Why is Dean a stronger candidate than Clark?

This wasn't getting any answers buried in another thread, so here it is on its own.

Clark supporters like me have posted many, many, many times why we don't think Dean is as strong a candidate as Dean. The central issues in American politics for the next four years will be foreign policy. "War on Terror", as little George calls it. The occupation of Iraq. Israel-Palestine conflict. Rebuilding America's relationship with the rest of the world. AIDS policy. Finding a road to energy independence. International trade.

I can tell you off the top of my head what Clark's policy is for each of these. Can you tell me what Dean's are? I keep asking Dean supporters for an answer on this. What is it you like about Dean's policies on these issues? I keep expecting there to be an answer to this, it is only reasonable that Dean supporters would like Dean's policies, but I have yet to get an answer.

Little George is an incumbent. If he doesn't have the mental capacity to speak clearly on one of these issues in the general election, one of the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the Executive Branch can say "What he really meant was...", and it will come from the Administration and be attributed to little George.

In order to be sure that little George doesn't get another four years, we need a candidate who has better ideas on these issues than the incumbent, and is a credible leader in these areas. I like Clark's stated position on every one of these issues; Clark has the experience on these issues to make him a credible leader on these issues, the most important ones we will face for the next four years. As far as I can see, Dean doesn't.

I don't only support Clark because he has support in the south that Dean appears to lack, and is therefore IMO a more electable candidate. I support him because I think he is the best person available to lead our country through the next four years.

If you can't say the same about Dean, you are supporting the wrong candidate. If you can't convince me that Dean will be a better leader for America than Clark, I see no reason to support Dean unless and until he becomes the best remaining candidate.

I invite you to convince me. If you can, great; I'll feel better about our chances of improving America in the next four years. Because right now, Dean is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and he doesn't look to me like he'll do as good a job of leading the country as he has of criticizing the administration.

So what do you like about Dean's positions, especially the ones that I listed above that I see as very important? I honestly want to know. I'm asking you, not the press, because you are someone who supports him as the best candidate. That is what this forum is for, anyway; sharing our views and beliefs with the goal that we end up with the right President.

If all you can tell me about Dean is that you don't like Bush and you don't like Clark, or Gephardt, or Kerry, or any of the other Dems, I can tell you right now I won't be convinced; and neither will enough of America to ensure little George loses.

promises to send more money and more troops to Colombia to fight the drug war, to spray more defoliants in the Amazon river basin. That's how I know Clark is my guy, because he wants to escalate a war that has no end.

And, more importantly, providing some hard answers. I don't want a nominee--whoever he turns out to be--who's been given "indellible" labels by the media whores before he's even out of the starting gate.

Let's face it, this race--and the debate that goes with it--will boil down to two candidates fairly soon--Dr. Dean and Gen. Clark. And we need to ask hard questions of both men; because if we don't, and do so early on, then the accusations made later by "Chip" Rove's minnions could be the ones that stick in peoples' minds. Which, in turn, could well lead to the Most Frightening Sentence:

"George W. Bush with a popular mandate!" :scared:

I want our eventual nominee "prepared" and "vetted" for the job, NOT someone set up for a "mighty fall"!

B-)

:D

I admire Howard Dean's Spirit..
but sometimes we all have to make concessions

I identified more with Ralph Nader in 2000 but voted for Gore to block shrub

I believe that all voters will use their brains..

Clark is the only one who has beat Bush in a blind bio poll.
he's the only one who can stand head to head with Bush and say that I have more foreign policy experience than you and that war you fought was unjust

aswell as that I have never seen any Dean supporter argue with Clark's beliefs on the issues ( except Flag burning )

Please don't using any tired old arguments about Clark that have been disproven many times here on DU and thru articles and Clark's own statements. I think if Dean's supporters want to present clear cut reasons and stands on Dean I for one would be very glad to listen because if Dean does ultimately win the nomination I would like to feel somewhat good about supporting him in the General Election.

including how he feels about the U.S. role in the world AND his views on domestic policy.

Dean is the complete package for me AND he inspires me and makes me shout in agreement.

Lastly, he is tough as nails and will skewer George W. Bush with his intellect.

