What is wrong with your Candidate?

Everyone in here obviously likes to promote their candidate as the best. They say their candidate is the "only one" that can defeat Bush in November. I think we have heard it all from the campaigners about how great and perfect their candidate is. The trouble is, we can't discern if the campaigners are of sound mind to really be listened to. What I would like to hear is each person that supports a candidate to name three (3) weaknesses about their candidate. Not stupid things like, "well they try to do to much at one time" or "they have a soft heart". I mean a really weakness, like has an affair, or they dodged the draft, or they have high unfavorbility ratings, or they can't win Southern state. If you can't name three (3) weakness about your candidate then people should not take you seriously. We all know that every candidate has at least three weakness that can and would be used against them in the General Election. We all know all the candidates are better than Bushy Jr. But I think it is only fair to prove to everyone that you understand your candidate well by being able to name his/her weaknesses as well as the strenghts. If you don't, I know you are full of Sh*t or a freeper trying to promote the weakest candidate so Bush can win in the 2004 election.

I will go first, and see if anyone else does to show they understand their candidate.

General Wesley Clark:

Weakness 1) He was never elected to an office

Weakness 2) He headed the Bosnian War which many people didn't like

Weakness 3) He is a General so many people see him as war minded.


Your turn:



J4Clark

Weaknesses:
1) He isn't running.
2) His wife has an accent.

It turns out my #2 choice has the exact same problems, but I'm still cautiously optimistic on the Franken/Huffington ticket.

I am curious if people that don't support a candidate which one they would support if the nine plus Clark and Biden are the only candidates.

I think Bradley's third weakness is that he is not really know outside of the region he is from. I would like to see Bradley in the Senate again. He did a good job. I admire how he refused to answer stupid questions that the media asks like "Do you wear boxers or briefs". Good grief!

J4Clark

1) I'm not totaly comfortable with his death penalty position. I sincerely believe that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free than to kill one innocent.

2) I think civil unions should be federally mandated. To me it's a civil rights issue. I like Dean's attention to the isue, I just wish he'd take it further.

Aside from that, I'd have to say that I'm pretty much in agreement with him on the issues. That's why I'm campaigning for him.

(ed for spelling...I have a new keyboard and the keystrokes are longer..I often hit double letters too fast for the keyboard to register them)

DPBrown, MN Kucinich supporter? Where are you? I'd be interested to see you list DK's issues... :evilgrin:

When he says "In 1993, President Clinton balanced the budget without one single Republican vote and kicked off the greatest era of prosperity in our nation's history."

It is a great line, but he is inadvertantly attacking one of his own senators who's supporting him. I doubt anyone else has realized this, but it bugs me.

Also, I don't like the means testing in his health care program. I think that it should cover everyone under 25 regardless of income level, because if you are going to ask people to give up the tax cuts to pay for health care, which is reasonable, then you at least have to include them in the health care you provide. If it is really such a small percentage of Americans who make enough to benefit from the president's tax cut, then how much could it cost to insure their kids along with everyone else's?

too "fringe" to win the middle ground swing vote.

#2 His vote on the flag burning admendment is troublesome.

#3 He currently faces a sizable deficit in fundraising.

Despite those statements, I fully support his candidacy. I feel his IS the man to change the direction this country has taken under the BFEE.

Not much.

1. He voted to submit that damned flag amendment for ratification.

2. In the past in Congress, he has voted a conservative-even reactionary-position on a few important issues. I was 99% sure he'd put that behind him, but his flag vote dropped my confidence to 95%.

3. He is not polished. That's not 'wrong', but it's not helpful, given how poorly USAians are educated.

(1) Dean may get Max Clelanded on Iraq in the general election.
(2) Dean may juice up Bush's base with his civil union stance.
(3) Dean may have the Democratic Elites working against him in the general election.

1) He is too excellent.

2) He is too much better than everyone else.

3) I hate Dean.

Nah. Just kidding. That must be some other Kerry supporter.

1) He talks for too long. He needs to learn short and sweet.

2) He is a Massachusetts liberal, whatever that means.

3) While my head understands his Iraq vote, my heart aches.

A Kerry supporter w/ class.

1) chin too long (I'm serious!)

2) voted for the congressional resolution that has been hashed and rehashed (I personally don't hold it against him, but many do)

3) privileged background

1. Supports civil unions. To be fair, so do most Dems, but it sticks to Dean in a derogatory way more than the others.

2. Supports the death penalty in some cases.

3. Perceived as a pacifist and a liberal pinko.

1. I'm not happy with Dean's stance on I/P (but that's not a deciding issue for me)

2. Joe Trippi never wears a suit for TV appearances (I like casual, but not for news appearances)

3. I wish Dean was in favor of legalizing medicinal pot (well, all pot, but I don't reach for the stars, just the planets)

I don't smoke, but I always thought it was the stupidest of laws. It should legalized like sodomy - for the sake of privacy in your own home. I don't sodomize, but I thought that was a pretty stupid law, too.

Sure you want to stick to your "I don't sodomize" statement?

:crazy:

Um, perhaps I have said too much...:spank:

N/T

1. Too smart
2. Too rich
3. Too liberal

OK, I don't really see these things as negatives but they will hurt him with some people in the general election. Up until 2000 I never would have believed being too smart could be a negative, but I think it actually hurt Gore that he was so obviously more intelligent than Bush.

4. Voted for Iraq War Resolution

I didn't like this vote and it has some Dems very angry at him. I think it will hurt in the primaries but may help in the general.

