Why this Dean supporter is glad Clark is running

I am trying to set an example here, we all need to try a post like this once in awhile.

I think the good Gen. can say things that no other candidate can say and be taken seriously (about Iraq and foreign policy). And so far Clark is doing it without really bashing Dumbya. I think this will allow for swing voters who are buying into the corporate media shills' "bush bashing" charge against the other Dem candidates.

I like the Gen., and always enjoyed his analysis on CNN.

While I still support Dean, I think Clark brings a lot to the race.

All of you rabid die-harders take note: this is called "political maturity."

...people just have to get a bit realistic about him.

Let's see how he does on the campaign trail.

By now, even the swing voters have a clue.

The DLC strategy to strut the Democratic Party in competition to the Right's military fixation is an affront to every principle the Democrats value in opposition to the Rights militarism.

If that's what it takes to get W out of office, so be it. Obviously, being Mr. Nice Guy hasn't worked and the intellectual road (Gore) didn't work, either.

If that's what the public is going to fixate on, while ignoring the economy, the environment, etc., etc., then that's where the inroads need to be made.

when he deviated off the DLC centrist deception and forged his own populist path.

If it is only about winning at the cost of all else, then look around for the best Republican to challenge Bush if you have so little faith in the platform of your own party.

Oh...that is the plan. This has been the problem all along - Democrats unwilling to stand up for being Democrats. With the marketing of Wesley Clark the transition is complete.

Wesley Clark is the DLC's winning number. We don't win, they do.

Gore ran one of the worst political campaigns in recent memory. The guy lost to a smirking idiot with no experience, for heaven's sake.

If you honestly believe that this country is better off with GWB than with Wesley Clark (which is what it certainly sounds like you are saying), you may be on the wrong web forum.

We're not electing a platform, we're electing a person. Frankly, there isn't going to be another person on earth who shares EXACTLY the same views that I have, so the idea is to then find someone who I can agree with, in general, and then hope he can kick the crap out of Bush in '04. The bottom line is that Bush must go.

Sure, we'd all love a liberal in the White House, but the reality of the current US culture makes that impossible. Sticking to ideology - just to lose the election - means nothing to the COUNTRY if we lose. Just ask McGovern or Mondale. Yes, it's nice to stick to your principles and run as a liberal, but that just isn't possible anymore. Not with any chance of being elected president.

Besides, the person who campaigns and the person who wins are two different people. Bush ran as a moderate. Hell, he almost ran as a populist. There's nothing stopping Dean or Clark or Kerry or whoever from running as a moderate and nudging left after they win.

among other things.

I had no idea that I didn't know what I was talking about.

"The specifics of Gore's campaign" are that he lost to an idiot after 8 of the best years this country has ever seen economically and otherwise. Look, Gore ran a horrible campaign, whether anyone who supported him (myself wholeheartedly included) wants to admit that or not. He got a lot of horrible advice, not the least of which was to avoid Clinton like the plague. He should have killed Bush; instead, Gore won by less than 1% of the total vote.

With all due respect, sticking to nothing but the party platform issues is a losing proposition. I live smack dab in the middle of all of those red states, and trust me, if you're going to convince ANYONE in the middle of the country to vote for the Democratic candidate, he better be dead center, if not a little right of center. Ben Nelson, for example, drives me insane because he keeps voting with Republicans in the Senate. But, he understands that it is the ONLY WAY he will get re-elected in this state.

And I agree 100%.

just like Bradley forced Gore to improve his campaign. As long as the other candidates don't destroy each other, it will strengthen everybody.

. . .but I want to correct you on one thing. When you say "And so far Clark is doing it without really bashing Dumbya," you must realize that he is one of the biggest * bashers out there. . .he just does very subtly.

