Eric Alterman handicaps the candidates -- likes Clark

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

"I believe that from the very day of Clark’s announcement I said the Democrats’ best chance was a Clark/Dean ticket in that order. General Wesley “I don't think it's patriotic to dress up in a flight suit and prance around" Clark as a candidate drives a power drill into all of Bush’s advantages, save money."

He does examine each of the candidates with some interesting comments about VP positions, cabinets, who should drop out, etc.

Not just 'cuz of my avatar. He is so isolated from the rest of America. Sorry, I raise an eyebrow at his old assertion that Stern and Imus are "movement conservatives", however he truly defines that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stern alone has done way more for pro-choice and free speech issues than Alterman has even attempted. I fear he is overcompensating, second-guessing, etc.. Get well soon.

But then again, I'm ABB, even though I'm undecided.

Bush.

I wonder if most Americans feel that way.

I imagine that most Americans are not going to define their favorite candidate so much in terms of Bush as Moore and Alterman whose professional lives are so deeply entwined with Bush.

Of course, voters will compare and contrast. However, I don't think they're going to say, "Bush created world x, so we need the anti-x candidate."

but Michael Moore's position, in particular, is a bit more nuanced than what you're suggesting if you read his whole 'endorsement' piece. He wants some one who is anti-Bush from a political perspective on the issues/attitudes AND who also has the best chance of neutralizing any electoral advantages Bush might have. He sees that as Wes Clark, agree or disagree.

I feel pretty much the same way. A Ronald Reagan, in his prime, could certainly defeat Bush but he would offer no advantage as President so you'd have to say there is more at work than just get rid of Bush. We want someone with Democratic ideals, capable of hammering Bush on terror, national security, competing in certain tossup Red States, etc.

But that's just my opinion.

I read the whole Moore piece, and, as I said, my interepretation is that Moore is picking his candidate according to what Bush is, and then he says, we're fortunate that this guy who matches up so well to Bush is also a liberal. So, Bush comes first. (And I don't doubt that Moore wouldn't endorse Clark if Clark weren't liberal.)

My fear is that if Clark matched up so well against Bush, what would stop the Republicans from pulling Bush, sending him off to become Baseball Commissioner, and running Ridge or someone else, against homw Clark has not defined himself.

That's how the Democrats were going to win in '68 until Kennedy got shot.

The Dems should run someone who not only contrasts well with Bush, but who stands on his own two feet and defines himself according to much grander principles than being the anti-Bush.

even have primary competition -- he's not going to be pulled. If they were to pull some sort of election year surprise, it would be to excuse Cheney from the ticket for 'health reasons' and look for someone who would project a 'softer' image.

I don't think Bush/Rove are quaking in their boots at any Democratic challenger, including Wes Clark. It's simply that Clark better matches up against their PERCEIVED strengths: strong leadership and national security. God, I can't believe more than 50% of the country actually considers those to be their strengths but there you have it.

could do some closed door selection of the candidate?

That's their bag -- giving you politicians who don't win democratic races.

He's very Conservative. He also has the "macho" tough guy thing.

It's sad to see them get suckered into the Bush fear campaign - especially since Moore is supposed to understand the nature of manufactured fear.

For the life of me, I'll never understand it.

:)

now that Dean has called Clark the "R" word?

I think that marriage just can't work anymore.

...I think this would be the best politically shrewd move for the party if Clark is nominated. Dean's statements have made it difficult for his support to transfer if he is not the VP, but if he is, that will render the issue moot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Although I thought of it last week. :-) Yes, Dean should pick Edwards immediately after the nomination (or vice versa). They've been my team from the beginning.

Very.

"And I think Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich should join Braun in a bar somewhere for the next nine months and quit strengthening Bush by diminishing the likely nominee with their silly ego trips.

"Yeah, I know it’s unfair. Life is unfair. My five year old already knows that. If you still don’t know it, don’t complain to me about it. That’s why God invented spam buttons."

hey, I didn't say it . . . but I think it makes some sense . . .