5. From Mass. so the Repubs will mention Dukakis and Kennedy every chance they get

I think this is bigger than it should be - for whatever reasons, Kennedy has been demonized for so long by the right that there are lot of people in the middle who really don't like him. And the press are bound to mention Dukakis a lot.

6. Kinda funny looking

Too bad people are so shallow, but that's life.




But I still think he's gonna win.

is going to hurt all of our candidates with some people- shows they're not common folk like Shrub, you know. I've never quite understood why some people equate common with stupid, though. Lincoln and Truman were of the "common man" and were very intelligent, while Shrub is of the uber wealthy elite and is not.

Sad that too smart is an insult in today's America.

1. I didn't like his vote on the Iraq war, but am willing to forgive because he is so awesome on everything else. (especially the environment, which I am hardcore on)

2. The GOP might try to paint him as the "Massachusetts liberal" and Kerry has to strike back and not let this perception become planted.

3. See above- the danger of him being Dukakis-ized. (I put it twice because I think this is a major potential obstacle for him to hurdle)

4. Sometimes he drones on for too long in speeches and is a bit too sophisticated in his rhetoric, he needs to be less long-winded and more inspirational and fiery and use more common language that the Joe Citizen can understand and relate to.

1) Not yet actually a candidate (duh)
2) Therefore has no campaign money.
3) Seems much more willing to criticize the actions of civilian officials running the war in Iraq than those of the field commanders, which means that the Bush Admin could sneakily avoid his by subtly/"unofficially" leaning on the military brass to do its bidding.
4) Insists on calling himself a centrist, when his positions are (seem) really quite liberal, thus potentially making it that much harder to ensure that the Democratic wing of Dems come out to vote for him. Unlike Dean, having the media label Clark liberal may be a very good thing, since a lot of GOPers and independents might vote for him regardless.

I still think that if he gets through the primaries, he wins...

I don't quite think that he's there yet as a candidate (Though Ike did it, I don't know if it's a good idea to have your first election be the presidency). Clark would appear much more electible if he'd run for governor of Arkansas in 1998 or 2002.

However, I do think that he brings a lot to this race and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. I think that he, Landrieu, or Graham are our three best candidates for vice president and they should all be considered by the nominee (If Clark is the nominee, he should still consider Graham or Landrieu)

1) Too consrvative (for me personally)
2) The death penalty
3) Israel

but in these times, the liabilities might be an advatage, I am sorry to say - Winning and changing the tone of the country's consciousness can't happen with any candidate who has been compromised by their willingness to compromise with the junta.

1. supports the I/P fence,( this could be the one that makes me drop
my support for him.)
2. Doesn't support the medical mj issue
3. I don't care for the death penalty as it now stands and will be
opposed to it until I see reforms made.

I just sent his campaign an email stating that if he continues supporting the divisive wall in I/P, I will remove my bumper sticker and stop supporting him.

1) Vote on Iraq resolution may make many think, "Bush-lite!" (which is not true for the investigative netizen.

2) Unfairly perceived as the right to Howard Dean when all the activists were looking for endorsees, and if (and hopefully when) he wins the nomination, he will assailed for his true liberal colours by the Republicans. He could've used some of that to take the winds out of Dean's sails.

3) The country doesn't like northern intellectuals, they like southern family men with warmth.

I haven't seen any evidence that Dean supports the stupid fence idea. I think that was an ugly rumor with no foundation. I'm still not thrilled with his stance on I/P, but it's not severe enough to change my mind.

I feel stupid asking this, but what does I/P stand for?

.

I listened to it myself when it first came around. I'm sorry, but I forgot the exact part of the interview. I didn't take as much note of the the wall issue as his refusal to support parallel concessions (which both John Kerry and The Nation do), a point most major Palestinian thinkers believe is crucial to the sucess of any peace process.

In any case, here is the interview.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/radionation/

This is the article Corn made of the interview. No mention of Israel (this was back in March).

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030331&s=corn

I appreciate the work you do on this board to keep the logical dialogue happening!

I listened to that interview and yup, he says he's for the fence. He said he was against it until he went to Israel and saw for himself the problems with the suicide bombings. He believes that in order to have peace, the terrorist attacks must stop first, then the Israelis can/will pull out of the settlements they've taken. He thinks the fence will clearly mark who's territory is who's and help to put an end to the violence.

While I don't totally agree with his position, I respect that he went to Israel and saw firsthand what was happening, and changed his position once he had more information.

I deeply respect that he's a fact driven person, and will, in a moments notice, change his position once facts are shown to him. I hope that if he becomes our president, the FDA will show him that pot should be legalized. :)

Say no more. There are eyes and ears everywhere.

Honestly, I don't smoke, but mostly because I'm a dork that doesn't like smoke. If it was a milkshake or something, I'd probably stock my fridge.

But I do have a strong civil libertarian streak in me. I think what people do in their own homes is their business (as long as everybody's consenting ;-)). I also think what people do with their own bodies is their business.

On the political compass, I'm down with the anarchists socially, but I believe in strong environmental and labor regulations, so I'm with the socialists on the economic left.

I like that Dean has said drugs should be a medical issue, and not up to the law makers. He didn't elaborate, but he's certainly singing my tune there. I despise the drug war. I think it is a monumental failure from the get-go.

As for the wall, it is clear he was staying with Israelis. He identifies with them everytime. If he realized the reality of the checkpoints, the curfews, the bulldozers, the rotting food, the bad water, the vast amount of children killed, I think he would be more even-handed. I don't think the Palestinians are blameless - far from it. But you can't create peace if you only see it from one side.

