I'm a little surprised by Dean's showing. But with the Edwards Kucinich deal it makes sense. I like Dean because he's an outsider to the party and seems to me to be the most electable guy against George W. Bush. I disagree with him on gun control, and few othere things, but I like a lot of his stances. I think for the last month the other candidates have been more specific with what kind of programs and things they support while Dean kind of kept speaking in slogans and broad generalizations, and had it on coast mode. They've also been hammering at Dean pretty hard except for Edwards who has remained issues oriented and stayed away from mudslinging for the most part. Kerry would be my second choice, and I think we'd be lucky to have him as the nominee but I don't know if he could invoke the passion needed to beat Bush. Clark would be my third choice, with Edwards after that. This obviously doesn't mean anybody other than Gephardt is out, and the nominee is far from decided.
One reason mentioned was that Clark's late entry into the race put him behind in organizing a grassroots organization for Iowa which is vital in that particular type of primary <i>vote</i>.
As I understand it, there were several reasons; It has become something of the thing to do, as lately the 'Iowa Bump' has almost dissapeared, and unless something very unexpected happens ( like today for Dean) people generally come into NH the same as they went into Iowa. In a way it seems to have taken on a bigger potential downside than upside. Clark was still a neophyte to the campaign trail when the decision was made, and his people wanted to avoid the possibility of his rushing into it and failing. Dean ( and originally Gerphart, I think...maybe Kerry) were known to have been working really hard, with really good people in Iowa, and Clark's people wanted to concentrate on New Hampshire, thus getting off to a good start. Essentially it was a bit of a gamble, but not a huge one. The potential fear was that the frontrunner, Dean, would kill in Iowa, thus possibly confirming the idea that he was The Man. A second fear was that, in the lead up to Iowa, Clark's novelty and not being involved would erode his support, or simply make him be an afterthought. At the time the decision was made Dean had quite a lead, but Clark was second. I don't think anyone expected this 'drip drip' loss of support Dean has been suffering in the past while. In the end, things couldn;t have worked out better for Clark. His continued national popularity has combined with Dean's loss of same to make it seem to have developed into a neck and neck race between the two without Clark even having to run in Iowa. His name staying in the headlines has also made his absence from Iowa something much discussed, again to his benefit. And now, with this result tonight ( which couldn't have gone better for Clark--Dean losing, and no one else being clear front runner) it would appear that things are shaping up quite well for Clark, who experts say has really polished his campaign skills, and is looking quite good in N.H. If he wins there now, after this result, I'd say he becomes the clear front runner, and without the downtime to really suffer from concerted efforts against him like Dean has endured. I feel a bit bad for Dean, though. I didn;t want him to win...I felt he would be an easier win for Bush, due to the uncertainties which surround him, than someone like Kerry or especially Clark...but he seems like a decent guy, a bright and moral man who has suffered a lot for simply being too popular too early. Never was a guy I got behind, but I can't help feeling for him now.
First, to nyrocket: Tsongas was not the Kucinich. If anything he was the Lieberman, in more ways than one. For one, they both have that sweet nerdy thing going. (Paul Simon did it best.) More importantly though, he ran to the right of Clinton, who succeeded in moving the party significantly to the right himself. Jerry Brown was the Kucinich and he was also the Dean (albeit without the benefit of the internet). I followed the race pretty closely as I ran Brown's Houston campaign. I'd say Dean's done. He's been off message for about a month, focusing on process rather than what got him ahead in the first place. I can hardly blame him. It's hard to be the frontrunner that early -- partly for all that pincushion stuff, yes, but mostly because there's a tendency to defend the lead rather than playing offense which is where he's best. I truly hope I'm wrong. He's the smartest guy out there (though with the least political savvy) and I'd love to see him make a comeback. That said, he's never been worse than he was tonight. I started with Kerry and I'm giving him another look. I hated him for his cowardly Iraq vote (along with Edwards and, especially, Gephardt), but I loved his spirited defense of his regime change comments (complete with b****in Max Cleland reference - Cleland was on stage with him tonight). Then I hated him again, like I have so many Democrats ever since the advent of the DLC, for pandering to an imaginary center and for his desperate and downright stupid Dean bashing (the Confederate flag stuff from Kerry was absolutely disingenuous -- he was playing dumb and he knew it). Dean has been not good but great for Kerry and every other major candidate. They are each better messengers than Dean, as long as they are carrying his message. I like Edwards too. I haven't forgiven his Iraq or Patriot Act votes, but never in my lifetime have I heard a better, smarter, more effective populist argument. He needs a new stump speech soon (or at least some variations), as the Two Americas thing is mentioned every time he's handed a microphone, but it is a good, strong, smart, saleable message. And it will play better with poor whites in the South than any recent Dem pitch (including Clinton's). It also gives poor blacks a reason to go out and vote