The "doubts" expressed about Clark here

[Tom Rinaldo]

For the most part, the "doubts" that are raised about Clark here at DU and other such forums, are natural concerns that a core left leaning group of Democratic Party activists should be expected to think through, as we weigh whether or not we can support a retired General to be the Democratic Party candidate for President. I accept that as an appropriate and logical part of the process by which we select a candidate to support. I went through that vetting ritual myself before deciding to support Clark. Some of the time it is pursued in a sincere open minded manner, other times the knives start out drawn and sharpened. Mostly we have been over and over and over the relevant material, as well as the notorious hit pieces and cut and paste smear attempts, to the point of severely diminished diminishing returns.

Here's my point, and it remains my point whether or not you think it is a good or bad thing. Clark is most effected by those doubts raised about him now, while he is competing in Democratic primaries for the votes of core Democratic voters, and when he is dependent on campaign support from the hard core group of potential activist volunteers like us, who actually are participating in this process a year before the General Election. Clark had to overcome some special hurdles to be competitive for the Democratic nomination, that's reality and I accept it. I also accept that you can't win them all, and to varying degrees, for varying reasons, some Democrats will not see fit to trust Clark in the time remaining before the nominee is selected. It is not my intent to revisit once again those reasons on this thread. Pro and con certainly has been talked about elsewhere.

My point is that almost all of Clark's "liabilities" that have been raised here against him, while potentially disadvantageous in the Primaries, turn neutral or positive to him in the General Election against Bush should Clark become the Democratic Party nominee. So I throw that premise open to debate. I will join in with my own reasoning if anyone is interested in exploring the premise, but rather than making this intro into a personal essay, I'll just ask you for your hit on it.

[kalian]

1. Mine:

neocon in dem's clothing...
I think that the "neocons" are on both sides of the political
fence.

[mmonk]

15. So when he says he's against the neocons

is he lying?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

28. If you can say that, I can say that you're..

..a Commie in Dem's clothing. If you're offended by that, it means that my statement had the same amount of truth as yours does.

[BootinUp]

2. I will also point out the reverse hypothesis

(I agree with you)

Dean's energizing that same group that hand wrings over Clark will be an advantage in the primaries but not so in the GE.

Either way we have to vet the best candidate and not silence the debate. I will support the winner.

[sweetheart]

8. yes.

i agree

[madfloridian]

3. That speaks volumes for our country's future, doesn't it?

I agree with you on certain of those points.

However, we feel that our support for Dean is strengthened just because of that. It is time to do something about turning the tide from the militarism, and we feel it is now or never.

I would rather see Dean crash and burn telling the truth about this evil war than to give in and take a position like Clark or the others have, sort of apologetic, sort of against it.

We invaded another nation, it is that clear and simple. They were not an imminent danger to us. Our president lied to us, his administration lied to us.

I refuse to accept your thinking that we MUST put forth a military candidate. Dean has made it clear he would be aggressive if necessary to defend us.

If I accept your line of thinking, then I admit our country is doomed to imperialism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. In all fairness

I neither here nor anywhere have ever put forth the position that "we MUST put forth a military candiate". I think there's a chance Dean can win, and I'll work for him if he's the nominee. Thanks for taking the premise of the post seriously. Personally I will not accept an unacceptable compromise just to increase our chances of winning in the fall. I sense that I actually like Clark a fair bit more than you, but that's what makes it a horse race as they say.

[madfloridian]

9. No, you are usually fair in your assessments.

Actually, I have more reservations about Clark than I did. I am trying to figure out if I am allowing myself to be swayed by the influx of his supporters here, many of whom make no effort to be sensible.

If I have reservations, it is about the militaristic tone many of his supporters take here. It has been unnerving, and the worst part is that many can not be talked to rationally.

[BigBigBear]

38. Perhaps that's the difference

"I would rather see Dean crash and burn telling the truth about this evil war than to give in and take a position like Clark or the others have, sort of apologetic, sort of against it"


Seems you'd rather lose, making a statement about your anger about the war and Bush.

I would rather remove George Bush, at pretty much any cost.