That is why I support parallel concessions. The Israelis profit nicely from the conflict - they are gobbling up land, killing 3x as many Palestinians, and decimating Palestinian infrastructure needed for a viable state. But at an enormous cost to everyone in the region, including innocent Israelis. Peace doesn't come overnight, and you can't expect a total cessation of violence before moving forward. Both parties have to give a little, and keep moving forward no matter what.

Ditto on all points. I especially agree with the idea that what people do in their own homes and with their own bodies is a personal choice and shouldn't have to endure politics and laws (like you said, as long as all are consenting and no one is being harmed, at least against their will ;) )

1) His non gay minority support is currently very weak. I think that will change when Sharpton and Lieberman are gone and maybe before then. He should do well in Hispanic communties when his fluent Spanish become more widely known. He should go on Telemundo or something like that.

2) He needs to have some of his speeches written. There is no shame in that. But he needs to be both a little smoother and sometimes more tactful.

3) His IP stance and gun penalty reasoning are not so go. He needs to think these through more and maybe see point 2.

I would agree with that. He needs to temper it, in certain situations he is a little brash - the down side of that up-frontness. There is no slickness or pretentious polish, but he can be raw. His populus appeal is unparalleled--a definite advantage considering how few the Dems have.

1. um, the people of America need to know who he is!
1A. those who know of him, quite a few say he's their second pick, but seldom do people declare him to be their #1
2. I wish money grew on trees

If I wanted to I could name 3 weaknesses of my candidate, everyone has weaknesses. But why not focus on their strengths. FDR was an AMAZING president, he probably had personal faults but that didn't affect how he operated as a president. I'm not getting your reason behind the post.

Many times in defending our candidates, we give the impression that they crap marble statues. This is just a friendly gesture acknowledging the humanity of our choice.

As for FDR, I always felt he sat around too much. Did I say that out loud? Man, express train to hell for me.

1) It shows that we know your not a freeper trying to promote a candidate that is too weak so Bush can win.

2) It helps us jump past the arguments that are played 1500 times in this room. I hate hearing the same things over about a candidate. If a supporter of a candidate realizes a flaw in their candidate there is no purpose in bringing it up because they still do support that candidate

3) It shows if a person supporting a candidate is a *nut* or a person that has good creditabilty and we should listen to them because they have good points to make and a rational mind.


J4Clark

you know, J, I was tempted to pipe in about my gal Carol because I recognized a decent impulse in your challenge, and think it could lead to greater civility and smarter talk, which is cool. But...you went ahead and made some assumptions that I just can't endorse--because they're political, because it's the kind of campaign politics that are at issue in this election.

And here you are with your :tinfoilhat: talking about freepers supporting weak candidates. Jeesh.

Just in case you really don't get it, let me explain it to from the perspective of one who supports a "weak" candidate. First off, I would never argue that my favorite is the only candidate who can win, or even the best on all issues, in every aspect. I do believe Carol has the best message and that the Democratic Party would do well to not merely welcome her to the choir, but to get behind her and start harmonizing, if you get my drift. Because I think if we're all in concert behind a candidate a year from now, and the sound is sweet and uplifting, we will prevail. The only sure way to defeat is having too few voices.

Okay, maybe that doesn't sound offensive to you. It probably doesn't. But you've got to know that there are people within the DNC, and the DLC in particular, who don't want to hear a lot of voices. They don't want loud. From their view, it's more D/democratic to dampen down the high voice and the booming voice, in order to better represent the "center," the middle c, if you will. And they lack patience to let tensions resolve in their own way, and godforbid we should find pleasure in atonal moments. Obviously, for all their talk about "swing," these cats don't dig modern music. We're talking like the quintessence of squareness, you know?

Speaking plainly, the way things stand at the moment three candidate have been labeled as clearly unelectable while a fourth has been challenged to defend his electability, and in particular, his ability to carry moderate voters in the general election. (Oh, and a fifth, if you count Gep, but the criticism has focused on his health care plan, not so much his campaign as a whole,) You know who I mean here. And you know this characterization of the field is coming from the DLC, but it is more insidious than that. It's all over the press, the electronic media and the internet.

I read a few days ago a comment from somebody, a woman commenting in a forum of lowly googlerank (resist sarcastic comment on google's "democratic" algorithm)--she had observed that when Carol announced her candidacy reporters badgered her with questions about her electability, which she answered. But the answers weren't listened to. The reporters kept asking the same question over and over, like nothing else mattered. For this woman, it was a sign that "Upityism" was still in force, that the privileged white male powers that be would smack down others' claims to wield power as upity.

Before you go and justify asking this particular black woman to defend her electability, I'd ask you to consider a few points. One, women are poorly represented in American politics compared to other industrialized democracies. Really, it should be embarrassing, if not shameful. Two, African-Americans are not politically well represented, certainly not at the national level, and not even on the local level, not uniformly anyway. The ratio of black female elected officials to black female voters is just a crying shame. So you can perhaps understand why people who are aware of this bias are sensitive to the issue of uppityism, and view with skepticism the spectacle of an overwhelmingly white and male and rather leisurely class of political gatekeepers badgering a black woman on the question of her electablity.

As a final point, I'd ask you to acknowledge that the issue of electability reflects a certain ideology, one that you may or may not agree with, but one you should know many Democrats are acutely aware of and opposed to. The challenge of electability right now is *only* being issued to the liberal and progressive candidates, or to the ideas that they're expressing. From the liberal perspective, the democratic process is undermined when people have to defend a strategy of inclusiveness and empowerment before being allowed into the debate on policy matters. Just as every American has a right to political representation, every Americans has a right to represent. Fullstop.

