Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

my BIG question to candidate supporters

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 12:46 PM
Original message
my BIG question to candidate supporters
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 12:48 PM by welshTerrier2
i hope we can keep this thread totally civil ... i will disclose that i am not supporting ANY candidate at this time ... if you see bias or even antagonism in anything i write, i assure you it is totally unintentional ... for me, if i vote for a Democrat for President in 2008, that candidate will have earned my vote by doing at least the following two things:

1. called for an immediate end to the war and occupation and
2. called for the voiding of the abusive oil contracts being imposed on the Iraqi people

that's my bottom line ...

ultimately, my BIG question has nothing to do with issues; it has to do with "how does your guy get there from here?"

i hope this thread does not become just cheerleading ... we all understand you are very skilled at providing an extensive list of reasons why you believe your candidate is the best person to lead the nation ... i neither support nor object to your assertions ... that is not the question being asked ... what i want to know is what you hope to see them do that will change the current horserace and put your guy in the lead? perhaps you believe that the campaign will give them an opportunity to "strut their stuff" and when Americans see how great they are, they'll prevail ... perhaps that will happen ... again, that's not the question ...

right now, we are immersed in media coverage of Hillary and Obama and Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree ... if you're a Dodd supporter, or Richardson, or Kerry, Clark, Kucinich, Biden (or Gore??) what's yer plan, Stan?

let's face it, it's damned tough to crack into the top tier ... Hillary has a massive war chest ... massive ... that's a big problem right there ... Obama has mega-star power ... and Edwards? he's interesting in that he's staked out some turf on an issue all his own: poverty in America ...

again, without providing a laundry list of "my guy's so wonderful because", what do you think your candidate will need to do to become competitive? I ask this because i think we're approaching a time that it will be harder and harder to build the infrastructure needed if you aren't seen as one of the front-runners ... my view, as a campaign tip, is that your guy NEEDS SOMETHING NEW ... whether that something is an alignment with my issues or something else remains to be seen ... for those thinking it's awful that we have a process that could knock people out of the running before the voters even get a say, i couldn't agree more!! but i think that's the exact system we have ... if you don't believe it, ask Warner or Bayh ...

so, what should your guy do to move up in the standings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well I haven't really "picked" anyone to support yet.
At the moment I just have my favorites, and I am not really going to become a hardcore supporter until the primaries officially begin. Although if Gore were to get into the race he would have my support. In addition to being articulate on Iraq and other issues facing the country, he has strong knowledge about Global Warming - the big threat looming on the horizon for ALL of Humanity.

I believe if Gore runs, in addition to that issue and his other characteristics, he can eclipse Hillary with the base and bag the nomination. Hillary just doesn't have the hearts of the Democratic base, so if Gore doesn't run people are likely to divide among Obama and Edwards. Gore is the one candidate that I think can really unify and rally the base. All Hillary has to do is ask Lieberman what happens when you lose the support of the base, and then ask Dean what happens when you lose Iowa where she is already trailing a distant third behind Obama and Edwards who are tied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can you define immediate?
Is that a time frame or unconditional- right now? My candidate has said a run would remove his credibility to accomplish the more important message he feels he must deliver now. Before he can make a move, he will have to determine that he has gone as far as he can to promote a diplomatic solution. Beyond that I am sure he is looking at the practicality of a run. He will put the good of the Country ahead of his person, that is why I support him. I hope his leadership inspires our elected leaders to a cohesive practical strategy that benefits our Country more than Party or ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. "immediate"
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 01:44 PM by welshTerrier2
i use "immediate" here in a somewhat symbolic sense ... i support the McGovern amendment which, if i recall, cuts off all funding for "offensive operations" .. funds could only be used to 1. protect our troops 2. withdraw our troops 3. aid the Iraqis with political support and advice and infrastructure rebuilding ...