How can I possibly consider any one else?

how is he tough as nails?
you saw how he came apart on meet the press.. how can you say in your heart he can stay standing against a right wing media a year from now?

and how is he the complete package if this election is going to be about foreign policy and he has no experience?

the main job of president is to be in charge of diplomacy and the military. You are essentially the commander in chief - the general of all generals

how is Dean equiped for this? how much diplomacy did he do in vermont as a govenor?

I would have no problem with Dean as a vice president, and president in a few years.. but it will be very sad if we lose this election and we have to do everything within our powers to prevent such a thing

Don't you think that Gore had the advantage in intellect? What good did it do him.

If intellect is your reason for voting then Clark is the man. 1st in class at West point, Rhodes scholor + leadership and international experience.

I still have not seen why Dean!!!

Dean's election record is strong. He's a survivor. When people count him out -- that's when he comes back with a vengeance. He's a fighter. He's aggressive -- yes this can get him in trouble, but it also serves him very well. (Without his aggressiveness he wouldn't be the frontrunner today.)

I firmly believe that Former Governor Howard Dean can beat George W. Bush. Why? It has nothing to do with the policies. Yes, to us, people who watch these candidates closely they matter. However to the average voter they don't care. They're voting for the man. How do you think George W. Bush got so many votes in 2000?

Howard Dean is energetic and this energy resonates with those who support him. It provides hope for change. His willingness to attack George W. Bush is essential.

In personality he is strong were Bush is strong and strong where Bush is weak. One of Bush's greatest powers is being underestimated. He's pushed aside and viewed as an "idiot" because of the way he sounds when he talks. People underestimate him. This happened in 2000 and he won. (Through hook or by crook -- he's in the White House now.) This time around he's going to be considered the frontrunner no matter who wins. Howard Dean is also strong in the area of being the perceived Underdog. This will give him the power and energy he needs to break through that barrier and leave Bush behind in the dust.

Another strength they both share: They are willing to fight. Many people perceive Demacrats -- especially while under the Bush Administration -- as weak and cowardly. Too afraid to stand up and speak their mind and fight for what they believe in. Howard Dean gained the most support and will win the Primaries -- not because of his opposition to the War in Iraq -- but because of his vocal and critical opposition to Bush. He showed the willingness to fight. The backbone many wanted in someone who was going to stand toe to toe with the Butcher of Peace.

They also share a common weakness: misspeaking. It can be debated who's worse at this, but generally speaking Howard Dean isn't as bad as Bush is. (Examples: Howard Dean's Confederate Flag misspeak, and Bush's "Bring it on" misspeak.)

They also share another strength: Both are charismatic and have leadership personalities. Bush was shown as the Cowboy from Texas in the 2000. Howard Dean is the Dark Horse from Vermont.

Another strength: They both have records of leadership. Howard Dean has a record of Governor in Vermont. Bush has a much more public record of President. No matter what you think of Howard Dean's record you cannot deny that it's much better than Bush's, and the very fact that Vermont isn't suffering from a deficit is going to boost whatever Howard Dean says on the economy.

You are right that Bush has one advantage that Howard Dean does not: Foreign Policy experience. Bush did not have this coming into office. Howard Dean will not have this coming into office. Dean does not need to know anything about Foreign Policy -- he only needs to look like he does. If when he speaks, he speaks coherently and makes sense, then he can attack Bush's Foreign policy -- which most Americans will agree isn't all that great. There is at least one thing in there that makes most people wonder what the hell Bush was thinking.

I don't support Howard Dean because he has the best policies out of every Candidate. I support Howard Dean because I feel strongly that he can beat Bush in the general election. His foreign policy is secondary for me -- it'll be shaped by those around him, just like Bush's foreign policy is shaped by those around him.

The most important thing for us is to send Bush back to Texas. I believe Howard Dean can do that, and is proving that he can do that. He started out far behind in a field of nine candidates. He then took the front seat and left them in the wind. Candidates who were perhaps more qualified for the job than him. Candidates that had far more experience than him. They are eating his dust as he blazes ahead of him. If one man can gain a lead so early and hold that lead for as long as Dean has held it... I think that alone speaks for itself.