So you see I'm taking a pass on your invitation to trash my candidate, because you've already disadvantged her in your premises, because the press by and large has been only too happy to point to her deficiencies while ignoring her strengths, because I'm not about to defend my rationality or the credibility of my arguments based on my willingness to participate in an ideological purge of the Democratic Party--that's not meant as an innuendo, J. Just pointing out that your concerns for party loyalty and your assumptions about elections dovetail with an orchestrated movement among DLC elites that could be described as a purge.

So there you go, :tinfoilhat: for :tinfoilhat:. We all have our reasons for skepticism.

First, I don't want people to trash their candidate. I want supporters to acknowelege that their candidate has flaws.

Carol Mosley Braun is not unelectable for her being a female, for lots of people would elect Hillary. She is not unelectable because she is an African American. Nor is she unelectable because she is a combination of the two. In fact, I think that is the only plus she has. Being a Black Women running for president has got to get your attention, and strenghten her postion because she represents being a women, which is 51% of the voting population, and being African American which is 11% of the population.

She is unelectable for two main reasons. First, she is not qualified. Second, she could not even get re-elected in her home state as US Senator. Now, when Illionis is like 60% Democratic, and 95%+ of US Senators get re-elected at least once, and she can't, that tells me something. Granted, sometimes people are unfarily thrashed in an election, but she was not. She lost because she didn't represent the people she was elected to represent.

I like Carol, don't get me wrong. However, she is dead weight in this election and is costing herself money.

Only a few candidates have a shot at the nomination, that is Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, and Gephardt. They are only four with enough experience, support, and cold hard cash to make it to the end.

I honestly don't think any of these four will actually make the nomination. I think either Clark, Hillary, or Gore will step in sometime between now and mid October.

None of these candidates are exactly doing well. If they get 10% of the Democratic voters support they are top contenders! That isn't much strength. I think someone needs at least 30% to be considered viable against Bush in 2004.

I have respect for anyone that offers to serve as President. But elections are not about who we like the best, or who represents our values, or speaks the best. Elections are about winning, not anything else.

So many people seem tied up in the notion that because *they* believe in their candidate that everyone else eventually will. The sad truth is, everyone already knows all the candidates that are running that is the least bit interested in elections, and none of the candidates has exactly excited anyone. That should be a sure sign of something.

Think about this, 60%+ of US citizens are willing to vote for someone besides Bush in 2004. Yet when compared to the top Democratic Candidates none of them beat Bush, even Kerry and Liberman only get 40% to Bush's 60%. We need a candidate that can get 51% to Bush's 49% in at least 20 states and DC. Nobody in the race today can get that.

There is a very good reason why, terrorism is on everyone's mind, and not one of them except Kerry has one days experience with international policy. Clark does, that is going to resonate with independant voters. That is the key to winning. 38% of the population is Democratic and will vote for anyone except Bush. So what we need to do is nominate the candidate that will get the 13-20% of the independant swing voters.

In addition, we need someone that will carry the Senate seats so that we can take the senate as well. I happen to belive a nomination of a liberal candidate may win the nomination, and MAYBE the presidentcy, but winning the Senate and strenghtening the Democratic seats in the House is important and not possible with any of the current 9 contenders in the ring now.

J4Clark

<<None of these candidates are exactly doing well. If they get 10% of the Democratic voters support they are top contenders! That isn't much strength. I think someone needs at least 30% to be considered viable against Bush in 2004.>>

Woohoo! So the leader in the national primary polls has what 16%?!?

Your point is absolutely correct. No single candidate is even close to running away with this nomination, and there is a long way to go. Much depends on whether new candidates enter, etc.

First, thanks for clarifying your views.

Of all the points of disagreement I could talk about, the one that immediatedly grabbed me is your characterization of elections: "elections are not about who we like the best, or who represents our values, or speaks the best. Elections are about winning, not anything else." That is exactly what I meant by an ideology. It represents the way a particular political bloc projects an image of itself and its purpose in positive terms with broad appeal, while cloaking the way its strategies advance narrow interests.

If we're going to find common ground, we'll need to take it to another level of abstraction. In the first instance elections are about making a choice. I might say they're our way of making political decisions, and that they're more or less democratic, but I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. And I know things get complicated and you have issues of false choices, and choices that aren't really choices, and who's really doing the choosing, and choosing not choose, and other such. But as a basic definition, I'd have to put choice up there ahead of anything.

So, no, it isn't all about winning. You want to talk about making choices that really matter? Choices that actually achieve some political goal? That's different. Winning elections is an obvious way to advance political goals in a democracy, but that isn't the only way to make progress. Once you accept that people have myriad different reasons for voting the way they do, sometimes intertwined and overlapping, sometimes at odds, informed by disparate time horizons, with some voters peering far into the future, and others concerned with the next two years, that is, once you respect that the meaning of a vote belongs in no small part to its voter, and while you may bend and persuade, you can't by definition own another's vote, then you can see how your view of elections is contestable, and how some could see the exclusion of other goals and interests as a kind of symbolic disenfranchisement, and regard the electioneering tactics associated with that viewpoint as undemocratic, decidedly not in the interest of all or even the vast majority of voters.

Now let's talk about winning in 2004, because that's something we both want. I grant you there's some realism in the scenarios and strategems you present, but I will not cede that it reflects an accurate portrayal of the way the things really are, that other realities aren't politically important, or that other visions of the political landscape aren't more comprehensive and compelling.