my definition of immediate is "as rapidly as troop safety allows" ... the idea that we should remain in Iraq while "diplomacy is given a chance to work" is nonsense ... the region is torn apart now as it has been for thousands of years ... get the troops out NOW AND BEGIN DIPLOMACY ... to view the withdrawal of our troops as a "bargaining chip" is DOA ...

i appreciate your candidate is putting the good of the country ahead of political ambitions ... still, it's not clear you've really answered the question ... how will your candidate crack into the lineup?

btw, allow me to speculate about the possibility of a Gore candidacy ... i like Al Gore as i like many of the potential Dem candidates ... but it is NOT OK with me that Gore is sitting a bit too quietly on the sidelines ... those who seek to lead the country need to start leading it ... i take nothing away from Gore's Herculean lifting on global warming ... it's nothing short of heroic ... but those who will run absolutely need to be prominent players regarding Iraq ... an "i was opposed to the war" or "i think we need to look at ways to bring the troops home" is not adequate leadership TODAY ... if Gore is going to run, he needs to stand up NOW and take a bold position on the war ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I can't be clear because it is not clear that my candidate intends to crack into
the lineup. I can only put forth the idea and hope that his leadership and ability are recognized. I personally think that without the bargaining chip of military force, diplomacy is DOA. I wish that it weren't so but I think that is reality. I agree that I too want to see a demonstration of leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. fwiw
i believe i read a recent article by Wes Clark where he said the US had NO BARGAINING POSITION with Iran (can anyone confirm this?) ... Clark has pushed very hard for dialog with Iran but my interpretation of what he said was that we have no "leverage" ...

my view is that using troop withdrawal from Iraq as an incentive to the Iranians will accomplish nothing ... frankly, i think the Iranians are glad the US is bogged down in Iraq ...

it's not at all clear they want us to leave ... in fact, i believe Iran would be more motivated to negotiate with the US if we did leave Iraq ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. This speaks directly to your question about Clark and Iran
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 02:39 PM by Tom Rinaldo
It was taken from a transcript of this interview:

General Wesley Clark on "Politically Direct" on Air America Radio

January 11, 2007
http://securingamerica.com/node/2121



...Mark Green: Well, Baker-Hamilton said let's talk to neighbors. What if hypothe- What if Bush and Cheney tried to talk and then Iran and Syria said, 'Screw you. You, you blundered into this, and we're not going to get you out of it'? what would General Clark do then, if you had a comparable speech last night, if you don't- if the diplomacy card was played and ignored?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it depends on what you mean by diplomacy. Look, if you go over to Iran and say, 'Gee fellas, I really need your help so I can leave,' they'd say, 'Leave! Just leave. Leave right now.' I've heard their National Security Advisor say it. He says, "America's failed. You should leave." If you heard it, it'd make you mad, because it's a, it was a very arrogant and triumphalist statement.


Mark Green: Mm hm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: : But that's not what diplomacy's about. Diplomacy's about trying to create a different vision for the region. Do people in this region always have to fight? Does every issue have to be settled by force? Do people have to hate each other all their lives and pass that hatred on to their children? Do they have to live in fear? Can there be a better way? That, that, that sounds idealistic, but it can be implemented step by step. If we had approached Eastern Europe the way this administration has approached the Middle East, if we'd approached Eastern Europe that way during the 1980's, we might have had a war. Instead, President Reagan went to Reykjavik. He sat down and talked to Gorbechev.


Mark Green: Mm hm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember all the criticize, criticism of him at the time. People said, 'Oh my Goodness! He offered to negotiate with Gorbechev.' Yeah, he saw something when he met with Gorbechev.


Mark Green: You know, Bush says he's a Reaganite. Why won't he emulate that piece of Reagan, who was a tough ideologue, but a realist.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I, I don't know. I don't want to speculate on President Bush. I don't, I don't know the man personally, and i-it's just not the right thing. He's making a mistake. Not that you can ask Iran for help, but you can help Iran. They have, we have things they want. They want to be admitted into the world community. They'd like to have their assets unfrozen. They'd like to be able to get new technology for their oil fields.

