry's campaign is just as proactive as the Republican campaign. In order to win we need a candidate whose campaign does more than just present a message. The Bush campaign can only be beat proactively.

[Lefta Dissenter]

10. Once we have our nominee

we will have the Democratic 'campaign network' - I want to elect a president, not a candidate or a campaign.

[Bombtrack]

11. could you be more vague?

I don't really know what you are talking about in regards to Kerry's campaign network. But the entire democratic campaign network is going to get behind whoever the nominee is most top operatives and the best talent from every major campaign

I don't know what you mean by "proactive"

[democratreformed]

14. I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't understand this post

I was beginning to feel pretty dense.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Why try? The voters are doing it for you.

[Bombtrack]

13. the "electable in a primary=electable in a general" argument was empty

when the Dean supporters were basing half there defenses on it, and it's empty now

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Calling an argument empty does not refute it, it avoids it.

[Bombtrack]

35. Would McCain have been a weaker candidate than Bush? No he would've

cleaned Gore's or Bradleys clock.

But he got beaten in the primary. Solidly

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. You are talking about Republicans in 2000. This is about Dems in 2004

Look at the demographics and also the Repubican crossover and Independent vote in the primaries so far.

Of course, we will have a whole lot more data to work with tomorrow.

[Bombtrack]

45. and what better example do you have for YOUR contention?

I'll be looking forward to this

[Lefta Dissenter]

9. oops, this is really a reply to #1,

but there simply is no case, as far as I am concerned.

And I think people underestimate the experience that Clark has that is relevant to domestic issues. As a General, he was responsible for all of the 'domestic' needs of the families under him. Housing, education, health, budget. He is an incredible negotiator, and has worked with congressmen from both sides of the aisle.

I look at his endorsements - not for the votes that they may or may not pull with them - but because they demonstrate the broad spectrum of people who have faith in him and what he can do for our country. From McGovern, Rangel and Gaylord Nelson to the group of 55 US Ambassadors and diplomats who have endorsed Clark.

How many candidates have put forth their 100-year-vision? "Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by both our physical environment and our Constitutional environment. We must protect these precious gifts if we are to remain the strongest, most competitive country in the world..."

Does bush even CARE what condition our country is in 100 years from now? I know, I know, stupid question......

[EXE619K]

26. I've mentioned this before....

First of all, this is not a "slam" on candidate Clark so, please bear with me.(because, honestly, I'd rather see Clark get the nod than the other "veteran" in this race).

SACEUR's don't make housing and community decisions and that is a fact. Community decisions are made by DIVHQ housing dept. and individual BSB's. The allocation of funds for each military community (CONUS or overseas) comes directly from DOD and their respective depts. in regards to housing and military affairs.

Now, do I think that Clark will fail when it comes to domestic policies if he becomes the President?

Certainly no.

Do I think that Dean will fail in foreign policy objective if he becomes the President?

Also, no.

[hilzoy]

33. He wasn't always SACEUR.

He's commanded everything from a company up through NATO. He has, in fact, had to make decisions on housing, schooling, and so forth. He has also lobbied both within DoD and in Congress for the money to do these things right.

Besides, I have no idea what it is about Kerry's record on these issues that's supposed to be so compelling. Courtesy of FactCheck, here's an AP story on his legislative record:

"Kerry has been the lead sponsor of eight bills that have become law. Two are related to his work on the Senate panel on oceans and fisheries - a 1994 law to protect marine mammals from being taken during commercial fishing and a 1991 measure for the National Sea Grant College Program Act, which finances marine research.
In 1999, President Clinton signed his bill providing grants to support small businesses owned by women.
The rest of the laws he saw passed were ceremonial - renaming a federal building, designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day and World Population Awareness Week in two separate years." ( http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=134 )

[EXE619K]

38. yes, I'm aware of how Clark "came up through ranks".

However, If I'm not mistaken, Clark was a 19K(like meself) wasn't he?

Comabt arms MOS based leadership has very, very little to do with community Housing and schooling...etc.

That's exactly the reason why they have BSB in Brigade, Battalion, Company levels. CO's in those respective structures does not have any authority in community and housing decisions....the best they have in terms of authority is with family support groups in Brigade and Division level command and if Clark is putting these "experiences" as having "domestic experience"...well, I have to be honest here, I don't think that it has ANY bearing on national level domestic issues.

