Conversation with an old friend re Clark

Hey,

This weekend I had a sobering conversation with one of my oldest friends about the 2004 election. This guy hates Bush and the invasion but said he would not vote for any of the Dem candidates. When I said I like Dean, he said he had a Napoleon complex. When I said I'd vote for any Dem, even Lieberman, against Bush, he said none were any better and all were Bush asskissers. Then I asked about Clark, and he said Wesley Clark was the only possible candidate he'd vote for.

Only one anecdote, for what it's worth. But this friend is retired military, fiftysomething, and African American. Made me think maybe we're screwed if we don't nominate Clark. Although when I said the grassroots Dems would have a hard time warming to someone so unsure of his party loyalty, my friend agreed.

FWIW,

CYD

said Dean had a "napoleon complex"..I find that to be ridiculous!

Dean is out there in Seattle by now fightin' for us and callin' bush on his lies!

I think it is bush who has the napoleaon complex.

When Howard Dean speaks he stands heads above everyone else.

Yes, I am a BIG Dean supporter! Crucify me!

Thought I heard that on Crossfire. Has he said he is a Democrat? For sure?

I will see if I can find the transcript.

but he's a Dem.

Pepperbelly has explained this over and over again.

He has voted in Democratic primaries, and I believe has sent money to Dem candidates.

In his current work, being an independent helps him a great deal, I'd imagine. Military guys in general don't divulge their political affiliations (see: Joint Chiefs just sitting there and not clapping during SOTU). Saying he's a Democrat flat out to everyone may adversely affect any work he may do if he DOESN'T run (that's my own armchair observation).

He has said that he couldn't be more opposed to Tom Delay, he has said that Republicans use people (I think during a Crossfire, I'll check that), he's pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and on and on.

He is a Democrat.

I don't get the hang up here--the guy has his reasons. What do people care, if he's not a candidate? Even if God/Shiva/Cthlulhu himself told Clark not to say he was a Democrat, half the Clark bashers would still have a problem with it.

Of course it is a legit question. He has talked with the DLC by his own admission, also been asked by Republicans to run.

Why is this a problem, that I just want to know?

I have not seen Pepperbelly's explanations which have been posted over and over. I must have missed those.

If he is going to appear on TV and talk about running as anything, then he is fair game.

Well, twice, anyway. I got snapped at once for asking an honest question, or answering one, or something, and it stinks! Sorry.

I think Clark is fair game, surely--but a number of posters have tried to insinuate different things just because he won't come out and say the words "Yes, I'm a Democrat", as if this is some insurmountable issue that means he's untrustworthy, secretive, or blah blah blah. It's an issue, and it's kind of weird, but not insurmountable as some act like. That's why I got all huffy.

I would even say that from what he says so far, he's more liberal than some of the Dems in Congress.

Clark wants to come in and be the standard bearer of the party, he wants dems to bet EVERYTHING on him --- a man with no experience running for political office --- and yet he won't even declare his party affiliation. that bespeaks an incredible arrogance, not to mention a lack of empathy for the grassroots.

it's like some geek just learned to play baseball, and immediately wants to be the coach of the giants during the world series. that in itself is bad enough, but add to that the geek's refusal to wear the team colors. it's insane.

... he was elected governor of texas.

if Clark wants to be president, he ought to establish a track record in politics by running for some lower office first. congress, senate, governor, or at least something. i thought Bush's political inexperience was a good reason to vote against him, and i think Clark's political inexperience will also be a negative.

He hates Bush and all the Democrats, with the exception of a guy who may not even be a Democrat and may not even run?

according to you we should abandon all the other candidates in favor of Clark, who may not be a candidate, because your friend won't vote for anyone but him? I don't think that is a good reason myself.

How many qualifiers does a person need to include to avoid being misread? Just one anecdote, for what it's worth, maybe, etc. I just find it alarming that someone who ought to be ABB has instead decided NBC-- Nobody but Clark-- and suspect media manipulation at work.

so this is how it came across to me. Just asking. If someone is against Bush, doesn't it make sense that he would vote for the opposition or not vote? Why only Clark? Sorry, it makes no sense to me. But then anyone voting for Bush to begin with made no sense to me. It seems like too many, who voted for Bush in the last election, did so because they thought Clinton was immoral. This was too silly for me even to contemplate except that we are stuck with a really immoral moron running our country.

the dems should pick someone that democrats will want to vote for; the repubs should pick someone that repubs will want to vote for. it's not the dems' job to nominate someone that the repubs will want to vote for. that's not what the party system is all about.

if the dems nominate someone that the repubs want to vote for, then there's the risk that s/he will lose the dems' votes. or, perhaps even worse, that person might win and then be a trojan horse for repub policies once in office.

Did he elaborate on that at all, why Clark's the only one he'd maybe vote for?

He like me has probably done some research into this. In order to get any justice out of our political system, it requires having one leader not nine, and I think most on here would agree that perhaps the Democratic system we have is not as democratic as we once thought. Remember the 2000 election a Court decided who our president was.

And to think that things will change by something less then a revolution a no-violent revolution requires that the people rally upon one leader. The people of India picked Gandhi. They did not sit around an vote who will be the next Gandhi among nine possible leaders. The same with Clark Clark sort of came in the picture when Americans and his country needs him most.

And the only way to beat the Republicans in 2004 is when Clark says he will run for the other 9 to drop out, that is the best thing to do for the party and will bring true unity to the party.

Now the general is the guy you want?

Forgive me for asking this, but are you just jerking us around?

I didn't get into the morality of that position b/c it didn't seem we were getting anywhere.

like the Bugman, is your friend going to believe them?

It may just be a recognition that Clark brings something to the table that Dems haven't had. In addition to knowing foreign policy, some people, especially veterans seem to like the idea of an articulate, liberal General for President.

You should get your friend to post here, he sounds like an interesting guy.

Instead of people who are commited to the party.

Therefore, any random voting age citizen you encounter most likely does not vote, period. CYDog's friend, your cousin, whoever. If you vote, you're minority.

From the worldview of a nonvoter approaching an election, it may not look so much like "Gee, what a bunch of interesting choices!", as "Why the f*** do I want to hassle voting for any of these schmucks?". Ergo, a single, gleaming choice helps make it's sale.

Of course choosing is yet down the road a piece. Much as I'd love to see WKC enter and sweep all before him, I actually believe its better to have the dem campaign test his electability first. I, like almost everyone, am guessing about him at this point. Should he enter and campaign well, then true, I would hope for a quick dem decision (whoever wins out), to use as much time as possible united, attacking the target, aWol.