Here's the thing. The DLC types who like you attach such great significance to the swing voters do so with a number of questionable assumptions, foremost among them that left and right are equally balanced extremes in this country, and perennially so. Well, there's another view that says these things aren't set in stone, that the political center is due to shift left, that Democrats outnumber Republicans, and with efforts to register voters and get them to the polls, the Dems could easily regain the White House and more. Conversely, any moves that would tend to dampen support and keep voters from showing up at the polls could spell another losing cycle for the Dems.

You argue that voters aren't excited by any one candidate, but there's another interpretation. Voters are darned excited by the candidates as a whole. Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, these people energize. I'm energized by Carol, as you know, and I'm not the only one. Kerry is exciting to me. Gephardt of all people is generating some excitement. Man, I haven't been so hyped about a primary since Jesse Jackson back in 1988--and yes, Dukakis lost miserably, but I'll remind you that Jesse Jackson Democrats such as myself went for Bill Clinton in a big way in 1992, thank you much.

Just because people are wavering between Dean and Kerry, for instance, doesn't lead to the conclusion that they aren't excited about the Dems. Not at all. It's also worth mentioning that the specific support numbers you're looking at are polling "likely" voters, if I'm remembering right. If that's the basis for your strategizing, that's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are other ways of carving that bird.

Finally, I guess, I'll comment on your thoughts about Gore, Hill, or General Clark stepping in to save the day. Maybe they will jump in, but I don't see it making the difference between victory and defeat in November, and I wouldn't expect Gore's or Hillary's numbers to stand up against the other nine once they enter the fray and actually have to start taking positions and debating. And candidly, I don't see that they add much whereas they are definitely polarizing figures, Clinton and Gore, so they'd have work to do in any case.

As somebody who truly likes and respects Al Gore the politician, I have to say I wouldn't pick him over Carol or any of several others at this point. He'd have to make the case for why he's the best. The idea that he's electable isn't going to persuade me, for the reasons I've outlined above. And if any of these people come in with the idea that they're the only electable candidate--well, let's not go there.



p.s. It just struck me that neither Senator Clinton nor General Clark have more experience than Braun, and Clark does not have as much support, and as for wasting money, that's not something Braun has a lot of, and yet she persists, so I'm going to have to regard your criteria for electability with some suspicion.

Let alone familiar with the candidates beyond "He supported the war, he opposed it." The core of internet political junkies are miles away from the general public. Beyond that, those that are paying attention in places like Iowa and New Hampshire are still shopping around between candidates with similar agendas.

For instance, while the Iraq vote represents an enormous chasm between Dean and Kerry for us, I think for most people it won't be more decisive than what people will think they will do in the future. And, believe it or not, their policy agendas are really not that far apart. It may ultimately come down to personality: are people mad enough to want a fiery anti-Bush Governor, or a thoughtful statesman with a war-record.

A last reminder, the Kerry campaign has spent virtually no money so far. They have been riding on cruise control, biding their time until people are paying attention. They are probably surprised and a little nervous about Dean's ascension, but don't believe for a second that the campaign has really gone full tilt yet. As the long-shot, Dean needed a strong spring and summer, and had to charge hard. I think he was quite successful. The question remains, and none of us can answer it, who will come out ahead when they go head to head this fall.

I write "Carol Moseley Braun" Funk reads "Howard Dean."

You're making a good case for Kerry, Doc. I agree he's in good position to pick up new liberal voters and many of the Deanie Babies. On the other hand, Dean's not going away soon. At this juncture I don't see anybody running away with it, but if Kerry does pull ahead, he'd go into the general election with broad and enthusiastic support. He's definitely a winner.

It was rude of me to coast over your support for Carol Moseley Braun. It is very easy to fall into thinking this is a two man race by this forum, but clearly the rest of the country doesn't think so. Otherwise, we'd have a 50-50 race (or something roughly equalling 100%).

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

<>

Ms. President! I Love it!

I wish someone of Carol's integrity had Hillary's popularity. I'd probably be supporting the war hero from the gender wars instead!

You write: "Now let's talk about winning in 2004, because that's something we both want. I grant you there's some realism in the scenarios and strategems you present, but I will not cede that it reflects an accurate portrayal of the way the things really are, that other realities aren't politically important, or that other visions of the political landscape aren't more comprehensive and compelling."