Mark Green: Mm hm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They'd like to be recognized as an important power in the region instead of blocked and turned away. We're the key to unlocking all of these things for them. We could do that for them if they do what needs to be done for us, but there's no trust between the two of us right now. We don't trust them. They don't trust us. They're working against us in Iraq, because they've always wanted to have greater influence over Iraq. Iraq's been a threat to them for a long time, and now if they can work and make sure that the government in Iraq is friendly and, and, and, and, and, and responsive to Iran's needs, then they're more secure at home. Also, their work in Iraq probably-


Mark Green: Mm hm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -advances their regional interests in strengthening Syria and preventing us from knocking off Syria and going after their friends in Lebanon.



edited to add more of the interview



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. this isn't the article i was referencing
i'm guessing it was written about a week ago or thereabouts ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I'm not sure what you are thinking of
But virtually every thing Clark writes, and transcripts of most of his interviews, can be found at securingamerica.com But what I quoted from is very recent and to my mind speaks directly to your question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. no problem ...
i'm pretty sure i saw it on DU ...

maybe i'll do some searching to try to find the specific quote ... the truth is, i read it quickly and could have misinterpreted Clark's intent ... i'll let you know if i find it ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Let me know if you find anything, WT2
I can't really answer your question, but if he didn't say it, you really can't expect any of us to. So I'm leaving this reply as a marker as much as anything else. I want to remember to check back later.

Fwiw, tho, I do know I've heard or read almost everything Clark has said about Iran and he has pushed for diplomacy every time. I do recall a couple times where he said he didn't know if it would work -- maybe he said we don't have anything to offer? That's not the way I remember it... maybe he said they might not be interested in what we do offer. But in either case, I know he still thinks we have to try. I recall one piece where he was quite angry that there was even talk about bombing Iran without talking first. He said something to the effect, the United State of America doesn't do things like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. let me be very clear ...
in NO WAY was my recollection that Clark had shifted away from calling for diplomacy with Iran ... rather, i thought i had read something to the effect that he did not feel we were in a position to demand anything ... i'm almost sorry i even raised the issue now because my memory stinks and it's really somewhat of a vague recollection ... not much time right now but i will do a little DU searching when i can ...

when i read the clause i'm referencing, i thought it was something i could use as a point against those saying that "diplomacy had to precede withdrawal" because we could not yield our "bargaining chip", i.e. withdrawal, without getting something in return ... i'll get back to you if i find the clause i'm referencing ...

sorry to all for the vagueness ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm not trying to duck this discussion
But I wrote a long two part blog entry on my own blog about this subject in reference to Wes Clark. I could either link to it or repost the two long entries on your thread here. Which do you prefer WT2?

As dogman already noted, my guy needs to be working some inside channels right now while he ponders the decision whether to declare or not, and I have reason to believe he is doing that. But he is not making it his sole focus because of his concern with countering the policy initiatives being taken now by the Bush Administration. So the next thing he has to do is give a clear signal that he is interested in running. I think an exploratory committee announcement at least is a prerequisite to him moving up, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. "Which do you prefer?"
your choice, Tom ...

i asked a question above about a very recent Clark article i read ... was i correct that he said something to the effect that the US had "no leverage" with Iran?

he was still aggressively calling for diplomacy but seemed to be indicating that we had no "bargaining chip" we could throw at them to have them compromise with us ... i wondered what that meant in the context of troop withdrawal from Iraq ... any ideas?

what magic will happen to make Clark competitive? is "just being right" and "just being experienced" going to be enough or does he need to stake out something new and something BOLDER?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. OK, I'll do both, lol
Since you gave me the choice, free publicity never hurts. I'll put the links in this post, and then follow that with two posts of text, because otherwise it would get very long. Then I have to run out for a little while but can discuss this more when I get back.