People like Howard Dean, and I believe when it comes down to it in November 2004 people will pick Dean over Bush.

...if you want a fighter and not the next President. He has policies, but the end, voters are going to ask, "What are you going to do for me?"

"Howard Dean is energetic and this energy resonates with those who support him. It provides hope for change." Energy is good on ElimiDate. What is he going to change and to what?

Please list Dean's goals. As a show of good faith, here are Wesley Clark's goals by the end of his first term in office.

GOAL #1: RAISE THE TYPICAL FAMILY'S INCOME BY $3,000
GOAL #2: PREVENT 100,000 PREMATURE DEATHS FROM DIRTY AIR
GOAL #3: ONE MILLION MORE PEOPLE ATTENDING COLLEGE BY 2008
GOAL #4: TWO MILLION CHILDREN LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY BY 2008
GOAL #5: BY 2008 EXTEND HEALTH INSURANCE TO 30 MILLION PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY LACK IT

http://www.clark04.com/issues/turnaround/

I think people miss the point on electibility, I'm not ready to call Dean un-electable. What I will call him is second on my list.

because no matter how many bums he produces from holes, Clark is still the successful one, who didn't lose any lives and got a didtator to justice (via his own people). And has a credible, specific plan for success (exit) for Iraq. Which is more than recriminations on how everyone else voted.

Quote:
You are right that Bush has one advantage that Howard Dean does not: Foreign Policy experience. Bush did not have this coming into office. Howard Dean will not have this coming into office. Dean does not need to know anything about Foreign Policy -- he only needs to look like he does. If when he speaks, he speaks coherently and makes sense, then he can attack Bush's Foreign policy -- which most Americans will agree isn't all that great. There is at least one thing in there that makes most people wonder what the hell Bush was thinking.



but if most Americans don't agree with Bush's foriegn policy then why is he ahead in the polls? you can't just say that Dean can act like he has experience, that is not going to work this time

OK check this out, Clark-people. I'm a Dean-man, tried and true, but I'm certainly not going to claim Dean has more foreign policy experience then Clark. Dean lacks credibility on international affairs, and one would have to be living in a spider-hole for the last year to not think international affairs is going to be a big issue in the upcoming election.
However it's not going to be THE big issue. Every poll I've seen that asks people what their number one concern is in the next election, foreign affairs/security has been a distant third and sometimes fourth. What dominates the agenda are the economy, health care, and eduacation. The great trend of Americans caring about domestic issues continues, and heres where Dean out shines Clark. Dean was a "balanced budget Hawk" in Vermont and balanced it, despite the fact that Vermonts constitution doesnt require it, without cutting any necessities. As to healthcare, it is true the prez passed a sweeping health care bill, but polls show seniors arent stupid, and little more then 25% trust that bill. Stack that against a dude who's a doctor and has delivered health insurance to everyone in his state. This is one of those issues where doctor beats general (not to diss, general is pretty freaking respectable). I dont know anything off the top of my head about if Vermonts public education is significantly bad-ass, but it's gotta be better then "leave no child untested". Once the after glow of catching Saddam wares off, people are going to notice that there are still no jobs, the prescription drugs are still expensive, and their schools still suck.

The other weakness I see in Clark, is the man is so stiff he makes Al Gore look like Al Sharpton. Hey I got plenty of love for Clark, but you all saw him in the last debate, waiting for that applause that just didnt come. To put it nicely he lacks the Clinton magic. Meanwhile Dean sets his crowd on fire no matter who hes talking to. Dean is witty, can think on his feet and argues well with a combo of logic and passion. Remember 2000 where Bush was the guy people would rather have a beer with? Bush really aint that charismatic of a guy, he comes of as a combination of self rightious and...... slow. So dems, lets not run a guy who's less charasmatic then Bush. I'm sure if given time Clark will improve his showmanship, but think about it: The Bush-Dean Debate would be mohammad ali vs Urkel.
So in summation, just as Dean lacks credibility on foriegn policy, Clark lacks credibility on domestic issues. Remember domestic issues is what Bush campaigned on, all the things he was going to fix are still broken. Now as I notice how well both of these great candidates compliment each other I'm going to propose a shockingly unoriginal idea, the ultimate sink Bush ticket is the Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket. Dean beats Bush in the domestic arena, Clark beats Bush in the foreign policy/defense arena. That frankly is the only 1-2 punch that I can see giving Rove a hard time.
As to whether it's a Dean/Clark ticket or Clark/Dean ticket, well may the best man win. I got no beef if people think Clark is a better candidate to take Bush on. I've given my opinion and you know who I'll be campaigning for. Rest assured, however, that if Dean loses fair and square, I'll be right there behind Clark, as I hope you would be if the situation is reversed. If Clark wins, I certainly hope he picks Dean as VP and if Dean wins I think alot of Dean-people are going to start lobbying for VP Clark to balance out the ticket. All right rock-on with yo bad selves, Clark-people, and remember - Right now it's the primaries, its perfectly legit to be behind different candidates, but once someone wins it is very important we all get behind that person and let the past in-fighting go.