To me, I have felt all along this is the primary difference between Dean and Clark supporters. As long as the Democratic Party looks inward, re-telling the story that makes it feel good and reassuring itelf of its candidate's fealty, Bush will win.

[MoonRiver]

4. Yes, the prize is the presidency!

And I have resolved those vetted concerns about Clark to my satisfaction. Not only to I believe he is the most likely candidate to beat *, I am convinced he will be the best leader for our country in this time of crisis.

[eileen from OH]

6. I have no doubts about Clark

I just like Dean better, for a lot of reasons.

I will say that the seemingly non-stop threads about how only Clark can save us in the general election and Dean will be a disaster and Dean supporters are too stupid to know what they are doing and why don't they wake up followed by a recitation of the same old arguments is the only thing that really bothers me about the guy (or rather, his supporters here.)

eileen from OH

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. I understand ellen. I agree too

I tried to avoid that tone with this thread. I gotta say that some of the most stupid appeals for votes I have ever seen start out something like: "Wake up! How can you people be so STUPID?!?" It kind of establishs where the stupidity actually resides. Dean and Clark suppoeters tend to get hit with that stuff the most. One week it is mostly Clark supporters who are accused of having the wool pulled over our eyes, the next week it is Dean supporters supposedly drinking too much Kool Aid.

[Clark4Prez]

11. Right Tom

I see as many Clark bashing threads on DU as Dean bashing ones (unless of course it is against the rules to refer to a thread as ___ bashing). "Clark can't win" "Dean can't win" et cetera.

I have fallen into some of these threads myself, but you hit the point on the head in your first post, we have to have a candidate that can win the GE. No amount of trash-talking or teeth-gnashing will change that we have to find a candidate that has broad market appeal.

Like you, I believe that General Clark is that man. Everyone I talk to about him, even my hard core GOP mother-in-law, is showing interest. That is something that may not yet show in the polls but will come to light soon.

Should Clark not win the nom, I will work like hell and give till it hurts to whoever wins, even, yes, Howard Dean. Because, the Dems are like a family, we fight, we argue, we throw things across the room, we yell and scream, but when it comes down to it, if your family is threatened you pull together.

Our family and our country is threatened by people that want to destroy us, or in Ann Coulter's case, want us dead. When our family fight is done, we must reach out, shake hands, give hugs, say we're sorry, and put on our warrior clothes and go fight the real evil in Washington.
:kick:

[eileen from OH]

12. Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that you had

done this, Tom. Yours was a perfectly reasonable post and gave me the opportunity to say that there was nothing that I disliked about Clark, particularly, but that his supporters sometimes give me a headache. And you are absolutely dead on re: it's a cyclical thing.

eileen from OH

[edzontar]

13. You succeeded...

I am up to HERE with the Clark as savior Dean as disaster threads...but yours presents an example of what a thoughfult discussion of his candidacy might look like.

[Padraig18]

10. I agree, and the same can be said about Gov. Dean, e.g. n/t

[mikehiggins]

14. Clearly, from other posts I have written, I believe Clark to be the better

candidate.

I do not believe it will be at all easy to dislodge the current pResident and his minions. I think something new is needed to rock the boat and upset the coming Bush Sequel and I don't think an old fashioned professional politician with some new tricks is going to do it. I've seen this kind of "breakthrough" before and it has always come to nothing in the end.

So I back Clark because I really, really, really want Bush defeated in November and I don't see anyone else who can do it. Of course it helps that he is pretty much a good guy with a great resume who swims everyday. My wife and sister love his hair. Anything that helps is good for me.

When I match up any of the other candidates with Bush I don't see any reason to be confident the general voting public will turn their back on an incumbent president, especially during a time of "war" with our military deployed overseas and taking casualties on almost a daily basis. The other candidates may make points arguing that Bush has screwed up and bungled the "war" but Clark is the only one who comes to that debate with a built-in argument the Chimp can't trump. Clark has already done this stuff, and done it better.

And one thing in closing that I think clearly delineates the difference between DU and the general public? Several really rabid critics of Clark have brought up the Pristina airport confrontation between Clark and Jackson (who recently wrote that such things were commonplace at that level, and not to be taken all that seriously) over thwarting the Soviet occupation of that airport.