By the way in answering you about Clark's view of leverage about Iran, the first time I posted I left out an important part of an interview, which I went back and edited in. If you didn't see the edited version, go back and reread it.

Here are the links:

A Left Turn FOR CLARK: www.aleftturnforclark.com

They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part I
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/01/they_can_diss_the_roots_but_yo.html

They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part II
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2007/01/they_can_diss_the_roots_but_yo_1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part I
They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part I
There’s a phrase that seems much in vogue with political commentators currently; “suck up all the oxygen”, and its almost always preceded by these two names; Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The metaphor sort of implies that Clinton and Obama are “heavy breathers”, but the actually term used to describe them is usually “heavyweights.” The operative theory is that these two supposed political Goliaths will now so dominate the Democratic political terrain between now and the 2008 nominating convention that the resources needed to sustain political life for any other potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates will be perilously lacking. Perhaps John Edwards can also eke out some sort of meager existence, this theory goes, but everyone else will be sucking wind.

My first reaction to this new political truism is to say that the people peddling it are spending too much time looking at themselves in the mirror. They seem so personally taken with the myth of the two Goliaths that they barely find time or space to talk about anyone else, hence it ends up they are reporting on themselves. While I actually believe some of that is going on, I know there is more to it than just that. If nothing else a Presidential candidacy does needs a lot of money and media attention in order to survive, and right now it seems most of that is being directed toward the big two, or at most big three possible Democratic candidates now dominating the news landscape.

So as readers of my blog already know, I did a little research on the history of frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President, and blogged about it in “Looks Like Big Trouble Ahead for Clinton and Obama.” If you haven’t already read it, perhaps you should. Suffice it to say here that the Davids of the Democratic Party have regularly been besting our Goliaths over the last 50 or so years. Those facts are easy to research, but it does little to dampen the conviction of the “oxygen in the room” crowd that this time everything is different, and this time the shape of the final race is all but predestined, because Goliaths have cornered all the oxygen.


I agree with one part of that theory, there is something different about politics this Presidential cycle from previous spins around the electoral block, and one need look no further than Time Magazine’s 2006 “Person of the Year" to see exactly what has changed. It’s us; which includes me, but really it is “You”. I know I am dating myself with this, but who else remembers the old Readers Digest Series of articles that always began with “I am Joe’s…” and ended with some body part; all those catchy titles like; “I am Joe’s Heart, I am Joe’s Brain, and I am Joe’s Liver? Well we can all go back to forgetting about Joe and I, because the phrase that sticks in my mind right now is “You are Wes Clark’s Lungs”. In 2007, “You” will be the one who delivers the oxygen that lets Wes Clark run for President.

What I am saying here doesn’t apply to any other current “second or third tier” candidates (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich). Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Christopher Dodd; for now these men are all on their own. They’ll just have to butt heads with Hillary and outshine Barack, because none of those four are currently “netroots candidates”. Wes Clark however is.

It’s interesting to observe the bipolar relationship that the media and political establishment has had with the netroots over the last three years. We were discovered with Howard Dean and lionized for several months, and then dropped like a hot potato with Dean’s collapse in Iowa. We were rediscovered when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic Primary, and then dumped again when Lieberman pulled ahead in the polls running as an Independent in the General Election. Hardly anyone ever credits us now for the early work we did with Jim Webb in Virginia.

No, conventional wisdom has swung back into thinking the netroots are over hyped and overrated. The beltway is full of itself once again, never for a moment questioning the lavish pundit attention that once was showered on Mark Warner and even more so now is draped over Barack Obama. The beltway has a new theory; it’s Oxygen in the Room. Seems there wasn’t enough Oxygen for Mark Warner and Evan Bayh after all, what with Clinton and Obama sucking such deep breaths. And maybe, just maybe, the conventional wisdom would have been right this year, after traditionally being wrong for so many decades before, if “You” hadn’t come along when “You” did.