You have to realize that while Braun is "compelling" and that while the political landscape is dynamic, it eventually falls to two camps. One for the Democrats and one for the Republicans. It is the center, however you define, that decided which of the two get in. I think it is silly that we would nominate a candidate that ONLY appeals to the members of the left. I am not justifying that the left is wrong, it isn't. What I am saying is that in order to WIN you must get those middle voters. You might argue that middle is more left of more right. But that is the definition of the "middle". Swing voters are voters that could vote Republican of Democrat. These are the people that voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, they voted for Bush in 1988, they voted for Clinton in 96, and were Split evenly with Gore in 2000.
Your argument of: "that the political center is due to shift left, that Democrats outnumber Republicans, and with efforts to register voters and get them to the polls, the Dems could easily regain the White House and more."
First point, the middle is always shifting to the left. This country and most of the whole world for the most part has shifted to the left every year. However, Reagan and Bush would be considered as "Liberal" in 1950's. Lincoln, FDR, and Johnson would be considered conservative if running today on the same platform and ideas.
The middle is more to the left than it was in 1992, 1996, and 2000. But there is also a rift in the country. Many people are moving more to the left while others are staying on the right.
DLCers are about strategy, above all else. Any candidate to the left of Bush would win the votes of the far left. The trick is to find a candidate that can stand as close to the left as possible that can still beat Bush.
Your next argument is made is easily disproved: "You argue that voters aren't excited by any one candidate, but there's another interpretation. Voters are darned excited by the candidates as a whole. Kucinich, Dean, Sharpton, these people energize."
Yes, they do energize, but energize isn't that important. It is who they energize that counts above all else. they energize the left, big deal, they are going to go vote against Bush anyway, who cares how strong they feel about their vote, it still only counts as one vote. You also have to realize that when someone says "I support civil Unions" and energizes a gay man, he also energizes someone that is a bigot. You gain is lost. Their are not more people FOR Civil Unions than there are against. Just like when someone say "The war is wrong", yes five people stand up and say "hell yes" there are five more that say, "hell no, we need to that evil Saddam you coward!". These issues DO NOT gain you votes, it just increases the number of votes cast. What you want is to have the largest percentage of votes cast. It doesn't matter if you increase your votes from 50 million to 60 million if the other opponent increases their votes from 51 million to 61 million. You still lose. The key to winning is to gain the 51 million votes or more from the 100 million that vote now. Gambling on the idea the Liberals will come out to vote and Conservatives will not is never a good idea. You can lose badly. Democrats made that mistake in 72 and the Republicans in 48.
Furthermore, I think polls repeatedly show that 37-40% of people who vote in the Democratic Primary support none of the candidates running now. With NINE to choose from, that ought to tell you something. Either,Hillary, Clark, or Gore can enter and take that 37% percent and be twice ahead of any other candidate that has spent millions on the campaign already. Even if they only took half the undecided they would miles ahead of the others. No, I think that 4/10 Democrats can't make up their mind because they fail to see a winner they can back yet.
You are also incorrect in this assumption:
"It just struck me that neither Senator Clinton nor General Clark have more experience than Braun, and Clark does not have as much support, and as for wasting money, that's not something Braun has a lot of, and yet she persists, so I'm going to have to regard your criteria for electability with some suspicion."
You are incorrect on everything here.
First, Hillary was elected in a large state, is an accomplished lawyer, and has served in the White House for eight years. This is a sign that she is capable of being President.
Clark, has spent thirty years in politics. Doing everything under the sun. He ran military bases that are cities, and having lived on a few, I say they are better run than that of public cities. He has worked with international policy and other world leaders. He spent two years working for the White House on the United States Budget. He has also run a war. This is more experience than that of most the other candidates. Dean was Governor of a State of 600,000 people. The military has twice that number, with much more to run more carefully. When you add in families, that number is even far greater in number. When you add in other militarys in the World, such as all of NATO, you get even bigger, like the size of Michigan.
Clark, actually has more support than Braun, Kucinch, and Sharpton already, he also has about $300,000 from donations. Much more than the negative balances of Braun. If Clark enters the race he will receive $600,000 from private donations immediately because of federal matching funds, and will be backed by the Stephens Corporation, the same one that funded Clinton in 1992. Clark also has a campaign headquarters in Hew Hampshire already and has 30K volunteers right off the bat.
If Clark enters, which I believe he will place 3rd in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, 2nd in Michigan, and 1st in DC. He will dominate on Super Tuesday and in the West, and receive most of the Super Delegates with the pull of his pal and childhood friend, Bill Clinton.
Clark is also second in the Internet search and activity as people learn more about this man. He has the third amount of meet-ups, he beat in a straw pull Braun, Kucinich, Graham, and Sharpton in a straw pull in New Hampshire and he wasn't even on the ballot.
I suggest that you look at him carefully, he has financially backing, deep rooted political support, and can beat the pants off anybody in a debate. Watch and see. Carol Mosley Braun will be gone after New Hampshire when he places 8th or lower.

J4Clark

Comprehensive vision of the political landscape. You write "while the political landscape is dynamic, it eventually falls to two camps. One for the Democrats and one for the Republicans. It is the center, however you define, that decided which of the two get in." A more comprehensive view would recognize for instance the possibility of Green/Progressive defections on the left. Also, the masses of people who stay home. They too are making choices, and it could be otherwise. The argument is that by focusing so narrowly on the "center" between Dems and Republicans, the Dems risk losing votes to apathy/resistence and to third parties.

Later you state that "Any candidate to the left of Bush would win the votes of the far left." That's just not true, for reasons stated above. If Lieberman e.g. gets the nomination, defections to the Greens could run as high 5%, but even 2% in key states could be enough to make a difference. Add to that a stay-at-home factor and it's not at all clear that this is a winning strategy. It is most definitely neither comprehensive nor uncontested.

The essential problem with this view is that it conflates the tipping point between the Dems and the GOP with the political center of the nation. That's what I meant by assuming that the right and left are equally balanced. When you argue that energizing voters merely increases the number of votes cast without changing the outcome, you are making that same assumption. It's not warranted. I could point to polling data on certain issues, or the fact that in many states registered Dems far outnumber registered Republicans, yet Dems lose elections when turnout is low (i.e. the angry right is already energized and getting to the polls and can't add much to the Republican base without alienating moderates, whereas the left has been shall we say disenchated with Dems). However, the most essential reason for rejecting that view can be summarized in the trope that the politics of hope trumps the politics of hate.

Earlier this week Carol Moseley Braun was asked about DLC strategy, specifically the criticisms voiced in Philly that the Dems were veering too far to the left, and being too hostile to Bush. Her response was that while she disagreed with the DLC about criticizing Bush, she did agree that angry rhetoric was not a way to win. There are ways of being vocal without being strident. The Democrats have popular ideas they can win with, but only if elections are popular. Negative campaigning turns people off. The way to turn people on is to keep up the message of hope.