That looks dark to DU folks but step outside into the big world and what do you get? Clark stood up to the goddamn Russkies? Give him another medal!

And some Brit gave him shit over it? Fire his ass.

Of all the candidates Clark is the clear and present danger to George Bush's reelection. It will not be an easy job for him to knock Dubya out of the cat-bird seat but it'll be all but impossible for the rest.

[BootinUp]

16. you wrote a

very nice post there.

and did I mention I like your attitude.

"...Anything that helps is good for me."

:toast:

[5thGenDemocrat]

41. "stood up to the goddamn Russkies? Give him another medal!!"

LOL. I miss Lyndon Johnson.
John
Mister President, we must not allow a Cold War gap!

[mmonk]

17. The republican strategy has worked so far

Rove knows dems very well. The republican issue (past votes), "military man", open ended "character" issues from pentagon rivals (who will support bush or like minded dems on foreign policy), etc., while work great here and at other democratic forums won't be useful to them in the general election. Clark will just be a threat to their staked out positions and that bothers them.

[SupremeBeing]

18. I disagree

I have to disagree with your statement

My point is that almost all of Clark's "liabilities" that have been raised here against him, while potentially disadvantageous in the Primaries, turn neutral or positive to him in the General Election against Bush should Clark become the Democratic Party nominee

Rove will repeatedly attack any candidates weak points.
Dean's is clearly security, but he can counter that by saying things
like - dubya had/has none and has failed, that like dubya he'll
have experts to help him. Things that he learned and did as Governor.
clark might get away with that but that would make his military experience look weak.
I could build the campaign against clark, based on one word- inexperience.
I have seen no evidence at all that clark is, has been,
or should be considered a counterterorism expert. That almost does away with most of his military experience because it's the wrong type of experience.
Then you get on the domestic issues and on everything from air quality to waste management - inexperience. When he says (and he will) "I have a plan", he's never gotten one passed or put into practice in the "real world" - inexperience. You will see, that word over and over and over.
He will be branded with that one word - inexperience and it will doom his campaign

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Thanks for an on topic post

I have no doubt Rove and company will attack any and all perceived weaknesses as well as some "new" ones manufactured for the purpose, no matter who we nominate.

Inexperience will be something the Republicans will try to use against Clark, but I think they will target Clark on domestic issues with that line of attack. Clark was responsible for Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for two years. Clark is certainly more of a counterterrorism expert than Bush is, and frankly, Clark not only knows what he is talking about but he SOUNDS like he knows what he is talking about whenever he speaks on the matter, very unlike Bush. So Clark has both the resume and the presence to come at Bush in those areas.

Domestically Clark can talk about caring for the troops under his command of course, and the lessons he learned doing that. His experience in that area is not a strong suit for Clark. However Clark's domestic priorities are a strong suit; the basic Democratic list against the tax cuts for the rich Republican program. Pro Choice, Pro Environment, Pro Affirmative Action, Pro Health Care etc. etc.

I think it would be easier for Clark to strengthen the Dem ticket by picking a VP with long and solid credentials on domestic issues than it would be for other candidates to fortify the ticket with a national security credentialed VP. That's because the President is known as the Commander in Chief and therd is no way of completely getting around that.

[BootinUp]

23. No Bush is much better on terrorism

some paraphrasing possible:

"They hate our freedom. That's just what they do."

[SupremeBeing]

37. Agree and disagree

Agree-

I have no doubt Rove and company will attack any and all perceived weaknesses as well as some "new" ones manufactured for the purpose, no matter who we nominate.

Inexperience will be something the Republicans will try to use against Clark, but I think they will target Clark on domestic issues with that line of attack.

Disagree-

Clark was responsible for Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for two years.

Okay, but this was during the the clinton years, 94-96. clinton always viewed terrorism
as a police matter as in fbi/cia. I will doubt, until I see proof otherwise, clark has any experience in the area. Even if he has, it takes a 34 yr. military career and shrinks it
into 2 years of relevant experience.

