Why I think Clark is our only hope of winning

This isn't a new idea, but after seeing today's news about boxcutters being found on an airplane, it just hits home even more.

Bush was obviously at his most popular after 9/11. If terrorism heats up again, I think it's likely that would bring Bush's numbers up again. What's worse, in my opinion, is that terrorism doesn't have to heat up again for the Bush admin. to make it an issue. Reports of a vague threat one day, raising the terror alert to orange the next. My guess is the amount of terrorist threats and activity will magically increase as election day gets nearer and nearer. Not to mention an unending ad campaign of Bush standing in NYC saying "I hear you", or ads saying, "Bush in 2004 - Let's Roll". Nothing is off limits for Rove and co. I think the terror campaign is inevitable.

With that said, I think Clark is the only candidate who can match Bush in evoking the emotinal response, the sense of security, when it comes to protecting the US from terrorism. By no means is this necessarily related to their policies, only the feelings that they evoke.

This is not meant to start a fight with the Dean, Kerry, or Kucinich supporters or any of the other candidates' supporters. I think most of the candidates would make great presidents. It's just that I think the Bush political machine is ruthless and playing the terrorist card is their only and best hope. They will make this election about terrorism, and nothing else.

Why is it that Wes Clark (and for that matter, Bonehead Bush) can elicit the appropriate emotional response to terrorism while the rest of the field of candidates cannot?

I think Bush elicits the emotional response to terrorism because after 9/11, Americans were looking for a protector. They were looking for someone to step forward and say "everything's gonna be alright" and "terrorists messed with the wrong country", as well as following it up with action. Bush, being the president, filled that void. Obviously Americans, at least initially, approved of his handling of terrorism due to his extreme rise in the polls. I believe that initial link of Bush filling the role of national protector created a positive emotional tie for many Americans regarding terrorism. Personally, I think Bush's policies, especially post Afghanistan have been terrible in combatting terrorism, but I believe the positive emotinal link that was forged after 9/11, unfortunately still resonates with a majority of Americans.

I think Clark elicits an emotinal response simply because he's a four star general. When we're at war, who naturally does one feel safe with, but someone who has spent his life preparing for, fighting and commanding troops in wars?

Regarding the other candidates, I don't think any of them have done anything to elicit an emotinal response to terrorism. The one exception may be Kerry due to his Viet Nam experience, but I don't think its impact is that strong due to the fact that it was over 30 years ago.

on this very 'myth'...

I do agree that Bush perpetuates 'fear' and the illusion of 'protection'. But this election is about so much more.

In the latest Zogby Poll, Dean eeks out into first place over Shrub.

"The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 45% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark's 35%; would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 37%; would poll 47% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's 37%; and would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 49% - 37%."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=739

Dean trails Bush by 10 points, same as Clark and Kerry.

NT

Once they start pounding on him for getting a medical exemption and then hitting the ski slopes, etc. you can kiss the election goodby. In today's envivornment, anyone who can be painted as a draft dodger will not be elected commander-in-chief.

anyone who can be painted as a draft dodger will not be elected commander-in-chief

How true. After all, they tried to paint Bill Clinton as a draft-dodger, and he never got elected.

Oh, wait. never mind.

Another anti-Dean myth destroyed.

Man, you're so right! I can't trust anyone who actually attempted to have fun after being declared 1-Y. That he even smiles today makes my blood boil.

I can't trust anyone who actually attempted to have fun after being declared 1-Y. That he even smiles today makes my blood boil.

I love it.

Julie

service, and who our current commander in theif wis. In addition, you are also forgetting they said Clinton was a draft dodger.

Sorry, next...

Bush has been painted as a draft dodger as have MOST of his administration. It will be a non-issue. The economy and the quagmires will be the issues.

Clinton's non service was an issue, but there are two very big differences, 1) These candidates do not have the appeal that Clinton had or has and 2) 9-11 had not happened. It is a disgrace that the GOP is using 9-11 as a political hot potato but it is still a FACT, things have changed and national security might not poll as the most important issue but it is still the deciding factor. All candidates being equal on domestic issues the stronger candidate on foreign policy and national security will win. IMO

Team Bush is going to want to shine a light on Jr's "military record"?? Them attacking anyone's military record will open the door to the AWOL issue, which of course is to be avoided like the plague if Jr wants to keep playing out his Napoleonic complex urges.