Right now Moseley Braun, Dean and Sharpton are registering large numbers of voters. These people will contribute to a Democratic victory in November 2004. However, as long as the DLC tries to marginalize the left and the insurgent "protest" vote, there remains a risk of turning these people off. It's still possible for From and the gang to get their way, but I say it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you look at "primary voters" and you don't count newly registered voters, you are getting a skewed picture. It may be a useful diagnostic, as far it goes, but as a basis for defining winning election strategies it's not comprehensive, and inasmuch as there are competing strategies, it's arrogant to claim that it's the only way to win.

Thus the DLC strategy is not just about election strategy. It's about one particular strategy for winning (or losing, let's be honest) elections. That's what I'm talking about when I point to the ideological functions of defining elections in a certain way. There are competing paradigms, more democratic paradigms. Some of them are quite compelling.

* * *

Re. Hillary Clinton's experience vis-a-vis Braun's. Hmmm. I wouldn't say Clinton was inexeperienced, however you have made an issue of the fact that Moseley Braun served only one term as a Senator. You don't give her credit for winning 15 election throughout her career. You don't giver her credit for experience as a lawyer, in private practice, in education, or as Assistant United States Attorney in Chicago. You don't give her credit for her service as Ambassador. Not bashing Hillary here, just looking for some consistency. You can't say Hillary Clinton has more better experience or qualifications than Carol without backing that up.

I grant you that Clark has more money than Carol. I have yet to see that he has more popular support. You initially separated those two criteria. Just asking for consistency.

Internet searches. That's a new one. Ever hear of the digital divide? Enough said.

New Hampshire is a definite weakness in Braun's campaign. How does Clark compare in D.C.? South Carolina? I haven't seen it yet. You think he'll clean up in D.C.? I'd like to see some polling numbers.

You make a strong case for Clark's qualifications and experience. One note: Military bases are *not* cities. When Clark was in charge of a military base, were residents allowed to shout out "Clark Sucks!"? Were they permitted to post signs that read "Clark Sucks!"? Were residents allowed to form groups for the sole purpose of saying "Clark sucks!" and ousting him from office? I wouldn't pooh-pooh Clark's experience--he's definitely more qualified that the shrub--but if you're going to compare him to Braun, you have to recognize that her qualifications are immediately relevant, whereas his have to be argued. Or are you presuming that what this country really needs is military government? That's not going to win Clark votes on the left, trust me on that.

Superdelegates. Ah, yes the deck is stacked. Does that count as "popular support"? We'll see how that plays out.

Clark in a debate. To be honest, J, I haven't been overly impressed with what I've heard so far, but if ever decides that he's a Democrat and wants to enter the debates, I will definitely listen closely to what he has to say.

GottaB,

You write: "A more comprehensive view would recognize for instance the possibility of Green/Progressive defections on the left. Also, the masses of people who stay home. They too are making choices, and it could be otherwise. The argument is that by focusing so narrowly on the "center" between Dems and Republicans, the Dems risk losing votes to apathy/resistence and to third parties."

You are mistaken that this is not taken into the calculation. Human believes fit a "Standard Distribution Curve". You are correct that moving more to the center does to a greater extent alienate the members on the far left. However, what you are forgetting is that it picks up more members in the center. If group "A" represents 15% of the population and group "B" represents 5% of the population than it makes sense to pick up group "A" than group "B". Even if you move all the way over and pick all of the group "A" and lose all of group "B" you pick up three votes for every one lost. So yes, the Democratic nominee might move too far to the right and lose 5% but they will pick up 15%, meaning a 10% net gain. However, I think that in this race most far-lefters are less willing to defect than they were in 2000 because the risks are greater. Many Nader supporters in 2000 are angry what Bush has done, and they have enough common sense to know that another 4 years of Bush will work against their interests than pluging there nose and voting for the Democrat is the best thing.

You argument of trying to get the "stay-at-home" vote is rather mute. Statistic after statistic shows that even if the all the stay-at-homers were to come out and vote that the election results would not change the results. For every person you motivate to go vote for a candidate "A" you motivate someone else to go vote against candidate "A". The concept you are trying to apply only workers in two conditions. One, if you can get people that use to support the previous candidate to no longer be willing to take the time to go to the polls. Second, to split the opposition vote. In this case there is no major right or center candidate to pull votes away from Bush.

You state that: "I could point to polling data on certain issues, or the fact that in many states registered Dems far outnumber registered Republicans."

Yes, true but they all live in the same states. Most Democratic States are on the West Coast, New England States, and States surrounding the Great Lakes. It doesn't matter if you increase the voters in these states from 55% to 65%, you still win them. What we need to do is increase the vote percentage in states like Missouri, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and Colorado. That is where the swing votes that matter will make a difference in the election. We need to move votes from California and New York into these states so we can win a few. Since, obvioulsy, you can ship the voters to each of the states, you must capture the voters that already live there by moving more to the right. Yes, it is OK to get only 55% of the vote in New York and California if it means picking up another 20-30 electoral votes.

You make the assumption that people stay at home and not vote because they don't like what they candidates are saying. I strongly disagree, it is for numbeours other reasons they don't care about voting. Most states already vote a certain way, so they feel their vote will not make a difference. Another is that they think that politicians are all full of sh*t. In which case are correct for the most part.

Getting to the other issue of experience, you are correct, I guess I was incorrect about Braun's experience. I did not know she was elected 15 times. I think that is a good thing. Nonetheless, she does not have enough name recogintion and will not last long in this election. She has not "caught fire" and I don't think she will. She is not electable on the national level.