-snip-
"No one can be surprised that the president is having a hard time convincing other nations to cooperate now. This demonstrates just how badly the president has handled the Iraq situation from the start," said new Democratic front-runner Wesley Clark.
-snip-

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/40594.htm

-snip-
Maher: All right now, I have to tell you General, when you said bait-and-switch, you just said the magic word! Ladies and gentleman, bait-and-switch, and there it is! (the Bush fighter pilot doll drops down onto the set by parachute) (audience laughter) No heckling! This, as you may have known, we had it on the show a couple weeks ago. This is the George Bush doll, this has been put out by a company. Him in his flight suit, this is President dress-up, when he made his appearance on the aircraft carrier. I'm wondering what you think of that stunt.

Clark: First of all, I think it's a great flight suit, and a lot of... (audience applause and laughter) great men and women have worn that suit with honor, and have risked their lives, have lost their lives, in that flight suit. And I think when you see that doll, what it will remind us of is the premature celebration at the end of this war. Because this was the 1st of May, and the banner read Mission Accomplished. And you know what's come out of the Washington press this week, the leaked document from the Joint Staff and Central Command. We did our after-action review, and you know what we found, fellas? We didn't plan for the whole mission! We destroyed the Iraq army, we got to Baghdad, but we didn't have Phase 4! The post conflict operation!
-snip-

http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/000172.html

I'm proud of her grace and intelligence. I'm supporting Dean as my favorite but I must say I admire Kucinich's passion for what is right. When Kerry speaks it is with such authority, the man has "Presidential" written all over him. Edwards is so sincere about the working people and expresses warmth - he knows what to say. Gephardt has so much experience and work with unions and has so many intelligent ideas. Sharpton is such a wonderful orator with a great quick wit and makes me laugh. Clark speaks with such conviction about Liberal Democracy, it makes me proud. Graham wants to protect our country against attack and would do anything in his power to achive that. Lieberman talks with such conviction about the civil rights movement.

I'm a Dean supporter who's glad Clark is in too.

The republicans have one choice this go'round, at it will require heads in the sand, turning a blind eye, swallowing lies, and all sorts of masturbatory rhetoric in order to support their lost cause.

Dems on the other hand are going to really hash out the issues. Each candidate will be put to the test and the cream will rise. The result will be that we end up with a superior candidate. If that's Dean, great. If it's somebody else, that's great too. Our eventuall candidate will have emerged from a trial by fire. Bush, on the other hand, will be fired and sent to trial.

He looks good. He sounds good. But what is it that is really motivating him? Who in Washington D.C. started the "Draft Clark" web site and the so-called "movement?" What was Clark's http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/profile.asp">Leadership For America conference all about and why has the web site been decommissioned? And what about Clark's seemingly cozy relationship with Walter Isaacson, erstwhile leader of CNN and Time magazine, founder of the Aspen Institute?

There's nothing sinister and all those associated with the General hold the highest establishment liberal credentials. So I may warm to Gen. Clark, in time. But until them I will hold my support in reserve.

He's already on a head on collision with Bush ...

I think he can beat Bush in any debate related to War its justification and Dubyas true achievement in Iraq ... The Iraq war matters more than anything else in this Presidential election.

On the economy, he's on even footing without trying..!

I'd personally like to see him team up with Dean in the end .... wouldn't matter who's VP.

I get this feeling that Wesley Clark has made all the other candidates shine with his running ..... probably because of his military background at a time our Forces are in Iraq and also the credibility his opinion brings to Democrats in discussions about the war.

You'd be hard pressed to discredit his opinion on the War.

At some point the Clark people will have to disclose campaign financing. It will be interesting when OpenSecrets.org updates its 2004 Presidential Election web page.

I suspect what we may be seeing is the unfolding of an "underground" civil war between two camps of business philosophy: the unethical forces fronted by Bush-Cheney(the gas-oil based "old" economy) and the "ethical" businessleaders, like George Soros and Warren Buffit, and a more information oriented economic model.

Nothing to do with it...

Let me ask you this: if Clark were the presidential nominee and Dean were the vice presidential nominee, would you be happy? I think that they could be a very interesting team.

..after the dissappointing 2002 mid-term elections:

"When the people are uncertain (about their security), they tend to vote for the strong person, even if that person is wrong, rather than for the weak person, even if they are right." (or something to that effect).

