Eric Alterman: Generally Speaking (Clark)

So Clark is in. Everybody I’ve spoken with in the past few weeks figures that if he turns out to be a decent candidate, he’s definitely the guy with the best chance to save this country from the catastrophe that is Mr. Bush. That’s a big if, I know, but here’s my question. What are you Deanies gonna do? Let’s all admit that, in the abstract, a decorated general, Southerner, and Rhodes Scholar has a better chance to be elected president of the United States during an age of terrorism than the governor of a hippie state, born and raised in upper-class Manhattan (and with a Jewish wife and kids to boot), who has no military or foreign policy experience.

True, Dean “deserves” the support he’s earned. And personally, I find him to be very attractive candidate. But to me, even that means he’s likely to lose; possibly in a wash-out. (George McGovern is one of my favorite people ever to serve in U.S. political history.) Just how much do you want to make a statement and how much do you want to win? Because of the imponderables, it’s not as stark a question as it was for Naderites. On the other hand, few people had much idea how radical a right-winger was waiting in the wings.

So, what’s it going to be, boys and girls? Will the Deanies switch to Clark? Will Dean consider running as Clark’s No. 2? (Don’t tell me it should be the other way around. Perhaps it should, but Clark’s advantages dissipate in the No. 2 spot. Nobody votes for a vice president except the immediate members of his family, and if I were Mary Cheney, I would have thought long and hard about even that.)

<...>

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp?0dm=C15OO

DTH

:kick:

He doesn't understand, like all pundits--liberal, conservative, whatever, that the defining issue of 2004 will be ANGER. You can be on the right side of the issues all you want, but unless you believe someone stands up for you, voters will stay home. 2002 is a good example.

People who have trouble with Dean's positins (eg, gun control) still support him because they believe he stands for something, and that is very important in an era where our democracy is being raped.

Alterman, et al, don't live in the real world, and therefore don't understand the depths of the anger out there. They listen to other pundits--it's s cycle that doesn't break out of its incestuous nature.

.

of Big Govt, taxes, gun grabbers, homosexuals, etc

They've done plenty thus far, and with another term who knows how bad it could get? Every day, more Americans are coming around to really comprehending the problem and they want somebody who will stand up and fight for them against the regime now in power. That's what Dean's supporters see, and they have hope again.

And if you don't think that anger had a part in kicking out Bush Sr, then you're forgetting things. Go back and listen to Bill Hicks to see how angry some of us were when we voted for Clinton. Heck, Clinton was my first vote cast in anger at the RW. I doubt I was the only one.

Anger and love are the two primary motivators for support in politics...and that's been the situation ever since we first came out of the caves.

and there was also the little matter of Iranian hostages.

People do not vote for something as much they vote against it!

. . .Clark provides all of us with the best chance of beating Bush*. Many Dean supporters know this.

Yesterday I was coming back from Little Rock and I was on the Orange Line from Midway as a I headed to our celebration. An older lady gets on wearing a Dean hat, wearing a Dean shirt and carrying Dean literature gets on the train and starts talking to me about Dean. I told her I am "Wes Winger" and I showed her my credential from his announcement (I got a very nice volunteer credential when I worked the announcement).

First of all this shook her up because she had no idea Clark had announced, but then she said to me that she would really have to consider switching her support to Clark.

it's you who don't live in the real world. When I'm not on DU, I hear very little, if any, anger out there. Anger is a losing issue. Better ideas are a winning idea.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0823.html

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Sad.

I do love how all you can do is attack the messenger, though. And by trying to paint Eric Alterman as some kind of fake liberal, you once again serve only to discredit yourself.

I love it.

DTH

I am referencing the context from which the words were prompted.

It is an opinion piece---am I not allowed an opinion on the swamp in which they were formed?

It is not as if Alterman's word is law. His whole campaign to attack ANSWER, the major organizer of massive Iraq anti-war rallies, with red-baiting, while throwing support behind the mistakenly and destructively indignant Michael Lerner, is a sin he has yet to atone for.

You think his opinions carry any weight for me?

In my book anyway. It is nice in a War Mongering Nation to have the leader be a true War Monger but I would hope we can change and get away from our War Mongering. Clark has a chest full of medals and has military bearing but can he govern in a Democracy? The military is far from Democratic. Dean has some governing experience so it is going to be quite interesting. I will make up my mind in due time but need substance over appearance. Then again I have been told I am not typical.

A historical perspective:

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.14_arch.html#1063725626338

1) No political campaign experience and

2) No political governance experience.

"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." -- Rev. Martin Luther King.

Wars do not turn generals into expert Presidents of a democracy.

Generals have to be good managers, and Clark's experience as a NATO commander gives him a better foreign policy background than anyone else running, of either party.

Further, I object to a knee-jerk reaction to his military background.

Generals as Presidents in American History

Let's suspend judgment for a while, OK? Clark may flame out in the campaign, and if he does, so be it. But let's see how he does. My guts tell me he will be a more attractive candidate in the general election than Dean, and I like Dean very much.