Your statement that: "One note: Military bases are *not* cities. When Clark was in charge of a military base, were residents allowed to shout out 'Clark Sucks!'?"

Less than .1% of the US population protests. I think that not having someone hold a sign that says "you suck" exaclty overshawdows the skill of running a military base. For one, I don't know if anyone stood outside his base and protested. I would imagine that someone did. I do know that people protested the Vietnam War, where he was a Captian. I don't recall any stories of him shooting them. Second, Clark does to good of a job to have anyone protest him :).

I think you will find that Clark is very good at debating and speaking. Even if Bush refuses to debate him, Clark can do an impersonation of Bush fairly well. Enough to make crowds laugh, and comment on how good he is.

I think if you take the time to listen to Clark, you will find that his views are not to far off from Braun's and that he can gain the votes to defeat Bush in 2004. :)

J4Clark

We need to somehow fix our voting system so that people of color don't have such an impossible barrier to elected office. CMB and Sharpton are dismissed because they lack substantial elected experience, but nobody acknowledges the barriers that prevent them from being elected and getting that experience. Instead they get implicitly blamed for the barriers, as in your example of the reporters. It's pretty sickening.

Is the book the same as the cover? (Vermont DU'ers give me some hope here)

1) I worry about how he'll do in the South. FL most often comes to mind. If he gets the nomination, he'd better choose a Southerner for his VP (which is why I promote Graham for VP, or Clark).

2) He needs to get a bit more humorous. I'm serious - he comes-off as too serious sometimes. Humor is a VERY VERY powerful thing. If he could get a handful of hilarious TV spots, he could have the country talking about them. Laughter is a great way to get people to agree with you.

Breaking the typical political commercial mold would be of great benefit. The typical commercial is a low-monotone in the background with a sinister-sounding narrator speaking while a grainy black-and-white photo of the opponent is shown in slo-motion on the screen. It turns voters off, and I really think we need to get away from that.

3) I worry about him being from Vermont. A stupid worry, sure. But the American people aren't that bright..

Still, he's my horse in this race!

If he "tolerates" you in his amiable way, it is not going to do much for me. But if Jon Stewart really gets into it with you, it'll work wonders for my enthusiasm.

For the record, on the show:

Dean is the angry guy with the neck.

Kerry is the war-hero with the saddest face in the world.

He is - by far - the funniest of the candidates. He needs his own TV show on the long-dreamed-of liberal TV network.

Too tied to labor, worked with Shrub on Iraq resolution, Flip-flops (especially pre-1988), never won back the House, 26 years in the House, not very exciting unless talking about trade or labor, and no eyebrows?

Those seem to be the biggies.

This is humbling. Good idea for a thread. Got to know your weaknesses. It only makes you stronger

on the Abortion issue upon the launch of the campaign. If he had the guts to pitch the (horribly flawed) idea that a fetus somehow equals Iraqi war casualites, he would've blazed a trail wide enough to start a serious debate on Abortion within the Dems. I might even voted for him.

How can he be against the war and against abortion. How can he be for freedom of speech but against burning the flag? Do people not know that when a flag is retired it is burned?


J4Clark

than that hes the best. Hes not perfect on everything I admit.
My three would be
1. flag burning vote
2. previous abortion view
3. too liberal

proposed Amendment, which would actually forbid flag desecration (such as what Smirk did when he signed that small flag)

And he was against both war and abortion (and eating animals and other living creatures) because of his deeply-held views about the sanctity of life. He's reframed the abortion issue to himself as one of Constitutional equality for already-born women, which trump the rights of prospective life.

I can understand not eating animals from the health perspective, but for the animal's health?

OK, so first, how do you keep from NOT eating animals? I mean, if you eat apples and fruit, you do eat animals on the fruit that you can't see. Or is it just the size of the animal that counts?

Second, if you eat more fruit, are you not eating the food that the other animals eat?

Third, If you don't eat the animals, are you not killing other animals that the animals you didn't eat then eat?

It just seems futile other than to make someone feel better about themselves to be honest.

Plants are also life too. Why are they considered OK to kill and eat, and not animals?

Maybe I am just biased, my favorite animal is Hamburger :)

J4Clark

And it's similar questions that make me a 'buddhist vegetarian', not a vegan. Answering your questions as though you meant them seriously, I'd guess that Dennis draws the line where he does because if it were any further down, he'd have trouble surviving. Which would result, in effect, in killing quite a high-order life form. So he does the best he can--and believe me, maintaining a vegan diet is work.

edit: No, he's not responsible for what the creatures he doesn't eat then eat. But you knew that. :)

Plants are also life too. Why are they considered OK to kill and eat?

I don't think that question is facetious at all. It goes to the heart of the contradictions in 'ethical vegetarianism'.

Ethical vegetarianism cannot eliminate all suffering, and therefore we are not required to. The limit of our ability and obligation is to reduce it as far as nature allows.

He changed his stance gradually between a year and 2 years ago. He became a candidate 5 months ago. So he had already completed the change in his stance 6 months or more before he decided to stand for election.

Me, I think the catalyst was the outpouring of support 19 months ago to his 'Prayer for America' speech. I think that if we were to look at the record of that support, we'd see echoes of Studs Terkel's plea: Dennis, change your stance on abortion. I think the thousands of mail messages he got were what flipped the switch for him.

Pure as the driven snow...

<>


Pre-order it!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565848373/qid=1059780193/sr=1-23/ref=sr_1_23/103-0377255-4831836?v=glance&s=books

Please welcome President Mario Cuomo