I think Kerry is a fine candidate, however, the Dems need a change in leadership and having the same old, party leaders that have failed in the past....does not express a well meaning vision for the party.

But, that's just my opinion.

[progressivebydesign]

12. You can't, because "electability" is a hoax.

Much like Janet Jackon's breast incident, the Democrats and the media have become obsessed with the idea of "electability". It's as though we can predict who will be able to defeat Bush in November. We're being urged to support one candidate, in favor of another, because he is "electable". We're being asked to turn our backs on candidates we have volunteered for, donated to, and still support, because some people believe in the magic of "electability". That magic tonic does not exist. Every candidate we have is electable.. and every candidate we have is not electable. The true meaning of what we call "electable" right now could be more aptly named, One Who Can Defeat Bush. Guess what? We can't predict that. Impossible to predict the mood of the voters in November, the state of national security, the attacks the Bush camp will have released, the skeletons in the closet that a candidate may have. It's a tempting, instant answer to voting in the primaries. Choose the safe bet.. but it's wrong.

ANY candidate is electable. Any Democratic candidate will get the vote from the Democrats in November. We have that locked up by the nature of ABB this year. The key is, no matter who the candidate, running a strong campaign for whomever gets the nomination for us.

Bush is an extremist. I don't believe in putting up the safe bet against him. I don't believe in annointing a candidate after the first weeks of primary voting. And.. I don't believe in the obsession with polling that's crept into the Democratic Party. Does one candidate poll better than Bush at THIS MOMENT? Yes. Is he an examined candidate yet? Or does he have nice, presidential photos in the media, and name recognition right now? Will that candidate matchu up against Bush when Rove gets through with him? Or are we making the mistake of running a safe bet?

Electability is a new media buzzword. This is not American Idol. This is the future of our country. We need to take back our country. Vote with your heart in the primaries... and the rest will be sorted out.

[Bombtrack]

16. That is rediculous. Political science is taken seriously by serious people

for a reason. Because it's a hell of alot more dependable than chance.

Every candidate is electable? Yeah, if there's a second recession, another watergate, and Bush get's caught blowing a line in the oval office.

But that isn't going to happen. And it's moronic to underestimate the political and election skills of the republicans.

I never said Kerry is unelectable, but some are more and some are less

[progressivebydesign]

27. Not ridiculous in this situation.

I invite any political scientist to give me an documented example of any instance when choosing a candidate based on this new "electabilty" strategy has ever worked. Oh.. and the Titanic was unsinkable.

[Bombtrack]

37. how about all of the congressional candidates that Roved handpicked in 02

how about the party structure getting Toricelli to back out and geting what's his name to run instead?

Those happened only 2 years ago, and they were both wise choices. And the people who are best at making those decisions tend to be the ones who continue to be paid millions of dollars in the campaign/advertising/public relations bussiness. If there was no need for them, they wouldn't exist.

Bill Clinton won the 92 primary in large part because the party primary voters in addition to the democratic establishment was sick of landslide-loser candidates.

[bigtree]

18. What about the voter?

Isn't a vote based on one's impression of electibility a valid way to vote? What if one feels the differences between the candidates if wide enough to base the vote on issues?

[woofless]

20. It's pretty simple.

More people will vote for Kerry than will vote for Clark. Watch it happen.

[Bombtrack]

25. What? In a democratic primary? There's no way to argue rationally

with people who use those kind of insane,empty arguments. if you are a Kerry supporter, I would think you would have tired of it when so many Dean supporters were saying the same dopey thing

[paulk]

24. I think the "outsider" thing is hurting both Clark and Dean

this election cycle. Voters seem to be looking for experience - and for many Kerry's experience and long public life are translating into electibility. His "insider" status seems to be helping him.

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of electoral politics, an argument can be made that Clark is more "electable", however, I just don't think the average voter gets into it that far.

[Strelnikov_]

32. Well Said, But I also Think It Is Due To The Compressed Schedule

From Jan. 2002 article in "The Nation":

"If the changes McAuliffe proposes are implemented--as is expected at a January 17-19 meeting of the full DNC--the role of grassroots Democrats in the nomination of their party's challenger to George W. Bush will be dramatically reduced, as will the likelihood that the Democratic nominee will run the sort of populist, people-power campaign that might actually pose a threat to Bush's re-election.

