A thought about Wes Clark's 2004 voters (Blue dog appeal?)

I supported Clark in 2004. He was, and remains, quite popular on DU. But neither DU or I are reliable bellwethers. His support may have been more conservative-dem than we would guess.

It would be very interesting to know what percentage of 2004 Clark supporters are in the 12-18% of Dems not currently on board with Obama. If it were shown that Clarkies (outside the net-roots and Michal Moore) were a tougher group for Obama than Hillary supporters are, I wouldn't be utterly shocked.

Some Clarkies were probably conservative Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson type Dems attracted by the uniform. The only state Clark won was Oklahoma. Supported the flag burning amendment, etc.

So he may represent an idealogical party-unity factor that we are not well positioned to see. That's why campaigns spend money on polls and focus groups.

(That said, I still think he would be a poor VP pick because he's such a terrible politician and inadvertent loose canon, but I love the guy so I wouldn't kick too hard.)

__________________

ON EDIT: This is a generally pro-Clark post, saying he might have specific appeal to current Dem-defectors. Not all non-Obama Dems can be dismissed as racist cranks. There really is a socially liberal, national security conservative group of Dems and Dem leaning Indys that is exactly who would vote the straight Dem ticket but vote for McCain at the top.

by a dedication to truth and reasoned analysis that sometimes causes him to put his foot in it. It being the business of the MSM to conceal truth and distort analysis on behalf of the corporatocracy, he plays right into their hands. Not his fault.

The WP's misquote of Obama is of of the many cases in point. Democrats can't open their mouths without playing right into their hands. The MSM tries to make it look as if a Dem has put his/her foot in it, because god forbid the ugly truth gets out there. In spite of this, Clark stands his ground, and we need that.

Clark did incredibly well in the SW and is / was quite popular with independents. The Clinton voters who are not on board are never going to be on board. We take the indies and McCain is DONE. I think Clark is the perfect VP for Obama. Nice balance.

And as for the lose cannon thing... I have no idea what you're talking about, but there is NO way he is nearly as bad as John McCain.

You are confusing a couple of hundred crack-pots given free TV time by troublemakers with the breadth if Hillary's primary support.

The Democratic party has a good sized traditional national-security cohort. That group went disproportionately for Hillary, but that doesn't mean they were Hillary fanatics. They just trusted her more on national security than Obama.

Unless you recognize that a person might have sincere (however misguided) apprehension about Obama on security matters you are sure to misread the nature of the hold-out Dems. Obama is, by any measure, the least experienced national candidate in a century. That genuinely unsettles some voters. You can disagree with their view, but it doesn't aid political understanding to think of them as fanatically anti-Obama.

Not every Dem who might vote for McCain is a white supremacist. Much of that same group would have gladly voted for Colin Powell if he had run as a Dem.

There are pro-military non-racist voters among the hold-out Dems and in the group I call Tom Clancy Independents. (Think of where Jim Webb was eight years ago.)

And I'd rather think of the indies than the other 15%. But even so... Clark beats Hillary hands down on security matters, so I still dont understand how he's not a great choice.

Are you talking about Hillary voters or are you talking about independents... because they're two completely different voting blocs.

and on edit: What Clark cant get is in Dem #'s he can certainly pull with indies. Clark as VP cant lose.

Dems are much more numerous than pugs these days. 15% of Dems is a ginormous bloc of voters, and the point of the OP is that the DU mode of having written off that 15% as simply racists is a miscalculation. The same 15% had qualms about Kerry who is very white.

There is a conservative national security cohort in the Dem party. They are exactly who McCain is poaching, and some were probably Clarkies in 2004.

The implication is that Clark could be as much a unity pick as Hillary among the missing 15%. And Clark is a good choice for Indys also.

Thanks for clearing me up! :hi:

if someone called me a socialist, i'd take it as a big compliment.

i very strongly supported Clark in 2004 and was hoping he would run in 2008.

if Wes is selected, I will become more involved in the campaign.

I don't agree with Clark on everything, but he is fundamentally a very good decent honest person, also very smart and patriotic. He's my idea of a true leader.

That's the beauty of Wes, he is able to attract people across the spectrum, from conservatives to liberals. Hippies to former generals. Young people to elderly. He has a very diverse base.

Yee hah.

the right kind of loose canon, IMHO. We desperately need people with his integrity and sense of justice. .