What confuses the beltway, in their manic state of mind, is this. The netroots never were all powerful nor are they now powerless. In a “what’s hot and what’s not” frame of reference, everything must be one or the other. It really is the media’s bi-polar disorder, and it helps explain most of their wild mood swings. And once you are swinging around wildly you often miss the point. So, for their sake, I’ll make it as simple as I can. The netroots can bring our candidate to the Prom, though we can’t drive him or her home alone. Wes Clark will show up for the Primaries, looking pretty good when he walks through the door.

So let’s take another look at the field. Hillary is the homecoming Queen, she’ll have no trouble making it to the Prom, and Barack has been crowned the new Male counterpart, whatever it is they call that. So if Obama wants to go, no one will stop him from showing up either. John Edwards was a starter on last year’s runner up for the championship football team. He got the press, he has a Varsity letter; he’ll get himself into the Prom also. Someone will pay for all three of their limos, someone will pay for their fancy clothes too, and they should all be able to line up a rich date if that’s what they think they need. But I know who is taking Wes Clark to the Primary Prom; Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. That’s “You”.

Part Two will discuss exactly how “You” will get him there.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part II
They Can Diss the Roots… But You Deliver the Oxygen Part II
Part One utilized more clever metaphors than I can possibly keep juggling without collision, which is one reason why dividing this blog into two segments seemed like a good idea. So it’s back to basics now with no further talk of Proms, though I will have more to say about that Oxygen.

There are a few key factors regarding the 2008 race that conventional wisdom has forgotten, if it ever adequately grasped it to begin with. For example there are personal characteristics that define a genuine netroots candidate, and while those qualities can be mimicked they can not faithfully be manufactured. Stands taken on issues are of course important, but it’s not just what a candidate takes stands on, it is also how a candidate stands for their beliefs, that wins or loses netroots support. If the beltway has a current defining political cliché; “Oxygen in the Room”, then the netroots has one also; “Truth to Power.” Howard Dean wears the mantle of a Truth to Power Democrat, so too does Jim Webb. And so also does Wesley Clark, unlike the other second tier Presidential candidates.

Looking at the 2008 Presidential race, for now Barack Obama and John Edwards are both attracting netroots support, while Hillary Clinton is seriously lagging. All three though clearly have other sources of support, which I briefly acknowledged earlier. If nothing else they all benefit from a conventional wisdom tailwind that pushes them each forward. I realize I might be sounding harsh about the “wisdom” of CW, so let me explain further. I do not challenge the reasons why conventional wisdom picks out the above three Democrats as strong contenders to win the Presidential nomination. No argument there from me, all of them currently are. I am mostly attacking the air tightness (literally and figuratively) of the insufficient Oxygen in the Room theory, which is sometimes used to claim that it will be almost impossible for Wes Clark’s presidential aspirations to survive inside that environment.

Joe Biden may be forced to fight Goliaths for oxygen inside that room, but not Wes Clark. Wes Clark doesn’t fit into the same box. More to the point, Wes Clark starts equipped with his own portable tank of Oxygen. You see netroots candidates are like scuba divers, they move through different spaces (like Move On and My Space) where conventional observers have a difficult time tracking them - until they pop up near their destination.

I am not talking about a form of magic; I am talking about a form of organization, a form that brings tangible and measurable results that rarely are seen by those who either won’t or don’t know how to look for them, until those results start staring them in the face. In 2006 Wes Clark asked his supporters to throw their efforts behind Democratic congressional candidates in the mid term elections, and that is what they did. Clark didn’t just ask for help in a few crucial close races, he sought support for several dozen Democrats, many of whom were considered real long shots. His supporters responded, and a number of those long shots actually won, including great new Democratic voices like Carol Shea Porter in New Hampshire, a grassroots candidate if ever there was one. It turns out that Clark’s grassroots organization is much stronger and deeper now than it was the last time he ran for President.