The change, for which McAuliffe gained approval in November from the DNC rules subcommittee, would create a Democratic primary and caucus calendar that permits all states to begin selecting delegates on February 3, 2004. That new start-up date would come two weeks after the Iowa caucuses and just one week after the traditional "first in the nation" New Hampshire primary. Thus, the window between New Hampshire and the next primary--five weeks in 2000--would be closed."

. . .

"McAuliffe's changes will collapse the nominating process into a fast-and-furious frenzy of television advertising, tarmac-tapping photo ops and power-broker positioning that will leave little room for the on-the-ground organizing and campaigning that might allow dark horse candidates or dissenting ideas to gain any kind of traction--let alone a real role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention."

. . .

"One problem with McAuliffe's theory is that history suggests that Democrats who beat sitting Republican Presidents usually do so following extended nomination fights. In 1976, for instance, almost three months passed between the Iowa caucus and the point at which a majority of delegates to the Democratic National Convention had been selected. That convention nominated Jimmy Carter, who went on to beat President Gerald Ford. The next Democrat to beat a Republican President, Bill Clinton, won his party's 1992 nod after a bruising primary season that saw him fighting Jerry Brown for New York votes two months after the delegate-selection process began."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020121&s=nichols

On Edit, just had to add this paragraph. Remember, this was written in Jan. 2002:

"That bodes well for the best-known candidates with the strongest fundraising networks, like former Vice President Al Gore and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, and also for well-heeled senators like Massachusetts' John Kerry and North Carolina's John Edwards. But low-budget, issue-driven campaigns, like those imagined by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio or outgoing Vermont Governor Howard Dean, will be even more difficult to mount."

[paulk]

42. the compressed schedule definitely helps the front runner

Kerry's having been involved in all those Senate campaigns gives him a leg up on both Edwards and Clark also. He's just a more experienced campaigner, especially alongside Clark. Clark hasn't really had the time to work the bugs out on selling himself, and now he's running out of time. Edwards is a natural, while Kerry's been doing it for thirty years.

While I'm a Kerry supporter, I don't think the shortened primary season necessarily helps the Democratic Party. I hope we can have some viable candidates at least through super Tuesday. A public debate can only help our party, especially if we can keep the focus on Bush.

[sandnsea]

39. He's not convincing

You asked so I'm answering. Disclaimer: I still have my personal Reagan problems, the policies not the vote.

But in thinking about it, Clark is just not convincing about what he believes. He leaves you with the idea that he just came up with a personal belief system last summer. He sounds like he's reading policy positions, not like he believes them in his heart. As a Democrat, that leaves me not knowing what he'll do in the WH. In the GE, that leaves a choice between Bush, who is convincing, say what you will. And Clark, who's running because Democrats couldn't find their own candidate??? Because he wants to run the war better??? Because he has an ego to feed??? (Those are things people might think, not personal attacks)

With Kerry, you've got Clark PLUS. Some votes to defend, absolutely. But there is no doubt he's a man of conviction, he votes his conscience. I know that about the IWR, despite what people think. He has a record to know where he stands and that he puts up a hell of a fight when it's critical, we've heard his criticisms of this administration well before Howard Dean was saying anything, we trust him. He has a solid common sense platform, a steely core, and that's what makes him more electable.

[Bombtrack]

44. There's no more evidence to support Clark "coming up with a belief system"

6 months ago, than there is to support the claim that Kerry is soulless or convictionless, charges that are often levied at him even by liberals. Military brass just don't get active in campaigns and elections and they don't wear their politics on there sleeve, for good reason

Why should Clark have not stayed neutral officially before he pursued this campaign? What good would that have done him in remaining privy to both the ears and advice, and somewhat the trust of people on both sides?

[sandnsea]

47. It's my personal impression

You asked a question, I gave you my personal impression. Subjective, not objective. I'm not talking about politics at all. I'm talking about the fact that each of us has our own personal belief system. Clark says the correct things as far as a Democrat, but I just don't get the sense that he's sharing his personal belief system. Like that abortion comment. Maybe he's just never even thought about abortion, I don't know. I accept people who are so busy doing that they just don't give that kind of thing alot of thought. But when he implies he's for abortion up and until a child is born, it kind of makes you wonder whether he's thought about the issue at all. I have a personal belief system about it. I'm not sure whether Clark does or whether he's just trying to speak the party line. He just kind of leaves me not knowing exactly what he personally believes about moral and social issues. It's important because I think that kind of guides the way a President implements policy. Views can sound good on paper, but come out being completely different when put into practice.

[Bombtrack]

46. bump

.