They need to pick a "shadow cabinet" quickly, and get them all enthusiastically out on the trail. This is the time for all the Dems to rally together. I don't care who wins the nomination, we must beat Bush, and it will be as a team.

Bush can't beat us if we're all out there campaigning together. If the nominee is weak in one area, we send out a member of his cabinet who is strong in that area to campaign with and for him. Bush can't be everywhere at once.

But the Democratic party can be, if we're all working together.

Alterman seems solidly against * and the war, doesn't mind saying so, and MSNBC is letting him!! Is the meida worm turning?

they are getting sick of being intimidated. About time!

also hates Dean...

At least Bush kept the press on his side until AFTER the election.

He is a regular contributor to The Nation. He wrote an excellent book called What Liberal Media, which exposes the strong RW bias in the media. I'm convinced that he is free to say whatever he wants on his blog, even if it is hosted on MSNBC.

I'm glad to see that his political thinking is so close to my own.

:kick:

Er, perhaps I should reword that!

Watched this guy the other day on CNNI after O'Neill's comments...one thing I'll say, he has no love for bush*.

Except for his VP choice. Clark will not choose Dean for VP.

There are many much better choices for Clark than Dean.

coming together as Clark/Dean. Especially not at this early point in the road to the "annointed."

This paragraph sums up the major flaws in the reasoning in this article (in my opinion):

"Not only do most strategic-minded voters think the general is the best candidate to beat Bush (read Richard Cohen here) and hence, will be the choice of the pros for that reason, but he is also the only candidate with an organization, the money and the capacity to raise more money to outlast Dean down the line. "

I cannot wrap my mind around how "strategic-minded voters" would find a candidate with no domestic governing experience as the best chance to beat Bush, when polls have historically shown that people vote on domestic issues, not foreign policy. This election will be about domestic issues, regardless of how Bush tries to spin it. And as more and more economic conservatives become angry with Bush's insane spending, we have a real chance of getting them to vote Democratic. But only with the right candidate. Clark's strength lies in the idea that people are all voting on foreign policy. However, the polls have shown that Republicans think Bush is doing a great job on foreign policy. So Clark is not going to pull significant Republicans just on foreign policy. And he also has to really turn out the base in the election. And there should be significant concern that Clark won't be able to do that. He doesn't has never held an elected office, has no experience in moving legislation, balancing a budget, etc.

As for the money issue, Clark did not opt out of public financing. That is going to be a liability, if he gets the nomination especially with the late Republican convention this year.

Truthfully, choosing a candidate on foreign policy experience alone, especially when the experience is exclusively in a military setting seems foolish in my opinion.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

AL FROM'S HEAD EXPLODES: Elaine Kamarck, who, as my colleague Jonathan Cohn reminds me, is one of the founders of the Democratic Leadership Council (and actually co-authored "The Politics of Evasion," the DLC's 1989 manifesto) makes a solid case for the Dean candidacy in her Newsday op-ed today. But the more interesting point is her critique of Clark, which strikes me as both right on and fairly devastating:

Clark's military service is not without controversy. Fairly or unfairly, a number of his former colleagues are more than happy to say bad things about him. And this is before the Bush team, adept at character assassination, has gotten serious about him. In 2000 the Bush campaign turned Al Gore, a politician known for nothing as much as the fact that he was a straight arrow, into a chronic liar in the minds of many. By the time Bush and company get done with Gen. Clark, his military experience could be a nightmare and the general could wish he'd gone AWOL from West Point.

Once Clark's military career is destroyed, the Bush team would exploit his inconsistencies on the Iraq war and his past admiration for Republicans. That would turn the general into just another political opportunist. Robbed of his biography, Clark has nothing--no record on health care, no experience balancing budgets, no background in creating jobs .

Like that paragraph....

"Not only do most strategic-minded voters think the general is the best candidate to beat Bush (read Richard Cohen here) and hence, will be the choice of the pros for that reason, but he is also the only candidate with an organization, the money and the capacity to raise more money to outlast Dean down the line."

"I admire a lot about Dean, but he seems to me too dangerous to trust with the nomination in this moment of maximum national peril."