Agree-

Domestically Clark can talk about caring for the troops under his command of course, and the lessons he learned doing that. His experience in that area is not a strong suit for Clark.

Yes because doing things in the military is not the same as doing things in Mainstreet USA.


Disagree
However Clark's domestic priorities are a strong suit; the basic Democratic list against the tax cuts for the rich Republican program. Pro Choice, Pro Environment, Pro Affirmative Action, Pro Health Care etc. etc.

No experience or record in doing any of that, just words. inexperience


I think it would be easier for Clark to strengthen the Dem ticket by picking a VP with long and solid credentials on domestic issues than it would be for other candidates to fortify the ticket with a national security credentialed VP. That's because the President is known as the Commander in Chief and therd is no way of completely getting around that

You're trying to fill a hole the size of the Grand Canyon. It is President AND Commander in Chief. President first then Commander in Chief. clark looks and talks like he is running for Commander and Chief and then he'll be President.

There is an old saying "All politics are local".
That is the way most people look at things.
Most people are more concerned of things that directly affect them, like the economy or their
jobs than terrorist attacks.
On one of the blogs, dailykos or atrios, they went back
through a year of polling data, and economy and local issues
beat out terrorism every time.
Want some more proof, look at Europe.
They've had terrorist attacks there for years.
Do you see them being run by generals?
Is Tony Blair known as a military leader?

I'll say this one last time, because I doubt we will change each others minds.
In the GE-
On the domestic issues and on everything from air quality to waste management - inexperience. When he says (and he will) "I have a plan", he's never gotten one passed or put into practice in the "real world" - inexperience. You will see, that word over and over and over.
He will be branded with that one word - inexperience and it will doom his campaign

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I find your post very reasonable.

We see many facts the same, but we do disagree on the weight we assign to them. Don't want to beat a dead horse because I agree we probably won't change each others minds, and I am paying attention to effective ways to defend Dean if he should become the nominee, and I hope you will do the same for Clark if it starts looking like he has a chance. I would add to the mix that unlike the candidates other than Dean, Clark has extensive experience in an executive position, which means he knows how to assemble lead, and oversee teams of experts and varied "department heads" that are working toward achieving complex and important sets of objectives. It is a highly relevant experience.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

[Clark4Prez]

46. Branding and sticking

You make some interesting points about how the GOP would paint Clark.

However, I think much can be learned from the 92 and 96 Clinton campaigns. As you know, the GOP tried to hit Clinton with "Pot smoking, draft-dodging, womanizer" to quote Bob Dornan.

In fact, there were many who said the same thing about Clinton in 92 that you do about Clark, substitute "inexperience" with "draft dodger" and you have an instant time warp. How did Clinton win anyway?

Simple case of strategy, he didn't let the GOP define his campaign and had the Carvell Rapid Response Team hit back Bush everytime they attacked. I remember "Bozo and Ozone" attack by Bush, Clinton hit back with "Well, Bozo makes people laugh and Bush makes people cry." After that it was bedtime for Bozo.

The "inexperience" tag will be thrown at who ever wins the nomination. Because Bush will play on his four years of "protecting America" at every turn. It isn't the tag they throw that matters, it's how the candidate responds to the attack that will determine the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat.

[Donna Zen]

52. Perception

The electorate believes that Democrats are stronger than on domestic issues than the GOP. If the repubs would like to make an issue of our issues, then what can one say: bring 'em on. Things could be far worse than having the home-field advantage.

And although the Democratic congressional members are very careful about any votes that might smack of being anti-defense, the discrepancy in voter attitude toward the Democratic ability to handle foreign policy-defense is the weakest link.


Here's an exercise. Take out a pencil. Now look at Clark's entire record of statements regarding foreign policy and the war in Iraq. Check off any statements he has made that have proved accurate. Hmmmm? It would seem that aside from thinking that there might be some residual chem and bio weapons remaining in Iraq which he says does not meet the level of "immenent" threat, he receives an "A."

Time to check the regime's record. "cake walk" "mushroom clouds" "terrorist connection" In this case, junior dips below his acclaimed D+ student scores. A failed presidency.

