|
how the general would have politely "beat the shit" out of Bush, by effectively shattering the myth that Bush is an honorable and dignified man, who is protecting the country from terra. The Republicans could forsee big problems dealing with Clark. I am not saying that Kerry won't do ok, but Clark's criticism of Bush was extremely scarey to them. People on our side, who don't like Clark, just spew out this nonesense about he's a republican, he's not who he says he is, he supported the iraq war, he voted for Reagen, his eyeballs are scarey, he's creepy or whatever, he contradicts himself. It's all bs!
Clark's message is very consistent. So consistent, in fact, it petrified the republicans. When Clark says that prancing around on an aircraft carrier isn't patriotic, it's bad leadership, that symbolizes the 4 star general admonishing a subordinate for not acting right. It is part of the strategy to dispel the myth that George Bush is an honorable and dignified leader. Coupled with relentless criticism of the war in iraq, including hard criticism of both the need for, the leadup to, and the tragic aftermath of that bullshit war, would have been very difficult for Bush to defend himself with Clark saying it. And after a while, more people would have been listening to the message. That was Clark's biggest problem, not enough people listening at this point. That would have changed if he could have hung on.
But our people just don't want Clark to be the nominee. They just didn't want it, and that's it! I haven't seen anything very brilliant as to why Clark was the wrong choice. Mostly i just heard republican talking points thrown around. I could, however, understand people's feeling apprehensive about Clark's slapped together domestic agenda, no doubt. That was a big problem for Clark. I wasn't worried about it. His heart seems in the right place, and the could have been sorted out later. But I do understand others, not so intense for Clark, like I had become, feeling weary.
But people keep saying that the reason they want Kerry and not Clark was electability. That I think is a joke. This election is about terrorism and honor and dignity and Clinton's penis. Kerry has a lot of baggage to defend. Attacks on Clark during the general election, when he would have gotten full coverage to make his points and defend himself properly, would have come off way transparent, I think.
Perhaps the attacks on Kerry will seem desperate on Bush's part. I hope so, if Kerry is in fact the nominee. But again, I ask, why is it the Bush administration did everything in their power to make sure Clark sunk during the democratic nomination process, if Kerry is so electable? It doesn't make any sense.
I'm not saying Clark ran such a great election. But he always gets better. Geez, he was only in it for five months. The whole thing was uphill, always. Except for those four or five days, when his poll numbers went up before NH, it was difficult and frustrating at all times. His coverage was smear and snear, ignore or proclaim his demise. There wasn't ever anything positive said about him. And he still did pretty well. But this ain't horseshoes! :)
|