For the very reasons listed by Bill Clinton last year, the Bush/Cheney/Rove administration is going to run a campaign on 3 things:

1) National Security.
2) War on Terra! (as Bush says)
3) More National Security!!

In other words, they are going to campaign on fear, fear, and more fear. That is the tactic/"political strategy" that could get Bush re-elected. Fear is the primordial instinct that shuts down our critical thinking capacity (about complex issues like the economy, deficits, etc.)

Therefore, IMO, the ONLY way to mitigate the Bush/Cheney/Rove political strategy re National Security is to have a REAL expert on national security run against them. Wesley Clark is the *only* person who can do that with sufficient effectiveness. (Sorry Kerry supporters, but that seems to be the reality). I will note that I have given money to Dean in the last quarter and this quarter b/c I like his positions, but I honestly do not know if he can beat Bush unless Welsey Clark is the VP choice. Dean needs Clark just as much Clark needs Dean - they make the almost perfect team to beat Bush/Cheney - IMO.

Remember, for the minority of people - the "thinking man" - which many on DU qualify as, Bush's "strategery" or whatever is resulting in LESS national security for out nation. However, for the major of Americans, Joe-Sixpack, i.e. the "non-thinking" majority, they do NOT see the fallacy of Bush's rhetoric and flawed policies. The sheeple remember the 'that Tough Prez on the aircraft carrior' - Period.

So, my personal wish is for people here at DU and elsewhere is to rally around either a Dean/Clark ticket or Clark/Dean ticket. Our country is in real trouble (both fiscally and from a civil liberties perspective), and we need to focus on supporting (financially and otherwise) whomever wins the Dem nomination, and to not get dragged into a damaging primary where both front runners (Dean & Clark) end up tearing each other down, which will only benefit Karl Rove on the neocons...

We need to be a team. Just my 2 cts worth.

Bush and the Republicans ran on absolutely nothing but fear and terror in 2002. They ignored everything else. Everything.

I think people are excited about Clark because he is the perfect Anti-Bush in that perspective. He instantly blunts any edge that W has and makes that stupid aircraft carrier stunt look silly.

I agree that Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark looks almost unstoppable, assuming no major bad things come out between now and then. They cover an awful lot of the political spectrum together.

I'm a Dean supporter, too, and I think the General brings a LOT of good things to our 'table'. :)

He can run all he wants, but his late entry, horrible announcement speech, initialy bypassing this week's debate in favor of a speaking engagement where he gets $35,000 a pop, his gaffe on voting for the Iraq War resolution tell me he only adds more chaos to the race not constructive debate.

Clark comes across to me as a manikin, not a viable candidate. If he had held elected office for at least 2 terms and managed the affairs of his office well then I'd be more inclined not to see Clark's Prez run as a chimera or foolish fancy.

But it is another voice getting the word out about the current administration and their foreign policies.

But I do not know that much yet, so the jury is still out. I will probably be better able to decide what i think of Clark after tomorrow's debate, if i get to watch it (I have to babysit and I don't think the people have a TV!)

Help make this a September to Remember

just told me he likes Clark.

I want to beat Bush. If it turns out Clark is the better guy to do this than Dean, fine with me.

I picked Dean as the best of the 9. I still think he's the best of the 10. But Clark would be fine with me (and maybe Dean the VP?) This is all about removing Too Stupid To Be President for me.

won't be simply "going from the frying pan into the fire", shall we?

Clark would be worse? Bush has destroyed the economy, the environment, isolated us from the world, and has screwed us over at every opportunity.

Do you really think Clark, even if all the right-wing crap about him is true, would be as bad?

Hardly.

this one.

But, people are treating Clark like he's the Antichrist and the end of the world even though, by their own admissions, they know very little about him.

And don't be too quick to buy into the "paid for by the DLC and the Clintons" theory. I'm not so sure that this isn't Repub BS intended to drive a wedge (oh, look - it's working!) in the Democratic party.

Regardless, Clark's exponentially better for America than BushCo. And, I've liked Dean since before it became obvious he was really running. I would be more than happy watching either of them, or frankly, any of the other Dems, kick W's smirking butt out the door.