So it was a productive political year for Wes Clark, but there was still something important missing. Wes Clark never campaigned for himself. In fact it has been 3 years since anyone has really seen Wes Clark campaigning for himself. Clark has done a ton on campaigning over that span as it turns out, but always for someone else. Since Wes Clark withdrew from the 2004 Presidential race, he’s worked to advance the message and careers of other Democrats, and to strengthen the Democratic Party as a whole.

Since early 2004, few have gotten the opportunity to witness Wes Clark speaking out forcefully about his own agenda for America, and about his own vision for guiding our nation safely into the 21st Century. Some other National Democrats it seems used the 2006 Congressional elections as a thinly veiled backdrop to promote themselves for President. One could be excused for believing that the very future of our nation almost solely depended on the results of a handful of races in Iowa, based on the time some future candidates for President devoted to campaigning in that State compared to elsewhere in our rather large country. Wes Clark went where Democrats needed him, not where he needed Democrats, and I imagine that helped keep Clark off of some conventional radar screens.

So what changes now, if Wes Clark declares a clear interest in pursuing the Presidency in 2008? He gets to speak truth to power about anything that he wants to, and everything that he has to, that’s the first thing that changes. And the netroots will become his media, because the netroots always respects that type message, so it effectively amplifies the messenger in all of the decentralized populist ways that make up the web; links will be left to videos, to interviews, to transcripts. Word will spread and enthusiasm will build. For the politicians and pundits pent up inside a common beltway room, oxygen may in fact grow scant, but there’s a much bigger world outside of that box. Clark might start out being ignored on Meet the Press, but he won’t be on You Tube.

Can that be enough to win the Democratic Presidential nomination? Of course not, how naive do you think I am? At some point the scuba diver must surface, at some point his Oxygen tank runs out of gas, but it was never meant to be used for the final approach, just to maneuver within range. It’s early folks; it’s still very, very early. Like a guerilla army Clark can afford to travel a little lighter now than the forces of contemporary wisdom are gearing up for. Sure Clark will need Oxygen, but he’ll have more than enough for what he needs at this stage.

Most of Clark’s real strengths from 2004 have been forgotten by the beltway, only his weaknesses are recalled. That too will end up proving useful to Wes Clark’s 2008 campaign. One of the main reasons why Goliath usually loses the fight is because Goliath has a hard time living up to expectations, but not David. David can shatter low expectations with relative ease. So let the pundits remember how Clark muffed his first Press interview, it just sets up the story line of how vastly he’s improved.

I’m slipping back into metaphors again; I can’t stop myself. Since we already have Oxygen in play, let’s mix in some water. Most everyone has heard of a “money stream”, it’s a nice descriptive term. Goliaths are damn builders who depend on their reservoirs, so Davids must be better at living off the land. It’s all but forgotten now, but after entering the race a year late, Wes Clark raised more money in January of 2004 than any other Presidential candidate, and the thing is, though many are prone to assume otherwise, most of that WASN’T Clinton assisted money. Next to Howard Dean, Wes Clark had the smallest average contribution of any Democratic candidate. Wes Clark tapped into multi thousands of supporters willing to write him modest checks.

Ah but this time will be different, the pundits cry. This time will be MUCH more expensive. Most likely that’s true. But something that has not changed is human nature. People want to back a winner, and if a front runner falters, if a dark horse comes on strong, all prior bets are off. So here is the point where it must be said, although Wes Clark is a netroots candidate, his potential appeal is far broader than that. Howard Dean won the abiding loyalty of activist Democrats in each state of the Union, but more traditional Democrats in less Liberal parts were wary of Dean heading up the ticket in their neck of the woods come that November. Ned Lamont, fairly or not, was seen by many mainstream voters as an anti-war protest candidate. Wes Clark is the former NATO Supreme Commander. People are inclined to trust him on national security.