I say Bring It. Let's shine that light!

Julie

This weekend CNN is running "Flyboy George Bush"

Notice, no middle initials are being used in the title.Time to morph the image for the adoring public.

And I don't mean the sock in the pants trick from earlier this year. I'm talking about his dessertion of the Air National Guard during Vietnam.

the sad thing is most of Clarks support is based on this very 'myth'...

A DU poll was conducted asking what the primary reason amongst Clark supporters for supporting Clark was. "Military resume" and "electability" were not the two top answers.

Believe it or not, the reason we're supporting Clark is not that we're scared into believing a myth. We believe he's the best guy for the job. We've put as much effort into selecting our candidate as you have in yours.

(edited for grammar)

Thanks ;)

I hope that's true. But, it's hard to swallow when his supporters repeat that mantra over and over. In addition, most Clarkies noted his military service as a partial reason for support.

I wish I could have faith in Clark because he's doing so well in the polls, but it's tough when his issues have not been clearly defined KWIM?

about the liberal general theory. The military resume and electability are not the key reasons for supporting him. But they are the linchpins that enables the liberal general theory, the advancement of the timetable on the emerging democratic majority in the south, the massive coattails for taking over congress and appointing Supreme Court Justices, an unprecedented potential for moving the nation leftwards, cutting PNAC, and more. Those are the reasons many of us.

Move the country left???

Does he have much of a stand on anything or is all about his military standing? Because that is just about the overwhelming argument used to rally behind him.

After this quagmire, military solutions and images may not be the most sympathetic.

Read his two books. Look at what he's done to help military families with education funding and affordable daycare. Read his amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the Michigan affirmative action case. Oh, and don't forget he helped save an endangered desert turtle species at a military base (think it was Texas).

It is based on his intelligence, compassion, experience and ideas.

What the hell are you talking about?

on U.S. soil could cut either way for Bush. Two attacks on his watch? Will he be busy reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" next time?

That's the first point. The second point is that we cannot possibly read people's minds. We cannot at this stage of the game decide who can or can't beat Bush. Just about any of the candidates is brighter than Bush, more knowledgeable than Bush, more qualified than Bush, etc. But many people will vote for a clueless dunce no matter what. Witness California. Or witness the fact that Bush actually did get a lot of votes last time around.

The third point is that we should stick to issues and not do the horse race thing. That's all the media talk about. We should be talking about the issues, which is what the media bury with their horse race chatter.

Easy enough to declare an emergency, especially in this climate, and postpone elections six months or so.

Long enough for any Democratic candidate to lose momentum -- especially with * as "protector" model.

As I read the above again, I'm beginning to think I'm not even half kidding.

DU.

Why did terror keep Bush's numbers high.

Ask yourself that questions and poopooing that it could be used in his favor...depending on which candidate he is up against.

Never underestimate the Rove Machine....Hell, that's how we got to where we are today in 3 short (long to me) years.

Terror and fear are much easier to manufacture and is a good economy.

When will we learn?

I do agree that Clark , depending who is VP nomination will be, has the best chance to neutralize Bush where he is the least vunerable....and that would be Homeland security.

Why did terror keep Bush's numbers high?

Ask yourself that questions and ]b]stop poopooing that it will not be manipulated in his favor...depending on which candidate he is up against.

Terror and fear are much easier to manufacture than is a good economy.

sorry.

that ordinary voters don't think like DU.

We get the details and the nuances here. But we have plenty of time to kill, apparently. :) The average voter doesn't, and has to settle for soundbites and two-word slogans. Clark's would be "military man". That would settle it for God knows how many people. Lots, I think.

With Dean, maybe it's "angry man". Appeals to me, but may turn off others. Sure, I'm oversimplifying things, but I really think that's what most people take to the voting booth. Just short, simple, gut-reaction stuff.

What we need to do is make sure that Bush's is "Lying weasel" and not "war hero".