Peace
- Aloha_Texan

I supported the efforts to get Clark into the race. I believe firmly in our democratic process, and I believe that if the people believe Clark is a better man he will beat Dean. I believe that everyone who wants to run for office deserves a spot some where to state their case -- their reason why they think they are capable of beating Bush.

When Clark actually entered the race I gave serious consideration to switching my support. I believe if he wins he has the ability to beat Bush all the way back to Texas.

I decided to stay with Howard Dean because of the reasons I stated above. As well as for the reasons Aloha stated.

If Clark wins the nomination I will support him because he managed to prove to me that he can beat Howard Dean. Not only that -- coming into the race late, and then at the last moments (literally -- we're in the last moments) blaze ahead and steal the nomination. The same goes for every other Candidate. The only candidate I'd be physically ill about voting for would be "Holy Joe". Although I think that sentiment is pretty widespread around DU.

I don't agree with Dean on every issue. I don't agree with Clark on every issue. Some of the issues I agree with them on I wish they would press harder on. I *AM* a liberal. However, I'm also a realist. I realize that in politics you can't have everything you're way -- if that's your line of thinking you'll end up with nothing. I'm willing to compromise on Dean and Gun Control Laws. I'm willing to make a compromise on most issues.

I believe that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are moving in the same direction. I believe they have a lot in common. I believe Clark is strong were Dean is weak and Dean is strong were Clark is weak. That is why I support a Dean/Clark or a Clark/Dean ticket for the General Election. Because I know, together, they will be an unstoppable force for any right-wing Republican. I know that they, together, can remove the scum who un-rightfully calls himself President of the United States. And I know that they can, together, restore honor, integrity, and unity to the White House and America.

This is honestly the first time I've seen someone make the any coherent case that Dean is actually the stronger candidate for the general election. I see your points and this one in particular.

"Another strength they both share: They are willing to fight. Many people perceive Demacrats -- especially while under the Bush Administration -- as weak and cowardly. Too afraid to stand up and speak their mind and fight for what they believe in. Howard Dean gained the most support and will win the Primaries -- not because of his opposition to the War in Iraq -- but because of his vocal and critical opposition to Bush. He showed the willingness to fight. The backbone many wanted in someone who was going to stand toe to toe with the Butcher of Peace."

This is exactly what I was thinking the Dems needed after Bush ended up in the White House. No matter how bogus his entry to that office was the fact was that what really cost the election was that it was so close. It really could've gone either way and the Dems needed to differentiate better. At least that is how I was thinking until earlier this year. And it is still true to some extent but these very points show why I have moved away from that line of thinking. I don't want another Bush that just happens to be wearing a Dem suit. I want my representatives and senators to be more like Dean perhaps but I want my President to be able to work with leaders in any party from all industries, academic, and other leaders in the country. Just as Bush has shown us, a president with these "strengths" can only get things accomplished through intimidation and force. Any progress America makes this way, internationally or domestically, will be short lived or always in danger of collapsing.

A president with that supports the Dem platform but can be accepted as a working partner by all the political and civilian leaders of the country is going to create real long term progress in the right direction that an occasional republican president will not be able to tear down.

So I am very glad that Dr Dean is a candidate and your points have given me some idea of how he could win the general election, even if I don't like the points. If he does win the nomination I think I can vote for him in clear conscious. But I truly feel he is not the best candidate for the job and if he did win the general election I think the next election would go to the Republicans easily. Unless there were a major turn over in the legislator, but that is highly unlikely more and more republicans are gaining office.

...for your thoughtful reply. I'm glad to meet someone who argues for Dean; it gives me hope, should Dean become our nominee. I'm at work so I haven't read your post as carefully as I would like to, but after work I will be rereading it.

The points I agree with most are the similarities to Bush. That's why the electorate will not trade for Bush. They are not going to gamble with national security on the chance of domestic issues improving.

in the areas that matter to American's day-to-day lives. Which is why he has the support he does. Clark can only win if we go along with the Bushies and let them make the election about the war only. Dean won't let them get away with that. Which is why he's the stronger candidate.

But he already toned it down. "Bush should celebrate" "Lying OK for Natioinal security" - he is morphing into Gore (minus the IQ, expetience and stature) in front of your very eyes.

Dean looks like he knows what he is talking about when speaking about health care, education, agriculture, and other domestic concerns. For the Democrats to win our candidate will have to frame the debate around jobs, economic justice, and the cronyism of the Bush administration. Despite his background, Dean seems comfortable with populist themes and populist rhetoric. Clark comes off as more of an elitist.

Dean is basically a con-man. The term con man is based on the original term, confidence man, and Dean has managed to gain the confidence of a lot of people who claim to be "NEW" to politics" or never interested in politics exactly for this reason. But Dean's record as Governor is horribly opposite of virtually EVERYTHING he is stating in his campaign. He decisions and requests as Governor are in horrible opposition to every principal of the democratic party.

As a long time liberal and progressive it is the duty of all democrats to give no quarter to conservatism in ANY form, whether that be fiscal conservatism or social conservatism.

Martin Luther King was brutally assasinated during a campaign and march against poverty and the fiscal conservatism that denied assistance to the working poor. For the name of King to come out of one fiscal conservatives mouth is an outrage.

We who lived through the 60's and fought to the rights of the poor, the rights of women, the rights of minorities, the rights of workers, the rights of the disabled, were not and are not fiscal conservatives.

And the labor towards libery in these areas will not be completed by a fiscal conservative who has all too often cut funding to the social network and given tax breaks to wealthy predatory corporations.

Dean is such a candidate. Progress will not come through conservative ANYTHING, as the nature of conservatism is to constrain change,. to keep things as they are, to rely on the status quo. Fiscal conservatism is simply the belif in the trickle down economics that has been the promise of conservatives in the U.S. for over 225 years, the promise of the wealthy everywhere in all ages. Let them control all of the money and give them all of the power, and someday, you will get a few crumbs that fall from their table. It is also the ability to hoodwink those who will be most harmed by those policies that they will be let into the county club. It is a lie.

The danger of Dean is that all of these new people he has brough to the processsimply cannot distinguish between a huckster trying to con them out of something, and a legitimate Democrat, who has a history of trying to improve the lot of the poor and middle class.

No matter how Deans supporters try to spin his past, they cannot change the facts at all. Deans reocrd was dismal. All economic data from Vermont during his tenure as Govewrnor shows that the poor got poorer, many of the middle class fell into poverty, those who could stay in the middle class stagnated, more people fell from highly paying jobs to lower no benefit jobs, and only thr rich got richer.

Dean a rich mans child, found a state ripe for the plucking, to create an enviroment in which his own wealth and priviledge could be made safe and protected by seeking office, and changing the natire of the state. He did this, and few benefited, many lost out. But as these were poor, disabled and a large minority, he simply waled over them on his path to power.

That is Dean from the point of view of someone who has been obsersrving politicians closely for over thirty years, with a progressives eye.

"Dean a rich mans child, found a state ripe for the plucking, to create an enviroment in which his own wealth and priviledge could be made safe and protected by seeking office, and changing the natire of the state. He did this, and few benefited, many lost out. But as these were poor, disabled and a large minority, he simply waled over them on his path to power."

No wonder you won't vote for him.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous argument of all, that Dean is some man of "wealth and privledge", stomping on the poor people of Vermont to protect his bounty.

Have you seen the guy's house? His suits? LOL.

Thanks for the pro-dean sentiment, Kucinich-Guy. By the way your boy was the true star of that last debate. I've never seen anyone bitch-slap Ted Koppel with such efficiancy before. Ted - "when will you drop out". DK- "when I...... yeah When I'm sworn into the white house and you're there to cover it <roll of eyes>". That was classic. It is truely an outrage that ABC pulled their reporters from his campaign the next day. It figures, Kucinich rocks the house so they cut him off. So lame.

- Aloha_Texan

I'm actually a Dean supporter who loves DK, too.
In fact the DK avatar is my own tiny protest of ABC's transparent move.

But hey welcome to the posting world at DU. :hi: Aloha!

Um Kerry-dude, whats with the vengence for Dean ? I dont exactly see him as a con-man. He's been the govenor of Vermont for eight years. What was that "everyone has health insurance" thing just a pre-liminary jumping off point for Howard Dean's Great Scam ? John Kerry seems like a cool enough guy, I'm willing to forgive him for letting Bush sack the Iraqi oil feilds, but running a washington insider who's been around forever is always a losing strategy. (and thats why Bob dole is selling Viagra instead of writing his memoirs). If Kerry or Gephardt win then Bush gets a pass if we never find WMD's (since they voted with Bush), if Dean or Clark win Bush gets severly nailed if WMD's never show. Kerry should stick around in the senate, he does a good job there. Oh yeah and what do you have against balanced budgets ? I'm kind of happy that the dems have become the party of fiscal responsibility.

- Aloha_Texas

:pals:

I'm not willing to say that one is "stronger" than the other...they both have their strengths and weaknesses which I'm told is a normal human thing. ;)

I honestly think Clark would be doing a lot better in the polls if he jumped into the ring earlier than he did. The would he/won't he question dragged on and on at at time when the other candidates were starting to get their messages heard.

What's unfortunate is that the media isn't picking up any of the domestic policy issues Clark has. He's been deemed the General and not much more. This is just one of the million examples of why the media sucks. It doesn't help that the last debate of the year focused only on the Gore endorsement (pointless debate topic) and the war in Iraq. All that time and they didn't touch on domestic issues. sad.

Yeah, despite the fact I'm all about the soylent Dean, (His campaign, it's MADE OF PEOPLE !!!!!) the Gore endorsement wasnt a proper topic for the last debate of the year. Everyone knew it happened, so theres no reason for anyone to have to break their message and talk about it. Ted was just dieing to pick a fight, not hours after Gore suggested the dems try to play nice for a little bit (no Gore, wasnt advocating Bossism or that all the candidates should drop out before any votes are cast). Oh well DK ate his lunch, and the dems got along just fine during the koppel diss-fest that special K started. Again though ABC seems to be taking a few pages out of the rupert murdoch book.................. well maybe thats an eggeration but still ABC's lame-ness hit an astounding new level.

- Aloha_Texan

First, Clark has never run a campaign and has not done a bang up job so far with this one. His first two weeks were dismal. This is not time for on the job training. Dean ran not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, but count them 5 sucessful races for an executive post. His last race he won (by over 10 points) even after equalizing school taxes and granting civil unions to gays. Clark hasn't been elected dog catcher. Experience matters and Dean has it.

Second, On the issues that supposedly will take down Dean (civil unions, IWR, and taxes) Clark supposedly has the same exact position on two of the three. On taxes there is a difference but I think the public has learned their lesson from the 1980's. Dean has a better position on guns for the South.

Third, Dean has been an executive before and knows how to work with people he can't give orders to. Clark has never had to deal with people he couldn't have shipped to Siberia on a moment's notice. Clark can't send Frist to Siberia no matter how much that would bring joy to DU. This matters.

Fourth, I don't think Clark is percieved as a Southerner. He doesn't pass the "If I didn't know test". If I didn't know Clark was a Southerner I wouldn't just by listening to him. I fail to see why he would be percieved as a Southerner anymore than say Clinton is now or Gore was in 2000. No one has shown me why.

Why you should not vote for Dean.

Dean getting re-elected in the Ben & Jerry's state of Vermont by ten points?? This is a reason to make a man president, this is the qualification?

Clark isn't percieved as a southerner? Oh, but picking the candidate that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of taking a single southern state makes sense.

I have read through this entire thread and not seen 1 - not 1 example as to why you are supporting Dean besides he "gets fired up".

Folks, anger is an important tool but it is not a platform.
It will not win this election against the machine we are up against.

The Dean movement is awe inspiring but it is a movement, not a campaign I have every last ounce of respect for Deanites, I believe you have led a straightforward honest hard slog. You have pushed the party farther left, in the direction that it needed to go, in the direction it had to go, but it is time to ask yourself whether Dean can actually beat Bush in the general election? Imagine all of your frustration times 1000 - because that is what the RNC, Rove and these dogs are going to push Dean to. You think Dean can keep his cool when they run attack ads of a silhoutte skiing in Aspen with cross shots of Vietnam and Iraq? That's just a liberal mind thinking about a commerical.

Clark is the gut of this party now, his message is tuned in, as the 7 fall behind him this will be a 2 man show, a 2 man show that must come down to 1 question who is better for the war against the Republicans.

Clark is the only answer.

You asked why I felt Dean was a stronger (more likely to win) not why I thought he was better. Some of what I said, and you pretended didn't exist, is still relevant here. Dean has political executive experience which your candidate doesn't. that matters.

Dean has shown an ability to raise money and an ability to take Bush on that will be necessary for this election. Clark by opting in to fed funds will be silent for several months. That matters.

Dean has a clear position on the IWR Clark doesn't That matters.

Dean is the only person who has recognized my issues at all. He is the only candidate with a disability platform. I have talked with legislators who see his health care plan as the best c hance of passing. He is the strongest candidate on choice that we have.
He thinks things through in a way that appeals to me. A good example is relating overcrowded prisons to child abuse and creating a program where new parents can sign up to get a visits after they have had a baby.
I heard a guy talk about Clark and all he said was that Clinton has come close to endorsing him. That is the ONLY argument I've heard given in person.

I believe Dean is the better candidate on the issues, but that isn't why I prefer him to Clark. I just don't trust Clark. I can't get excited about him. If Dean is unelectable, I would be much happier with Edwards or Gephardt.

I know--it's silly. But I when I see him I think "stiff", "false", "phony", "opportunist". I thought the same thing when he was a commentator on CNN as I do now. I'm willing to concede he is probably the greatest intellect in the race, but as a politician he doesn't communicate well. He doesn't have good political instincts. He doesn't come across as believable. Worse of all, he doesn't have a progressive record--he was fundraising for the Republicans less than 2 years ago!

How can you tell me to ignore these things? I might be willing to swallow these doubts, if I didn't believe that most other people have exactly the same impression. Do you really believe that a man that voted for Reagan and Bush as a mature adult, after Iran-Contra and other Republican idiocies, has the same values as you?

On paper, he is the best man to take on Bush. But that isn't everything. On paper, Gore should have slaughtered Bush. We need someone who can win "in reality".

I started off as an ABB Edwards supporter, who sympathized with Dean on the issues. But Dean has convinced me not because of issues, but because he is the only one who has been able to generate widespread excitement. I suppose you could argue Clark has as well, but is this because of Clark, or is it because of info on paper?

Moving to the center is fine and good, but the essence of politics is charisma. Does Clark have it?

:shrug:

I appreciate the comments on this thread. There are issues that I don't agree with some posters about, like the relative importance of foreign policy and economy/health care in this election. The main message I'm getting so far is that Dean supporters and I have different sets of values.

I have a few comments. There will not be a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket; as I have said elsewhere, Clark will not ask Dean, and Clark will not accept if Dean asks. I also must disagree about how Clark did in his first two weeks; he raised $3 million, and has raised over $10 million since, so the scuttlebut says. Dean has been running forever and has saturated his market, while Clark is second in the national polls and is still building his support. Contrary to what some people posted, we are at the beginning of the race for the nomination, not the end; not a single vote has been cast. It looks like it's going to be an interesting race.