The fact is Wes Clark was welcomed by Democrats to campaign in the reddest districts in the nation during the 2006 mid term Congressional elections. Once Clark gains traction, he can pick up speed very quickly. Come 2008, Wes Clark will have an organizational structure ready in every primary State. He already has a national following. Will Clark’s campaign be as deeply staffed, as early in the game, as one that a Goliath can pay for? Probably not, but someone who lives off the land knows how to travel lighter. It’s a long journey from here to the first primaries, and a self reliant traveler can shoulder a lighter pack. Dehydrated meals are the lightest of all. When the time comes head to a stream and they’ll be ready in no time at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Netroots likes the "truth to power"
Wow, you are right about that. Very well put.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. let me make my question harder
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 03:25 PM by welshTerrier2
Clark did not get the nomination when he ran in 2004 ... what will be different this time?

perhaps it will be different because he has different competition ... will that make his task easier or harder?
perhaps voters are more familiar with him ... my strictly anecdotal evidence tells me most are NOT very familiar with him ...
perhaps because American views on the war have shifted he will become more popular ...
perhaps he will have learned how to campaign more effectively than the last time ...
perhaps he's been building a strong campaign organization ...

i think it would be reasonable to put some hope in any and all of these elements ... my view is that they will NOT suffice ...

if Clark, or any yet-to-announce candidate, merely tosses their hat in the ring, does "little election things", stands up tall and speaks clearly at the debates, etc etc, it will not suffice ... the enemy is far too well endowed with big money and big star power ... something bigger and bolder is needed ... obviously i have my own agenda on the issues but even this may not be sufficient ...

to break into the upper echelon, something dramatic is needed ... i have no idea what that would be ... for starters, i think a bold initiative on Iraq that distinguishes the candidate from the pack is needed ... i think if "all the good little liberals" are congealed around "we can't just win using our military" or "we need diplomacy", it will be tough to wrest the nomination away from those currently at the top of the heap ...

so again, what did not happen the last time that will happen this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Well for starters, he will not skip Iowa
That is actually short hand for a lot of things, starting with not waiting until September before the primaries to actually enter politics. Most focus on the fact that Clark entered the 2004 Presidential race very late, but in reality, Clark was not only late to the race, he was brand new to politics.

Now we talk about the fact that Clark has to build a campaign staff if he declares, and how hard that will be to do at this point in time, but in reality he is already light years ahead of where he was nine months later into the game last time around, because Clark at least already has some political staff who he knows, has worked with, and trusts now, whereas before he had to meet everyone virtually cold even while he was preparing for his first Presidential candidate debate. I guess I am touching on your last two points here, but pointing out also that they miss the point with Clark by a scale of ten. Now Clark actually knows people he can approach to join his campaign first hand, now Clark actually has positions prepared with details ready on a number of issues, now Clark has been through the rough and tumble for three years none stop whereas last time he had never spent a day directly involved in overt partisan politics before in his life.

So going back to my post header, this time Clark will not have to skip Iowa, which proved fatal last time. A huge difference right out of the gate. What allowed McCain to break through in 2000 to become a national political icon was not so much any individual stance he took on any issue, it was his entire political personna that he crafted with his "straight talk express". Of all of the candidates mentioned for 2008, only Dennis Kucinich in my opinion is in Clark's league regarding unvarnished straight talking that comes across to those who hear it as an honest opinion devoid of political spin. I think that will be really important in giving Clark a distinct appeal.

Last time around Clark supporters had to endlessly deal with questions about "Is Clark a Democrat?" I have a link to a news story where Howard Dean is quoted saying that he believed Wes Clark was a Republican and that if Clark won the Democratic nomination than the General Election in November would instead be another Republican Primary. Joe Lieberman made similiar attacks as did the head of Kerry's New Hampshire campaign. I am not so naive as to think none of that crap will come up on the internet this time, but it won't be so blatent as to have the other Democratic candidates themselves challanging Clark's Democratic credentials.