True any Dem might make the case against junior's war, but "who" has the gravitas?

BTW, I support Clark for his domestic vision...this is not about being militaristic...this about wanting to neutralize the issue.

[newyawker99]

42. Hi SupremeBeing!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[dfong63]

19. "let them do the software in India" won't play any better in the GE

... than it does in the primaries.

if the dems are foolish enough to nominate a man whose vaunted foreign policy "credentials" consist mainly of having made war on various countries, a killer instead of a healer, then i think the dems are writing their own death warrant. even Clark's supporters are constantly trying to "explain" Clark's misstatements by saying they are part of the military mindset. well i don't want that mindset in the presidency, or even the vice-presidency.

Dean has never lost an election - he's won at least 6 times over a period of 20 years. Clark has never even run in an election, let alone won. and he's barely been in the dem party for 3 months. two years ago he was fundraising for repubs. sorry that is not my idea of a "bulletproof" candidate.

[mmonk]

20. We're just war crazy

fanatics who can't explain away our republican violent urges. We need your saint to deliver us.

[BootinUp]

21. If you completely ignore

Clark, don't listen to anything he says, don't look at his record, don't give him another 30 seconds to talk about software...

Then I guess in that unlikely situation in the general election, some of your points/smears could hurt him.

fixed bold typeface

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. The "jobs for India" part was on topic

Maybe the implication that Clark is inexperienced too. None of the rest though. You probably didn't even notice that not only did I not say a single negative thing about another candidate in my opening post, I didn't spend time making a case FOR Clark here either. I think there are plenty of threads where you can extoll Dean's electibility or whatever, it was not called into queston here.

If Clark was advocating a policy position of encouraging that American soft ware jobs be sent to India, you would have more of a point. I think Bush's record on this issue is deplorable, and Clark already has confronted him on several specifics regarding it.

[Justice]

57. Not Accurate, But You Are Entitled to An Opinion

What you say about Clark is not accurately stated.

Dean has won elections - in Vermont. He has a good record on many issues, but Dean is not bulletproof himself.

[imhotep]

24. How is being a killer a positive

in the general election?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I don't thank you for an off topic post.

I will devote one sentance to it here: How is reducing the sacrifices and struggles of present and former members of United States armed forces to the word "killers" helpful in the general election?

I think your "obseration" falls under the category of Democratic activist "trust" issues regarding Clark that have and still do have infinite channels for debate elsewhere.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

30. It works for Dubya, doesn't it?

[shivaji]

27. Why are so many DUers supporting Clark because he has...

has a better chance of defeating Bush*?????

Whatever happened to core beliefs?
Whatever happened to principles?

Are we to prostitute our core beliefs just to win at any cost?

Not me. I am looking forward to the dawning of a bright morning with Dr. Dean in the white house.

And from my 42 years of observing presidential politics, Dean has a better chance than Clark beating Bush*, anyhow.

[MidwestMomma]

32. But does Dean really represent our core beliefs and principles?

If you are willing to lose the general election in order to make a statement about the direction the party should be heading, then why not throw all your support behind Dennis Kucinich?

Wouldn't you say he's really the candidate who represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party?

And based on your post, it's not about winning. It's about making a statement, so why no Dennis?

Just wondering........

[shivaji]

33. Because Dean's positions are more in sync with mine

For example:

Pro-balanced budgets
Pro-Choice
Pro-2nd amendment
Pro-Universal health care
Pro-strong defense
Against-Pre-emptive wars

..just to name a few.

[MidwestMomma]

36. Okay, so you support Dean because he represents your core beliefs

I can understand that.

My point was that I have read more than once on the board when the issue of Dean winning the General Elecion is being discussed, that's it's not about winning, it's about taking our party in the right direction.

Well, it appears to me that your direction is a little more balanced to the center than to the far left. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not, repeat, not criticizing your beliefs. In fact, I'm not too sure where I stand these days on a lot of issues that used to be pretty clear cut to me.

I just don't understand how Dean has gotten so much support from people who were disgusted by Bill Clinton and the DLC taking our party to far to the center. I really don't get it. Maybe you can explain.

