The one thing he's got going for him that no other Dems have (Kerry included, his Vietnam stint notwithstanding) is that he has credibility on national security issues; in particular, no other Dem would be able to even think about challenging Bush on the War on Terror issue, which, like it or not, is going to be a huge factor in the next campaign. Having fought Kosovo so successfully (it helps to have a recent war that everyone remembers as very successful), and several decades of military service, he could speak on such issues as no other Dem candidates could. He might even be able to steal a few conservatives (it is the national security issues that make him somewhat centrist) - something any Dem would have to do to win, since Ralph is going to steal some Dem votes...
true treeman. if this guy has the message, let's hope that he finds a mgr that can actually get him the money (bill makes 10M per these days, maybe he can smuggle it into Clark's coffers. ) treeman, what is your intuition about other people in the armed services? Would they vote for Clark? I've spoken to some of the vietnam vets re: Bush's service... and the people I spoke to weren't too keen on his awol... but then it seems as if most servicemen vote for the republican party anyway. Maybe it's a generational thing... ie Vietnam war vs today's military. Republicans have the reputation for being tough... but all of the tough talking republicans seem to take deferrals back in the 70s... and then people like Kerry look like they joined the peace movement when they came home (maybe 3 purple hearts do that to a guy). It amazes me that the republican party gets respect re: national security, since the guys that actually get elected are dodgers. weird. Maybe the theory is "those who go to war, are to hesitant to fight subsequent wars"??? I don't get it. Is it a $$$ thing? A case of who gave you your latest raise?
Achebe, How willing are the Democrats to unite behind a moderate such as Clark? Some on the BBS have expressed sentiment that the Democrats have been too close to the center and need to move to the left to recapture their true nature. Yet, move too far to the left and it becomes difficult to capture the moderate swing vote that Clark has a chance of pulling in. Does pragmatism overrule the urge to move to the left?
It would with this Democrat. If Clark's stand on other issues that are of concern to most Democrats, as well as many Independents... issues like moderate court appointments, curbing the erosion of personal liberties, having tax relief skew towards the Middle Class and not so overwhelmingly towards the highest incomes of the population and large corporations, balancing the budget before giving out huge tax reductions in the first place (and this is all just my opinion, of course)... and so on and so on... then yes. If his stand on the issues is more moderate and centrist than my own, I would still prefer that to the alternative. What we have now.
hey, mango. imo, it remains to be seen what sort of candidate Clark will be... but I don't think he'll do well in Iowa or New Hampshire unless he is simply a much better candidate than Kerry. The Boston Globe wrote that Kerry was due either a medal or a court martial b/c of his valor in Vietnam (ie storming beaches, slaughtering people, etc.). If that's true, then I'm not sure how far Clark's schtick will propel him. If Kerry fills the tough guy role, then will Clark's career mean much? It also seems as if we'll see Kerry get deconstructed over these next few mos... don't you think the admin will just paint him as a ne liberal? Kerry has a strong point (for supporting him), in that we won last time around w/o a single southern state (fla. isn't in the south). But more importantly, if he's a coherent guy that can fight back, then that bs about "liberal" being a curse word won't mean much anymore. Dukakis, in his own words, attributes his demise in 88 on the fact that he didn't fight back. and of course portions of the party blame that habit (of not standing up for themselves and being 'sassy') for the demonization of the liberal portion of the party. At the end of the day, (whoa, i'm back in self important mode where I spiel alot about things that I don't know anything about) I figure if people trust the person talking to them, that candidate will gain a bit of respect from said voter. If the candidate has a better argument (and don't most voters trust the demos w/ more things than they do the repubs) then we're set. Now if only Gore hadn't been a tweak. But also, anything that a democrat says, compared to this adminstration, is going to sound liberal. I bet new hampshire liberals would be excited if Lieberman pledged to only overthrow muslim theocracies in months ending w/ the letter 'y'.
Achebe, wouldn't worry bout our guy sounding like a liberal. Compared to this administration David Duke sounds like a liberal. The Democrats need a guy who, after all these stupid years, can call bull**** on liberal being a dirty word. The vast majority of Americans are liberal on almost every issue, whether they characterize it that way or not. And Dukakis can spin all he wants -- it's his fault first and the DLC's second that we liberals can't use our words proudly like our counterparts do. But we can't. Dukakis and the DLC. They lied down and held back their knees. If Kerry stands up, if Clark does (frankly, in my opinion, if Dean does - but he doesn't have the same military creds), if they actually stand up and say people who believe in the compassionate conservatism bumper sticker crap are sheep who fail their countrymen, that stupid 'liberal' thing'll be over. We'll see if even one of them has a pair. That said... Mango, that's right. Most thinking people in this country couldn't care less if it's a true Dem or a fake one. They just want to live in a free country again that isn't hated the world over. Some of them are scared of another 9/11 and some of them just liked it better living in America. Show em a winner and watch em rally. Some of us guys would vote for LaRouche if it came down to it.
Wesley Clark is exactly what the Democrats don't need. I was disposed to like him. A moderate Rhode Scholar who didn't go awol on his military service would be a nice change from Bush. However, I saw an interview where Clark was refusing to even solidly declare himself a Democrat. We don't need those types in the Democratic Pary. No thanks. Let him run in the Republican Primary against Bush. He could question Bush's military credentials or lack thereof. Of course he could destroy the frat boy in debating issues, too.
Glynch, buddy...this is not good. My biggest problem with the American political situation is that too many don't think in terms of what's best for the country, but rather what's best for The Party, and/or what's worst for The Other Party. If CLark is the best guy out there...if he's the best candidate for President, then why would you reject him just because he's not a died in the wool Democrat? Is towing the Party Line really more important than being the best man for the job? At a time where we have become so ridiculously partisan that the real issues get lost in a wave of entrenched countering positions (often an inch apart), maybe a guy who doesn't make decisions based on S.O.P. is exactly what we need...and by we I mean all of us, not just the ones with the right buttons on.
