NY Times: Dean is the Most Vulnerable to Clark Candidacy

Clark Makes It 10, Roiling Democratic Presidential Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Sept. 17 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark's entrance into the presidential race today has forced all the Democratic presidential candidates to rethink how they were approaching what was already a complicated and unwieldy primary contest.

But as was evident at General Clark's formal announcement here today, the candidate who might be most vulnerable to this 10th Democratic entrant is former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.

From the moment General Clark — or "the general," as members of his staff invariably referred to him today — took the stage, it was clear that his campaign is being designed as an establishment counterweight to Dr. Dean's effort.

General Clark's aides are trying to do what some of Dr. Dean's opponents — notably Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — tried earlier this year, suggesting to primary voters eager for a victory that an antiwar former governor from Vermont would get clobbered in a contest with President Bush. But unlike those senators, General Clark can also criticize President Bush's execution of the war in Iraq without having to explain a vote in favor of it.

http://nytimes.com/2003/09/18/politics/campaigns/18CLAR.html?pagewanted=1

is only from his strong anti-Iraq invasion position.

Dean's charisma, innovative decentralized campaign, pragmatic policy positions, responsiveness to the public, openess about policy proposals, passionate centrism (I like the passionate part), innovative campaign funding.

Those are just a few, of many, off the top of my head.

It stared aftr that Moveon.org primary. Dean had the president of moveon work on his web operation and the rest is history. On substantive policy matters, he's either further to the left of Edwards and Kerry, certianly Lieberman, or he's waffling in the center, trying to decide between tax hikes or tax cuts. What are his environmental policies? THe former president of teh Sierra Club in Vt. labeled his environmental policies there as "toxic". I mean where does he stand on a host of issues? Does he even know?

His first supporters (ie the most early) are those who liked his stance on gay rights. You would know that if you did any research.

I think it is dumb to judge candidates based on a vote for a war that whoever becomes president will not exactly be able to undo. I am more interested in the candidates' plans for the future, not harping on a vote in the past. I have been supporting Dean since February and my reasons for supporting him do not now and have never had anything to do with other candidates voting for the war or not voting for the war.

Um...Kerry's voting record is extremely liberal; Edwards less so.
Kerry is a MA liberal democrat, that's why I voted for him in 2002.
That, and he ran unopposed.

Dean's a fairly moderate politician, takes a lot from the Clinton
Third Way playbook. Most of his supporters don't mind this fact;
they think he's liberal enough on what counts, and they're willing
to negotiate on the rest.

I don't know why the president of the Sierra
Club said that, because if you look at his record, it's extremely
positive on the environment:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_environment

Well said.:-)

He has one of the most extensive grassroots organizations ever comprised. That indeed will be a force no other may match.

The article fails to express any sentiments of vulnerability beyond the suggestion that it MIGHT,...it shares, "the candidate who MIGHT BE MOST VULNERABLE to this 10th Democratic entrant is former Gov. Howard Dean."

You maniluplate your post with the intention of displacing the facts, deliberately and maliciously.

and it's just someone's opinion. I have heard many pundits say that they believe John Kerry will be the most vulnerable to Clark's entrance. I'm inclined to agree. Kerry has been trying to sell himself as the most knowledgeable about foreign affairs and that doesn't seem to be true any longer.

What bothers me is the fact that you seem to delight in putting Dean supporters on the defensive. Now that Clark has entered the race I'm sure you'll take every opportunity to trash him too.

<>

<>

As a long-standing member of the Sub-Committee on International Operations & Terrorism, Kerry is much better prepared to fight a war that is low on military action, high on intelligence work and dealing with the funneling of funds to terrorists.

The one thing that seems to be a constant is that the generals always prepare to fight the previous war. They also like kill-from-a-distance weapons. Unfortunately kill-from-a-distance also means kill-and-maim-people-who-are-innocent, which is repulsive.

Until some entity arises that can challenge the US in terms of resources, we're the Redcoats. Our troops will (metaphorically) march down the center of roads en masse wearing bright red uniforms with big white X belts, dragging their cannons behind them, obeying their officers, and being prepared to meet and defeat other armies that also march en masse down the middle of roads. Unfortunately, the actual enemy will be wearing ordinary clothing and will be picking our soldiers off from behind trees with low-tech weapons.

And stepping up non-proliferation efforts will be key to preventing the worst case scenarios from occurring.

Was Kerry or Clark on some kinda committee that was suppose to keep planes from flying into buildings???

Dean '04...The New Democractic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party (who doesn't have his picture on war books)

At least I hope to god there is.

General Clark, in an interview this morning, played down the notion that his was a "Stop Dean" candidacy, as suggested by some of his supporters. He argued that his appeal was much broader than that, drawing an implicit comparison with Dr. Dean.