And this isn't a slam against ANY of the Dems, including Clark. But if Shrubbie and friends (intentionally) heat up the War on Terra, we're probably hosed, no matter who the nominee is. In times of war, Americans tend to want to stay with the known entity, and that of course favors the incumbent.


"They will make this election about terrorism, and nothing else."

Yes, they will. But who the heck says we should play by their script?!!!! I'm tired of the repubs calling the shots, by God. It's about time that we realized we have the ability to discuss issues other than those brought up by the fascists.

Clark knows exactly what you mean. And he's smart enough to know what to do about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=548650

The election will be the Republican Bush against the Democrat Bush. When Bush wins, we just claim that our side won.

It's simple, it's easy - and it's guaranteed to work! All that's required is a bit of "flexibility" -- and Lord knows Democrats are flexible enough to swallow almost anything.

I know some of you purists out there may feel a bit reluctant about nominating Bush. This is silly. The future of our country is at stake. It's no time to be rigid & set one-issue "litmus tests" about the type of candidate we send out there.

NOMINATE BUSH! It's the only way to save ourselves from Bush.

show how Dean is super progressive to Clark being Super Conservative.

You're right, Rich.

Plus, it will cut down heavily on the work to promote someone else. It won't matter that "someone else" has workable plans to change our country to benefit everyone.

IT WILL MEAN WINNING! (It won't matter that it's an empty win.)

Ah, simplicity.

:puke:

Hmmmmmm. So what you're saying is that four more years of Bush is equivalent to four years of Clark?! Just an empty win?

Imagine if Saddamm Hussein was our president. Would you be fighting tooth and nail to get your Democratic candidate nominated over another because his or her health-care policy was better? Of course not. You would do everything in your power to beat Hussein. I believe we're in a similar situation in 2004. Bush is destroying this country. Pick an area he's killing it - economy, environment, taxation, diplomacy, security, you name it. Every Democratic candidate will reraise taxes on the rich. Every Democratic candidate will turn back Bush's despicable environmental policies. Every Democratic candidate will make realistic efforts towards fixing the economy. Every Democratic candidate will deal with our neighbors with humility and respect. Every Democratic candidate will put forth an honest effort to do what's best for the country, which is more than can be said for Bush.

Think of where Bush has taken this country in only his first 2 years and 9 months of office. Imagine what this country will be like in 2008 if he gets re-elected. An "empty" Clark win will suit me just fine.

"...four more years of Bush is equivalent to four years of Clark?!

W/a different letter in front of his name, though.

I think you're a bit confused about the whole thing.

All we need is the most bare bones attempt to improve homeland security and we'll be making great strides.

The 911 event was a fluke in terms of the damage that was caused....and the very fact that they came away with so much more than they ever dreamed is cause to make a logical connection that they are basking in their glory.

Fact is...we know historically they have planned such events few and far between in the US. Fortunately, it has been shown that there was really no concerted series of efforts planned against us (thank God since Bush dropped the ball on security).

I don't see any real paranoia about having to be protected.
The swing vote will be the women and they have no real like for Bush and his irresponsible male agresssion.

Don't go by the polls....I don't talk to anyone that thinks they're safer with Bush.

then again, as a part of the admin that stopped the millenium bombings, I think it is possible that 911 would have been prevented, or perhaps diminished. All that aside - I think that the projected idea of who would give a "sense of security" - which is a subjective term, btw, is silly. I would have prefered Carter (caring, spiritual grandfather) to Reagan in a crisis.

Until these men are in those positions - I frankly have no idea with whom I, personally, would feel most secure. Kerry and his serious demaner - very possibly, Gephardt with his bent towards light nationalism - not as much - but he would have evoked a sense of need for Unity, Clark with his military experience - probably if he were calm and strong and not indicating a 'reactionary' response (which I doubt he would - but that would by my concern with any former military), Dean - with his message of hope, empowerment tinged with anger - maybe he would have taken the more fdr "no fear but fear itself" approach which could work... etc.