[catherineD]

35. Good point. It does seem odd how people can dismiss Dennis

for being unelectable, but aren't inclined to be as rigorous about Dean. Of course, if Dean had been running as a moderate, as his record in Vermont indicates he is, his problems might not seem as great. Although the difference in foreign policy experience between him and Clark I think would still make the difference between winning and losing. I've always wondered why Dean supporters have been so staunch in their support, even as it has come out that he is very much a fiscal conservative, which I take it to mean to the right of Clinton. Are most of Dean's supporters actually moderates? If they're not, you'd think they would have paused to have another look at the other candidates after they learned that he was less liberal than themselves.

[TeacherCreature]

43. I agree Dean has a better chance

I think he has the right attitude and he never lets the republicans frame the debate.

[shivaji]

29. Reasons why Dean has better chance than Clark in GE

Dean: a lifelong democrat. Clark: Less than a year

Dean: 6 elections WON CLark: Zero

Dean: Never a defense lobbyist, Clark: made millions.

Dean: Against all OUTSOURCING of good jobs
Clark: "Let software jobs go to India, we will do something else"

Dean: Actually balanced state budgets
Clark: ZERO experience

Dean: Instituted universal Health Care in Vermont and most
qualified of all candidates to institute a national health care
system being a qualified medical doctor
Clark: Zero experience

Dean: Against all preventive and pre-emtive wars.
Calrk: Waffled, first as a CNN analyst was pro-Iraw war, now against

Dean: Endorsements by Al Gore, 2 Largest unions
Clark: Can't get a SINGLE 4 star general to endorse him after
a lifetime in military

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Can I assume that you disagree with my original premise?

My premise is that most of the list you wrote might work against Clark in the primaries, but not the General Election. Years as a proclaimed Democrat is a good example of just that, in my opinion. Union endorcements is another good example. Do you think they will defect to Bush in the General Election? And of course I didn't bring up Dean, or Dean's assets or lack of same. Clark and Dean are primary opponents, but allies in the bigger picture.

[MidwestMomma]

34. This makes sense to me

For example, one of the biggest complaints by Democrats is when Clark praised Bush. People say the Repugs will be running ads showing Clark praising Bush and that will really hurt him in the general election.

I don't think we'd see those ads because the Repugs know such an ad would only help Clark because of the following reasoning by many American people:

"Oh Clark thinks Bush is good, so do I, that Clark is one smart guy."

As much as we hate to accept it and can not begin to understand it, many people in this country like the W. So Clark liking the W doesn't hurt him in the GE.

Another example, his military career. Big big problem to many core Democrats and may cost him the primary. No big deal, possible positive factor, for voters in GE.

Probably the biggest negative factor going into the GE for Clark would be his 'connections' to Clinton. Which is possibly the one factor that could cost him the primary and the GE. Ain't our party funny!!

[SayitAintSo]

40. Thank you for this well reasoned post and a return to honest debate

Sorely needed right now. Great thread.

[MGKrebs]

44. My 2 cents.

I decided to get involved early this time. Clark was not an option when I was making my choice. When Clark eventually did get in the race, I doubted whether he could build a winning campaign organization given the head start the other candidates had.

I have seen no reason to change my allegience from Dean. I have no doubt that Clark is smart and well connected, and would have a good chance of being a good President. I still have reservations about his ability to handle domestic problems, but I have reservations about Dean (and all the other candidates) too.

I think there are generally two types of (legitimate) criticisms of any of the candidates: one is a questioning of their philosophical point of view, and the other is parsing statements made and trying to find contradictions and alleged untruths.

You only get a sense of someone's philosophical core by looking at the overall picture, not the little isolated details. This is probably more of a "feeling" than an empirical analysis. (Someone can always find an exception in the details).

And anyone who has served in a public or semi-public capacity will have made decisions and done things and said things over the course of their career that is not totally consistent with some perceived paradigm that has been created for them. The sheer variety of choices to be made, as well as the practical issue of getting something done rather than nothing, makes it virtually impossible to please every (or any!) constituency 100% of the time. We do the best we can picking from a group of (imperfect) humans, and we don't always arrive at the same choice. Let's face it, {insert your deity here} isn't running. Any candidate is less than perfect, but I would hope that we have an excellent chance of settling on a very good candidate.

I think that many folks (myself included) view this election as pretty much a life and death struggle for the soul of the country (hey, maybe we should nominate James Brown! lol), making us extra strenuous in our arguments. Also, the 'Pubs have raised (or actually lowered) the bar, on dirty tricks, making us have to fight harder, and then there is the internet, where we all get to broadcast whatever happens to be on our minds at any given moment.

If all of this doesn't kill us, perhaps it will make us stronger!

(I remember starting out with a point in mind, but it seems to have forsaken me. Alas.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Whatever your original point was meant to be

The point you did make was a good one. "The sheer variety of choices to be made, as well as the practical issue of getting something done rather than nothing, makes it virtually impossible to please every (or any!) constituency 100% of the time"

Thanks

[BootinUp]

47. Good post, thanks

I can appreciate much of what you said regarding the process of making your choice, and the fact no candidate is perfect for everbody. On the importance of the battle this time around, I might think differently than you, my main drive is to replace Bush with a candidate with progressive policies AND intelligence AND the right foreign policy approach AND integrity....AND.....you get the picture.

As to the identity of the party, I really think it hasn't changed although many here will differ with me. The democratic party just like the republican party must be willing to adapt to the current national/international environment. If either party fails to do that, they quickly lose the ability to represent their consituents.

[MGKrebs]

49. I think we will differ on that a little.

There is no doubt that the Party must adapt. The trick is, we are all trying to predict where we are trying to adapt TO. The polls are only marginally helpful because of small sample sizes, wording of questons, etc.

I am not certain this is accurate, (especially because I dislike labeling people), but let me propose a scenario:

- Bush* is way right, beyond conservative.
- Clark is "in the middle" in the sense of being in the least provocative position, so in theory he would alienate the fewest voters, but can he inspire enough of them to win?
- Dean is the hardest to catagorize for me, because I don't see him as more liberal or more conservative- he's in different places on different issues. But for the purposes of this argument I will just say he is in a riskier position than Clark, because he is likely to alienate a larger group of voters. However, it is my personal belief that he is also likely to inspire more voters to actually vote.
- Kucinich is almost certainly farther out to the left. Honorable to many because of his relative purity in his positions, but are there enough purists out there right now to get him elected?

My current theory about winning elections is that it is all about coalitions. There are so many important issues, and so many variations of responses to those issues, that we voters tend to catagorize our issues by importance. For a candidate to win, they must attract a majority of voters who come to them based on their most important issues, but are not disqualified by other issues. So, a candidate doesn't have to get ALL of the following issue-voters, but must get most of them:
- war/anti-war
- environmentalists
- economics
- education
- experience
- Southerners
- farmers
- Minorities
- unions
- national security

And I'm sure there are many others. Bush (allegedly) won with a coalition of religious fundamentalists, anti-Clinton people, anti-intellectuals, big business, and military hawks (and one person on the Supreme Court!).

The day after the election next year, the pundits will declare either;
a. A dramatic swing away from the Bush* agenda!
b. Reaffirmation of Bush's* leadership
c. A still divided country makes a slight course correction.

By judging the electability of any of the candidates, we are all just trying to predict how the voters will feel on election day. Will canceling the tax cuts eliminate too many economically troubled voters? How strong is union support? How infected are the voters with anti-UN fever?

Which coalition will your or my candidate be able to put together? Will that coalition still be able to win in the GE? (I'll be thinking about this more.)

[DancingBear]

48. Thank you Tom

for a very fine thread. Logical arguments on both sides of the aisle, and well reasoned discourse with regard to how things play in the primaries vs. the general election. I think you have correctly stated the concerns of the Clark camp - that positives in primaries most often do not translate to the GE, or can be seen as negatives. Our (my) concern is with that very premise, and you have done a fine job in laying out these concerns.