"I've heard that expressed," he said. "But I've heard a lot of people say: `You cut across party lines. You are drawing independents. You draw Republicans.' They want to know more than just that the war was wrong."

From the moment he took the stage, General Clark served notice that he would not let Dr. Dean seize the advantage in drawing new voters into the system, something that has been a critical part of the Dean phenomenon.

General Clark specifically thanked members of the Internet-based Draft Clark movement that helped push him into the race — his aides put their number at close to 50,000 — and said that his campaign would be directed at Democrats, Republicans, independents and "those who have never participated before."

"You'll come with us," he said, in a declaration whose significance was not lost in Burlington, Vt.

General Clark's speech seemed intended to bridge the insurgent aspects of Dr. Dean's candidacy and the concerns of the party regulars who have viewed the prospect of a Dean nomination as a potential debacle for the party.

Youch!

>>General Clark's speech seemed intended to bridge the insurgent aspects of Dr. Dean's candidacy and the concerns of the party regulars who have viewed the prospect of a Dean nomination as a potential debacle for the party.<<

This REALLY pisses me off!! WE are the "Democratic Party regulars"! Not some set of elite policy wonks who think they are the ones 'smart' enough to decide who the rest of us should vote for!
If Dean wins the nomination, I will vote for him. He will have gone through the system that was set up to determine who the most people in our party most wanted to run for President. Its pretty pathetic when the people who are supposed to be leading the party don't even believe in it.

why do they think they need to engineer a candidate to stop someone who is actually popular with the people? (horrors!)

I have to believe that this take on Clark's run is incorrect for my own sanity.

Numbers that lose seats in the Senate and House, perhaps?

This is the same kind of bulshit that happened
in 68 and 72, when the "party regulars" tried
to steamroller over those candidates they didn't like,
no matter what the rank and file felt.
'
Not this time, buddies.

Sen. "I too voted for the Iraq War" Clinton made a pledge to her constituents not to run for Prez this round, but after 2004, she's free.

Dean's candidacy is the death knell to the Al From & Bruce Reed DLC regime. Dean won't disband the DLC, but get it back on track towards the center where it belongs. From & Co. have veered the DLC too far to the right.

I'm surprised that Hillary would try to undermine Dean's candidacy if she's serious about 2008.

as I see a couple of power brokers in the DLC who have delusions of grandeur. They've lost it. How can they even pretend to be Democrats if they don't let the people decide?

is the 'contrary' factor'.

Clark almost makes me want to support Dean more.

that says it all for me.

I think they are, as usual, underestimating Dean.

that's true. I like Dean's confidence, though.

the NYT is. Kind of like it was with the anti-war protests (remember how they underreported the numbers at anti-war demonstrations?), and how they didn't even bother to report in depth on the massive protests going on at the Bush coronation in 2001.

Yeah, I'll take their word on this one, too. :puke:

I assure you, I ain't out of touch with that...

Hey nothign wrong with GrassRoots except when they are all white, upper middle class and live in three states.

Not making much sense here.

Got the munchies too, do you?

:evilgrin:

Actually, I was talking about the NYT, which is read mostly by white, upper middle class people who live in mostly one state (although it does have a wide circulation).

If you protested either the Bush coronation (which the NYT didn't cover, despite tens of thousands of protesters in the streets of DC) or the Iraq invasion, you know that the people in the streets were very diverse and from practically every state in the Nation.

Go to www.deanforamerica.com and look for the meetup pictures from around the country. You may be in for a rude awakening...

Hm, let us take a look at this, shall we.

Dean leads in California - a state that is only 62.6% WHITE.
Dean leads in New Mexico - a state that is only 70.4% WHITE.
Dean leads in New Jersey - a state that is only 74.4% WHITE.
Dean leads in Maryland - a state that is only 66.1% WHITE.

Yeah, his support sits with the white, upper middle class folks from 3 small New England states. :eyes:

Yeah, all of us people who have devoted hours, nay, by now days, to the Dean campaign are just going to wither up and fade away?

SO sorry, but it's not going to happen. Dean's been declared dead more times than Michael Myers in the Halloween films, and still he's in there.

I like Clark a heck of a lot...but the Deanies have the jump intellectually (notice how much is stolen by other camapaigns), in fundraising, and grassroots support.

We ain't going anywhere.

Who can point to poll leads in New Hampshire, Iowa, California, Maryland, and New Mexico....a national coast-to-coast spread.

Bush's biggest vulneribilities are his lies.

That's why it would be a disaster to nominate Dean - rather we need someone whose honesty provides a clear contrast to Bush.