My point is that you are projecting onto others a very subjective assessment. I never find that type of reasoning to be compelling to make a final response. We are too prone for missassessing other peoples' subjective responses. For example I was made nervous by some of Bush's early post 911 speeches... he was already speaking in broad sweeping terms (not just aimed at Al Queada). So had I projected by subjective illease with the crazy/intellectual lazy guy in the White House, onto predicting how others would read it - I would have been woefully wrong.

Carter was in the Navy and a graduate of Annapolis. He served as an officer for seven years. So yes, I'd have felt better with him in a crisis than Reagan, whose military experience seemed to consist of making training films or something.

... Clark simply stands on his own as great presidential material. Clark has every credential you could ask for in a president. It is not merely emotion -- unless you count the emotion of extreme admiration for someone with genuine credentials.

Clark is the real deal. We are looking at someone who could unite and reshape the country. I really believe that.

Such as governing civilians?

Dean's been a governor. So had Bush, for that matter. Anyone else?

Yes. Seven of the remaining candidates have Democratic lawmaking credentials. Those Democratic lawmaking credentials have been recorded. Those records can be examined.

clark has no records to be examined.

...

I'm not sure our U.S. civilians actually get "governed." They vote for leaders who represent their interests, offer vision, and lead them toward shared goals. How many presidents have been generals? I heard it the other day. It's an astonishingly high number.

So to Clark's many official credentials (first in class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, Masters in Economics) add that he had an occupation (four-star general) that has historically had a very high correlation with the presidency.

There is never really any certainty about people. About all you can do is look at their credentials, look at history, and listen to what they say. Clark scores very, very solid in credentials.

Then, listening to him, seeing how he treats people in town hall meetings, evaluating his ideas, I get a very positive impression of him.

YMMV

We are NOT a military state!

As has been said before, he needs to earn his civilian "stripes". But, he has chosen not to. He wants to start at the top.

I do not trust his backing and I do not trust him.

First in class at West Point and Rhodes scholar status are both intellectual credentials. A Masters in Economics is an intellectual and professional credential, and one particularly applicable to government service.

And as I said, lots of our presidents have been generals. It hasn't turned us into a "military state."

Bush daddy's name and Enron's money got Bush a governorship. Is that a credential?

But be specific. Don't just say things like "We are NOT a military state" and "I don't not trust his backing and I do not trust him." So what? Why do you think Clark would give us a military state? Why don't you trust his backing or him?

He had to be told that it would be a good idea to register as a Democrat if he was going to run as a Democratic candidate.

He had to be told that when filling out his party affliation on the FEC form to run as a Democratic candidate, UNK din't cut it.

He had to be told that getting paid for speeches and talking about his presidential campaign was a no-no. Has he given the money back?

Less than two years ago, he was praising whistle ass et al. (And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.)

Less than two years ago, he stated he liked and would like to work w/PNACers again.

He would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls.

He voted for Nixon

He voted for Reagan - twice

He voted for Poppy

He would have not voted for the IWR

He would have voted for the IRW

He was still a Washington lobbyist when he announced his run.

He lobbied U.S. senators, the CIA, and officials in the Treasury, Justice, Transportation, Defense, and Commerce departments, and got paid $50,000 for his efforts to win his company a homeland-security contract. (Axciom)

He spoke at a repug fundraiser two years ago.

Pristina Airport

He dropped cluster bombs and DU on innocent men, women, children, schools, hospitals and churches.

president at the time of 9-11. No military experience...and yet tons of reassurance. And here we ended up with a "supposed" military man fleeing for his life and hiding out...hmmm. Military background does not beget security in my opinion.

Since the US through a non-partisan vote of 398-4 on Syria withdrawing it's forces from Leb. is another step in the PNAC, it seems ridiculous (or strategic) to put a General in charge...

Unless of course you are in favor of Imperialism and are simply quibbling whether a democrat or a Republican should receive the blessing of the vanquished...


Isn't France a Republic too

When Nader was shouting that Mantra!

Unfortunately, I was not born yesterday......and

I believe there is a lot of difference between Bush and Clark.....and I am about to take offense that some out there consider their intellect so superior.....
that they know what they consider the "obvious", and I don't.

Paranoia is a desease....that can be cured. Take some medicine and head toward the time machine.