Obama is obviously the more talented politician. But what drew me to both of them was they are critical thinkers. Most of the time they talk to the issues rather than the sound bite. I actually think they would be a good fit.

:rofl:

Terrible politician:

:rofl:


Secondly, I'm very liberal and was a supporter since the Draft Clark days. Clark was the only 2004 candidate to say on national TV that he is a liberal; however, as luck would have it, he's also Southern and former military, which attracts independent voters in swing states. Gotta love those liberals who folks view as moderate (rather than those moderates who folks view as liberal - those don't win).

When Clark got in an argument on Bill Mahr's Real Time about how strict muslim women actually like the buhrka it was a classic example of something that is 1) probably true, and 2) political malpractice.

A gaffe is well defined as accidentally telling the truth. I admire Clark's gaffes because I admire the truth and critical non-polar thinking, but what I admire is about the worst possible indicator of political value.

I am not discussing his worth as a man (very high!) but as a practical politician.

yes, some Muslim women like wearing the buhrka, and I support their right to do so. I didn't see that segment on Real Time, and am hearing it for the first time here. Good on you, Wes!

I thought Wes was absolutely right, although the discussion didn't go well.

Naturally most Americans not brought up in an Islamic family or culture are going to assume the burkha is experienced by the women wearing it as oppressive... it takes sensitivity and objectivity to realize that our perceptions are not necessarily true for everybody. Of course, he was kind of steamrolled by the others on the panel who thought he was being an apologist for oppressive customs. It was infuriating because he wasn't saying that women SHOULD be hidden behind the burkha, only that some women feel more comfortable wearing it. Which is patently true--if there'd been a Muslim woman on the panel (or anybody familiar with the customs of other countries) instead of Bill Maher flapping his gums, the discussion could have been pretty interesting.

I was thinking, "Damn, it's like there was a contest to find a position that would upset everyone."

If you true to think about the world as it is you sometimes end up lonely.

I thought it was as true and courageous as Mahr's 2001 comment that suicide bombers are, by definition, not cowards... a simple truth can piss off everyone.

any Democrat.

We can't chose milquetoast candidates simply because we think the media may turn a truthful and innocuous statement into the stuff of "loose cannon" yore.

Still. I hope he's the vp. 2 smart people who can see the world as it is rather than what they wish it would be, after the last 8 years, is just what the proverbial Dr. ordered.

countered by Clark. He is a no-nonsense leader, with important experience under stress. In addition Clark is extremely fit and handsome, which doesn't hurt and from the South. In addition, Clark would probably get in all the laggard Hillary supporters, since he was a backer of Clinton.

if it's not him. Because dammit, now I'm excited and hopeful that it WILL be him.

I agree with every word of your post. I wish I could go back to not really caring who it is, but the horse has exited the barn.

to get excited....even though I do have 3 Obama signs sitting in my room that I got from our Co. Fair, this past week-end(to aggravate a rep neighbor)...I have been waiting, waiting...and not even allowing myself to hope he would pick Wes...If he does...I am going to go straight up I tell you...the whole neighborhood will hear the screams...meanwhile....in between now and then....I will have to try to keep my bp level on an even keel and stifle the excitement I am beginning to feel...IF he picks Wes...it's nothing short of genius, for more than one reason...wb

That's all.

with a relatively small segment of the voting population, many of whom apparently post on DU. I suspect that, despite his 2004 run, he actually has very little name recognition with the general public. Not that that has stopped other VP nominations in the past, I admit.

It just feels like all the Clark supporters are focused very narrowly on the idea that the VP needs to be a military guy. Why?

But no matter who the VP nominee turns out to be, I will be voting for Obama and his running mate in November.

General Clark has worked at OMB, holds a masters in economics, and is director of wind-energy company. I worked hard for Clark in 04, because as a teacher, he really gets it. Narrowing Clark to his four stars, doesn't begin to understand who he is. Besides, I find the truth rather refreshing.

However, whenever a name is discussed for VP, the first thing mentioned is foreign policy or the lack of it. Now I'm a bit of a stickler on this foreign policy stuff. It seems to me that someone has to earn those creds. Getting wrong consistently isn't the answer. We're in the middle of two wars with a third one on the burner. I'm looking for someone who sees that force, force, and more force isn't going to solve our problems.