I find this drooling over the testoterone-driven, macho-strutting and military-flexing as a measure of strength for a weakened and ineffective party to mount a show of strength - a sad and desperate image for the Democrats to promote for our country, our party and our future - considering we now have an economy driven by the military. It runs counter to all the party stands for in opposition to the Republicans--it is just more of the same misplaced and misled that seeks to reinvent itself in the Republican mold while rejecting the Democratic platform. It is nothing more than the continuation of triangulation that ultimately pushes the Right further to the Right and reaps blowback for the Left's position.

And the lemming-like exploitation of the mob mentality, to take up the torch and jump on any bandwagon, or subscribe to the latest fad or trend, is an even sadder commentary on the superficial dumbed-down mentality of the pop culture.

Hell, after flitting around the flame, Clark has decided he will run for President as a Democrat---as if that was an afterthought, as if all he had to do was to flip a coin, as if there was little difference in the way he viewed the parties, or little difference for the people that rally behind him that swallow all the made-for-primetime images

He might as well be Scwartzenegger, his views are almost similar and the depth of his response on par. They are both productions, depends on how the coin is flipped.

It's traditional for professional military to keep party membership a secret, so your contention that he flipped a coin to see what party to run with is just weird. The guy's fairly liberal.

And what's with the "testoterone-driven, macho-strutting and military-flexing"? The pugs do it, but truly historians consider the three President-Generals (the guys who went straight from a military career into the White House: Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower) to have been on the weak end of the presidential testosterone scale.

I think you have a bias against military people. I know some professional soldiers, and they are fine, liberal guys.

WE. DO. NOT. LIVE. IN. A. MILITARY. STATE.



yet.

that electing a former general will turn us into a military state? It didn't happen when we elected Eisenhower, did it? In fact, he was the one who warned us about the military-industrial complex.

Chill out.

"Wars do not turn generals into expert Presidents of a democracy."

Elections do that.

either. Generals should prove their civilian political governance expertise BEFORE running for President, and Ike was not a great president.

It shows you how stupid the naders were/are. I remember the first bush well. I didn't need a reminder.

Where have all the Greens gone
Long time passing
Where have all the Greens gone on this board
Gone to Deanies everyone
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?

I suspect a great deal of Dean support is coming from the Greens not because they believe in him but because they believe he's the best chance to lose big time and take a hell of a lot of Dems with him. One party down and one to go until the citizens come running and beg for the Green party to save us................just a thought...........or otherwise why would no one have any interest in really digging into Howard's records in Vermont????

The Clark gang rode in, shooting up the pace, bullying everyone as they strutted around the threads, throwing their trash everywhere, pissing on everyone, shouting demands, and when anyone asks a question, or posts a thread about this new icon, or comments, without saluting to this holy perfumed prince, why oh! the wailing and the howling of the bashing - the abuse their poor widdle general. The unknown factor that we aren't allowed to ask any question about. Just admire the pleasant picture.

That is not the country I want to live in.

Wes Clark's mother was/is a Jew. He was raised a Baptist and then converted to Catholicism when he married Gert. I don't know if there would be many Americans who would not vote for someone named Clark because of his Jewish extraction. Would there?

His mother was a gentile....


Judaism is a matrilineal religion therefore Wes is not a Jew....


That being said, Alterman's remarks on that topic were gratuitous....

Everybody I’ve spoken with in the past few weeks figures that if he turns out to be a decent candidate, he’s definitely the guy with the best chance to save this country from the catastrophe that is Mr. Bush.

That's the $64,000 Question. Will Clark turn out to be a decent candidate (whatever that may mean in context). If so, and he wins the nomination, I'm sure Dean supporters will back him. But there's a big difference between that and saying, as of now, "Clark has the best chance (according to the writer), so Dean supporters should show 'common sense' (once again, according to the writer), drop their candidate, and climb aboard the bandwagon." No thanks to that. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to have to earn it, not just be handed it gift-wrapped because "a general is going to have a better chance."

I'd like to see how he handles himself in a couple of debates, and how he reacts once the neocons turn their guns on him (as is happening already). He may flame out. Let's see.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

Two things struck me from the article.

From a speech in New York:

"There has been since 9/11 a chill on dialogue in this country. . . . You only have to listen to talk radio or watch Mike Savage on MSNBC, and you'll see the spirit of what's out there. You can't have a democracy when people don't get the facts and when people don't get the chance to agree or disagree. We've got to have a dialogue in this country . . . that is premised on an understanding that asking questions, demanding evidence, and holding people accountable is not unpatriotic, it's the duty of every American."

and a comment from someone in New Hampshire

Though self-described as "an old Leftie," she says, "This year I'm not standing on principle. This year I want to go with the guy who has the best chance of beating George Bush. And I want to know what it is that makes you think you can. I know this is an unfair question, because you're not a candidate. But I'm assuming you're not in New Hampshire for our wonderful spring weather."

I love Howard Dean and what he's done so far on the campaign trail but as on 'old leftie' I agree with her that beating Bush is the # 1 priority. As long as I believe Clark can beat Bush I have to through my support behind him. If he disappoints during the campaign I will switch but for now he's the man. One good indication is that right wing attacks are thus far falling far short of the mark.

and as for the comment from the "Lefty". That is right out of the Dean playbook. Pay attention to how much of clarks presentation is, because you see, the Clark campaign needs to look to Dean for their cues on what will appeal. That haven't a clue.