I also must commend those who disagree with stating their reasons (for the most part) in thoughtful tones. I hope that this thread begins to dispel the notion that somehow hatred exists directed at a candidate. This, I believe, has never been the case. Elect-ability in the GE is the driving force behind the passion exhibited, and I for one hope that both sides continue to explore/explain their beliefs with facts and logical arguments.

Many of us here have been around a bit, so we see the Dean grassroots movement in an historical perspective, Perot being the most recent example. We argue that this type of candidacy/campaign, while exhilarating in a primary, fails to catch fire (pardon the pun) in the GE, and this alarms us. We look at a "history repeating itself" scenario, and feel that Wesley Clark is the best candidate to defeat Bush. I would argue that we look at the political climate and not the political candidate. We do not salivate at the military. I myself was not only never in the military, but have never picked up a gun of any type in my life. I am against hunting and have been a vegetarian for 30 years. I just believe, as do many others, that we must choose wisely in our choice of candidates, and not get swept up in a tide of "primary madness", for lack of a better term.

Thanks again for the thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. You are very welcome

And the congratulations extend as you noted to most participants. I firmly believe that the clear majority of us can have real debates about real issues without real antagonism.

[Demobrat]

50. I have no doubts.

I am absolutely sure that Clark is in way over his head.

[Dr Fate]

51. My only doubts concern Clark NOT winning the Nomination...

I think Dean is a great man and a good, honest candidate, but I have will feel much better about DEMS chances if Wes is our man. I like Dean alot, but this is just my opinion...

I really want a Clark/Edwards or a Clark/Dean or a Clark/Kerry ticket...

[stickdog]

54. CAPPS II is indefensible.

I find the fact that Clark lobbied for the Big Brother Axciom Corporation to run the terrorist-helping, privacy invading "no fly" list very disturbing.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation other than Clark knowingly selling out the privacy rights of US citizens to make us less secure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. To stay on topic

I'll say I realize there are some voters, like yourself, who care strongly enough about Clark's short private business activities, this included, that they will need some serious convincing to consider voting for him. The point of this thread is a presumption that most of the concerns raised about Clark are seriously in play during the Democratic primaries, and could keep him from being nominated, but that they would have little negative effect on Clark during the General Election if he has already secured the Democratic nomination. I think this is another good example of that. In an election battle between Bush and Clark, I think John Ashcroft as Attorney General guarentees Bush the mantle as the candidate most associated with government intrusion.

On some other thread we might talk more about your issue sometime. You will note from my opening post that I went into this specifically saying I wouldn't debate all the reasons to "not trust Clark" on this particlar thread. I am not dismissing your concern or trashing you for having it, just pointing out that while it might present a significant hurdle for Clark to address with Democrats in the Primaries, it is not an area of weakness of his against Bush in the Fall. That is what I am asking people to discuss. Primary liabilities vs. General Election liabilities.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Furthermore

I think this particular "controversy" is largely confined to predominantly center left concerns regarding the correct balence to be taken between personal privacy and personal security. To the extent that the general electorate believes Clark has had any role in furthering anti-terrorist oriented intelligence screening tools, I think it would predominantly advance his cause and increase his support in the general election. The fact that Clark had a short but successful business career also helps fill out his "real life" resume outside of the military, though any corporate links are always grist for the mill of leftist discussions. These are exactly the types of "concerns" I am referring to. Ones that make elements of the Democratic activist base cautious about embracing Clark, that actually help make Clark a stronger candidate in the Fall election.

[stickdog]

59. CAPPS II is indefensible by anyone's standards.

Any organized and funded terrorist cell would simply game the system.

And it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure that out.

[Justice]

58. Marvelous Post

Tom, thank you and thank you to the posters on this thread who for the most part offered very thoughtful commentary.

An interesting side note that comes up on this thread, which overlaps with the main point.

The perceived weakness of Dean and Clark is that they have half the equation - Dean has domestic policy experience with his governing in VT and Clark has foreign policy experience with is NATO and SACEUR experience. It will be interesting to see in the end which is considered the more important role, whether in fact the perceptions are true, and whether either man can overcome the perceptions.