This time Clark supporters will be able to spend more of our time directing people to where Clark can be seen and heard speaking on the issues that matter to people, on a broad range that goes beyond just discussing the situation in middle east. Star power is not a constant nor is it impossible to acquire. Bill Clinton absolutely bombed when he was a Governor who delivered a key note addresse to the National Democratic Party Convention. Now Bill Clinton is considered to be the gold standard for having Democratic Party general charisma.

The world will be regarded by the electorate as a dangerous place come 2008, and this time cowboy swagger won't be enough to cut it when people seek leadership. Clark's prior military career is unique among Democratic contenders, it sets him apart from both Congressional based and State government based contenders for the Presidency. But ultimately it will come down to Clark's ability to seize the imagination of voters. Of all of the candidates not currently ranked in the top tier, Clark is the one best able to do that I believe, once he begins to campaign for himself. I think people will be impressed with Clark's sane and strong positions on a wide range of issues, and they will appreciate his independence from traditional special interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. my dear wt2
I say with no uncertainty or equivocation, your succinct laundry list of "must haves" is critical to the wellbeing of the planet (#1) and in fairness to the Iraqi people (#2, and so as not to reward those that made #1 necessary) and in my mind transcends consideration of the "who" delivers it and that includes my prior personal strident resolution regarding those that voted 'yes' on the IWR.

Peace on earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. thanks, AK!!
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 03:11 PM by welshTerrier2
i am frankly overwhelmed ...

generally, on DU, those not supporting specific candidates live in a world all our own ... when i post "litmus tests" as i did, i generally am attacked from every-which-where by people with all sorts of different agendas ... ultimately, it is We the People who must demand that our representatives represent our views ... even those who strongly support specific candidates should not shy away from this ... if you believe strongly in an issue, you should do all you can to persuade your candidate to get onboard and lead the way ... if we see ourselves as merely selecting a candidate from the available menu, our choices will be much more limited ...

i am frequently presented with arguments that suggest things like "if my candidate did that, he would never win" ... i'm no politician; perhaps they're right ... my view is otherwise, though ... i think a candidate who takes a leap of faith and stops playing it safe, advice they'll never get from their cautious campaign consultants, will soar above the rest of the pack ... frankly, there's no magic among the current front-runners ... if new people are going to join the race, they cannot just sign at the bottom of the existing list ... it will take more than a clever remark in a primary debate or a really cool campaign commercial to propel them up the list; America is hungering for someone with a vision to make this country better with bold new ideas ...

the same old same old of "we need diplomacy" or "we need better schools" or "we have 45 million with no healthcare" or whatever are all critically important ... the problem is, they do little to differentiate one candidate from another ... if that's the case, money and star power will win everytime ...

i hope others on DU, regardless of whom they support, will jump on my "must haves" bandwagon ... some genuinely disagree with me on these two issues ... that's more than legitimate ... i just hope that those who do agree would do all they can to lean on their candidates to lead on the issue ... i'm not saying they should necessarily go as far as i do withholding support or a vote but it would be helpful for them to express their views to their candidates ...

thanks so much for your kind words, AK ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Thank goodness for the Primaries !
I've been supporting my candidate since 2003, so I'm pretty embedded with that campaign anyhow, so, no cheerleading from me :D

Keeping an open mind is healthy! Some issues are more important than other issues to the individuals of this very diverse party called Democrats. Just go with your gut and expand your Big Picture and pick several more issues that are important to you too.

As you've read on DU, there certainly isn't a "perfect" candidate. But I assure you, our field is better than anything the GOP's got! (Though, I'm keeping an eye on Huckabee!).

In the meantime, love and support them all, and be kind to their supporters :hi:

The first Presidential Primary Debates will be held in April...THIS APRIL...let the fun begin!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluehighways911 Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-14-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. I don't Vote on one issue
America has a ton of problems. And if you are basing your vote on how someone talks about the war.

Well, we get another George Bush.

So I will play your little game. Hillary and Edward got us here.

Need I say more, didn't think so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC