Fineman: Democratic power brokers want Clark to block Dean

Howard Fineman I think has hit a bulls-eye.

"Clark has a lot of appeal, and potential, but his main attraction to party insiders and former Clintonians--many of whom are joining up with the General--is that they see him as the man, perhaps the only man, to block Dean's surge to the precipice of locking up the nomination. Party leaders--if there is such a thing--view Dean as a disaster waiting to happen in a race with President George W. Bush."

First,

"...Democratic wise guys had pushed Sen. John Kerry forward as a consensus favorite to challenge Bush. But Kerry's camapaign has foundered..."

What it seems to come down to is Clark is being pushed because the power brokers in the party seem to believe Dean would be a disaster--despite raising an enormous amount of money from small donations. Despite forming a Grass roots army of about 400,000 people to date. Despite bringing new people into the process. Despite, his rise in the polls. Despite, his record which is not out of the mainstream of Democrats--including Clinton--the party continues to want to paint him as a "McGovernite loser". Despite adding excitement to this early stage with huge crowds and genuine appeal they still want to label Dean a loser.

Anyways, I think ultimately that Gen. Clark will be a shot in the arm for Dean. Meanwhile Dean has one thing that Clark does not--a record to run on and a good one. When Clark says he supports civil unions, Dean can say, "Yes, we agree and I signed the first law in the nation." When Clark says he is for universal health care, Dean can point to his Vermont record, which even Bill Clinton called, "the best of any Governor."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/967382.asp?0cv=CA01

wooptey freaken doo. Clark has led a multi-nation army into battle.

"wooptey freaken doo"

that'll help elevate the debate won't it
:eyes:

He really lays it on thick when he says how he supported every military action in the last bazillion years. I guess he's trying to show he's "strong on defense," but I find it unnerving, especially given his intimate relationship with Sharon.

He said that he supported the 1991 Iraq War and the Afghanistan war, which the world supported. Dean believes in restoring morality to the use of force. He believes that military force may be necessary to prevent humanitarian crises, like in Liberia. Dean is not a warmonger, but will use the military when needed to defend us and our allies. That is what should be expected of a President.

I am not sure how he felt about Kosovo and Bosnia, but I would guess based on his support for intervention in Liberia that he supported those involvements as well

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope - The Great Grassroots Campaign

He doesn't agree with Sharon's push for more settlements, so he supports Israel generally without coming down firmly on the side of the current government. What does "intimate" mean to you (in a political sense, of course)?

has he balanced a budget? has he provided health insurance to kids, has he created jobs? has he signed a civil unions bill? has he put aside thousands of acres to keep free of developers? has he enforced tough environmental standards against mercury in water and automobile and Industrial emissions?

I'm not putting down Clark, he has served his country well and is a good man, but I honestly think that it will come down to more than his having led an army or been the head of NATO. It will come down to who has a record of proven results that average americans can relate to involving jobs and healthcare.

translate DLC--are pandering to this US military culture.

I love and respect our military, don't get me wrong. And I have a lot of respect for Wesley Clark. But the war business is not the only business we have to take care of. I am insulted that some Dem party "leaders" are pandering to this fear that Chimpy has instilled in us.

Does that make any sense to anyone else?

The largest city in VT is only 40,000. The next largest is 8,000. The average income of Vermonters is 35000. VT has a larger rural pop. than urban. Vermonters are overwhelmingly white. If you think that running a "state" like that means Dean has the experience to run the USA your mistaken. If he thinks he can apply his experience as VT Gov. to the presidency he is wrong. His time as gov. gives him only slightly more experience than Clark who ran NATO. Being the leader of NATO or VT is drastically diferent from being pres. of the US. Dont let Dean's experience as gov. fool you into voting for him over Clark. I also doubt that if Dean had been gov. of a real state like California or NY his record would be less stellar.

:shrug:

Also, Arkansas is much bigger - population of approx 2,670,000/33rd largest state as opposed to Vermont with approx 610,000/49th largest.

To put things in perspective, Austin, TX has a bigger and more diverse population (approx 650,000) than Vermont.

And he hasn't balanced a budget. I'm sticking with Dean but would love Clark to be his VP or in the Dean administration. Nothing can or will stop Dean. This is a whole new base, and contrary to conventional wisdom, it's not made up of liberal activists exclusively, or even as a majority. This may be the first time the base is made up of all political types. A lot of swing voters will be voting in the primaries, and Dean is the one inspiring them. It's NOT "the liberal base" anymore, folks.

the American people realize that we have a real crisis on our hands. Dean gives us all a chance to come together so that we can find a way out.

What do you call running Nato and handling diplomatic relations with
all Nato countries.
How about having been and investment banker and running bsiness?
How about managing and traiing an army???

at THIS time. I just don't think screaming that someone is "electable" means anything. That is why people love making that claim. It betrays a lack of ability to think clearly about a candidate when tossed out so early in the game.

because I want the strongest possible candidate to run on the Dem ticket in November 2004.

I did not say that of you. I know that is a popular technique among some. To jump on a statement and make it personal to them. We disagree, I don't think Clark can win. He may win the nomination, but I fear he would lose the election. I hope I am proven wrong, but I am not going to just follow the Clark Bar hype. Clark Bars rot your teeth, and are a corporate product. Hey, maybe they are appropriate after all, we'll see.

This will only make Dean stronger. Clark is ill-served by bringing of Fabiani & Lehane imo.

Dean was terrible on Meet the Press, and the contributions came pouring in. The more he got beat up, the more money he raised. I think this is really going to galvanize a lot of Dean supporters.

The nice thing about Clark being in the race is that he also has great grass-roots support. Even if neither Dean nor Clark is the nominee, the country will be stronger because together, they end up bringing hundreds of thousands of people into the system who otherwise might not have voted, or cared.

And we're all better off for that.

Sniffle.

The worse he does, the more his supporters like him.

Whatever his faults, though, Dean has built up a bad ass grassroots army. Got to give him propers on that one.

He was wonderful in the last debate. Gotta remember Dean at the time of MTP still had not appeared on these Sunday shows as much as Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the Washington candidates. I agree it was not a particularly strong appearance but he has improved.

Dean is not a perfect candidate by any means! He's not even all that liberal/progressive on social policy like Clark is!

.

Lehane isn't in Clark's camp.

BTW, I think Al Gore ran a damn honorable campaign. Probably too honorable.

Is one of those outsiders, who appears to be pulling undecided(and even some decided ones) away from Dean.

Which candidate would make the best president, likely having to deal with repug congress? Which one is best at the art of politics? Which one is best at persuasion and compromise? Who should we want as our president?

But you don't get to be Pres without being elected, so the first is absolutely essential to the mix. I personally think Dean has done amazing things in this campaign, and looking at Vermont I think he would do a good job governing. He is pragmatic. He gets things done. Thats what average people want.

but I would argue that in the end he will hurt Kerry much more than he does Dean. Time will tell.

Dean's supporters are extremely loyal and are NOT going to just jump on the Clark bandwagon. Clark will take away from Kerry, Edwards and Graham mostly. All those people who think a war hero and southerner will win elections will dump Kerry, Edwards and Graham for Clark. Dean's supporters are with him because they believe in HIM, his record and what he brings to the table. Clark and Dean share some views, but people aren't going to abandon a successful record and strong campaign for a fancy uniform and military experience. Kerry is going to be hurt most of all by Clark's run, no matter how much you want to deny it, it's true.

Kerry and Clark fare especially well among people who follow national politics very closely, with both candidates' support falling dramatically among people who are not paying attention.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030915.asp

----------------------


Lieberman, Gephardt and Dean have much more support from inattentive voters who rely more upon name recognition. These are the type of voters who are the least committed to their choice, and most likely to switch as the campaign progresses and they learn more about the candidates. Kerry and Clark have a very low percentage of inattentive supporters, suggesting their support is pretty solid.

You are in for one VERY, VERY rude awakening. Dean's supporters are THE most loyal out of all the others. In fact, Dean is the only one who didn't lose substantial support if Hillary enters the race. If they wouldn't bail for Hillary they sure as hell aren't going to bail for Clark.

that doesn't mean that most of his support is. It could be like a hurricane - intense eye(hardcore base) with swirling winds (uncomitted people swept up in the Dean media hype).

The loyal (and probably even mild) Dean supporters would never support Hillary because of the IWR vote; she's in the same boat as Kerry, Edwards, etc as far as the Deanies are concerned.

But Clark has was against the war from the beginning. He fits the requirements for the anti-war people looking for the electable alternative to Dean.

Dean has a lot more to offer than Clark does. Let's take a closer looks, shall we?

1) Both are Washingon Outsiders
2) Both were against going to Iraq
3) Clark is a General, Dean is a Doctor

So, even though Clark has more status on military things, Dean has more status on Health Care, which is just as important an issue. Doctors are also viewed as healers who save lives whereas military men are viewed as destroyers who take lives. Dean comes out on top when you compare the things you think will help Clark take support from Dean.

Add to this the fact that Dean has a VERY impressive executive record and has experience balancing budgets and can point to where he actually DID the things Clark claims to want to do. Sorry, but Dean comes out on top in this match up. Clark is going to devastate Kerry, though. But that's what happens when the main focus of your campaign is that decades ago you fought in a war and got some medals. Clark has more military experience. I've seen Kerry supporters go on and on and on and on about Kerry's Vietnam record as if it were the be all end all of who the guy is. I've heard many people say the main reason they support him is because he is a war hero and they believe it gives him the right image on homeland security. He's the one who stands to lose the most.

yup all the way to Hillary's doorstep.

did you read the thread title?

Clark has a lot of appeal, and potential, but his main attraction to party insiders and former Clintonians--many of whom are joining up with the General--is that they see him as the man, perhaps the only man, to block Dean's surge to the precipice of locking up the nomination.

The reason I'm not a big Bill Clinton fan, is that he spends too much on politics-as-image as opposed to politics that helps people. To me, Clinton prefers the game of politics over the good that politics can do. The latter is why I liked Al Gore more than Bill Clinton. I always felt that Al Gore wanted policies that helped people, whereas, Bill Clinton used policies more to enhance his image than help people. Yes, I know that Howard Dean is a Bill Clinton fan, and Clinton's campaigning style offers a lot of lessons to politicians of all stripes, but Howard Dean, to me, is Bill Clinton the campaigner with Al Gore's sense of morals and civic responsibilities merged together.

If Clinton is really behind Clark's run so that it can stop Dean, then he is being very selfish and Clinton is one of the problems in the Dem party, not its solution.

is "selfish" because he favors Clark? I don't think so.

helped Clinton to get elected (or claim they did). It's the DLC. The DLC did not hesitate to come out agains Dean from the start.

These guys need to realize that they are not the ones in charge of who becomes president. The people are.

The irony, for me, is that I was an independent (who always voted for Democrats) until Dean came along. I wanted to help him get the nomination because I know he can beat Bush, among other things. But the DLC almost makes me question being a Democrat. If that kind of manipulation is actually going on, I don't know that I want to be a Democrat at all.

he'll say anything to disrupt things.

CLARK BABY CLARK!!!!!

Fineman brings this up. It never occurred to me before. Are we looking for someone hard-nosed and gritty? Does Edwards not fit that bill?

Just questions I'll throw out into the air to see what y'all think.

His pulling out of the senate race to concentrate on the presidential race impressed me. I think it helped turn his campaign around in the last few weeks.

but what the hell. I think Edwards needs just a little gray hair, maybe around the temples a bit. Maybe just a little colored hairspray before the next debate. :)

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

lots of reading to do!

oh my.

Lots of links to Free Republic articles. The author later suggests Clinton and Clark be tried for "War crimes" in Serbia. Yep, that's where I'd go to learn "facts" about Wes...

(dear God, I hope its obvious that was sarcasm but you never know)

Most of those articles are from respected British newspapers. Those are the ones people should focus on...

and Dean's record is Dean's worst enemy.

waiting for that to happen. Dean has the best record of all the candidates in this swing voter's opinion. Kerry is too liberal for my liking. I like moderates best just like the majority of Americans.

Still supporting Dean, but glad that Clark is in the race.

but that hasn't changed my support for Dean. Maybe the two of them will end up on the same ticket.