with enthusiasm, rather than because they have nowhere else to go. I could get behind him too. Clark creeps me out. Like really badly. Personality wise he's Bush without the common touch. He has an annoying propensity for telling incredibly lame jokes and insists on laughing at them when no one else does. He speaks in charmless cliches. And he seriously looks like he has nothing at all behind his eyes. I swear there's nobody home back there. This isn't an issue thing. I acknowledge that. But on the image thing, the guy gives me the serious creeps. He is also, so far anyway, a very weak debater. Kerry and Edwards (and Dean when he's playing to win and not to avoid losing) are miles better. A debate between Bush and Clark would be two guys trying like hell to remember their coaching, and Bush has four years on Clark learning that. Considering how incredibly much smarter than Clark is than Bush, those four years leave them about even. Kerry or Edwards (or, yes, Dean) would give Bush hell in a debate. And if anyone's been cringing at Dean's gaffes, you've either been cringing equally hard at Clark's or you haven't been paying attention. He's learning his domestic positions in Democrat school and he's horrible on his feet. His Iraq war stuff's been downright confusing (keep in mind I really wanted to like and back this guy) and he recently said a woman should be able to have an abortion right up to the moment of birth. Pro-life or pro-choice, that hurts. Worse, I don't even believe he believes it. I believe he's been told to stand strong on important Dem issues and he's sticking to what he imagines to be his script. Coaching only goes so far and Clark doesn't look to have time to make up the steep, steep curve. Note too how often he brackets questionable assertions (like that he's never considered a Clinton endorsement or that he wasn't paying attention to Iowa) with phrases like "honestly," "to tell you the truth" or some other such dodge. Any time someone feels the need to preface a questionable statement with the word "honestly," odds are they're not being honest. Kind of reminds me of the phrase "with all due respect," which generally means with none at all. The less said about Lieberman the better. He should run against Zell Miller for GOP chair. For now I'm leaning toward a Kerry-Edwards ticket, staying open to Edwards in the top spot and not so secretly hoping my boy Dean pulls out the old magic in NH and charms me back. I'm also glad to be in New Mexico for the Feb. 3 excitement. Hopefully I'll have found an apartment in time to make it out to a rally or two. I arrive in Albuquerque (a town where I don't know a soul and where I plan to live for the next few months or maybe a year) tomorrow afternoon. Very big thanks to my pal rimrocker for the useful info. Don't know when I'll be online again after tonight, but I'll look forward to getting back to the BBS and reading you guys' stuff on the campaign.
You guys were posting while I was typing. Both MacBeth and Mango seem to have bought the Clark spin on why he didn't run in Iowa. It's partly true, but the main thing is he wasn't showing well there. Like Lieberman, he dropped out there to avoid a bad showing. MacB: Things couldn't have gone better for Clark? Are you kidding? Tonight was horrible for Clark. He wanted nothing more than a Dean-Clark race and before the recent Kerry and Edwards stuff he was on his way to one. Bob Dole was brutal to Clark tonight (and dead right) when he told him Kerry's surge was horrible news for him. It was almost sad watching Clark try to keep smiling through Dole's indictment. The only reason Clark was seriously viable in this race is that Kerry wasn't. That's over and Kerry's a far stronger candidate when he's on. Thanks to the Dean challenge, he is now. Not Southern enough? Let him travel around with Cleland and the guy whose life he saved. Mark my words: he will outpoll every Democrat (including Clark) AND Bush (if he gets there) among veterans. Still not good enough? Put Edwards or Bob Graham on the ticket. Done and done. And no questions about domestic issues or political novice. Clark's hope was being what Kerry wasn't. Now, at least, Kerry is. And Clark's likely the odd man out. Kerry's already passed him in tonight's NH tracking poll and he's not even campaigning there yet.
What about the medias short memories? For, example, in the next few weeks anything could happen, right? Sometimes I like for the dust to settle. I have a question I've been wanting to ask...if Bush almost got beat by Gore (I wanted McCain or Ralph Nader), of all people. Why would Bush fair any better against a strong canidate like Clark, Edwards or Dean. I'm a swing voter. And I've come out to vote because of Bush (against him).
Batman... How much have you seen of Clark lately? From everything I've heard, the early stiffness and clumsy debating was A) Unusual for him, and B) due mostly to being thrust into the race in midstride, and being unsure of many of his 'positions', and was advised to err on the side of saying too little rather than too much. Many neutral observers I have heard have said that lately he has become much more at ease with the process, and has become the condidate fo choice for Hollywood, the younger demographic etc. partly due to his easy going style and charisma. Certainly his original persona was at odds with everything we heard about him, and his credentials, and these later reports would seem more in line. As a general he was known for being a great speaker, media savvy, and extrelemy sharp on his feet, which was part of the reason for his media employment. I agree that he had something of a deer in the headlights look early on which dissapointed me, but I am hearing and hoping that that was just an understandable result of trying to get on the boat midstream. BTW, sorry about Dean, I know how much you liked him, and I actually thought of you when he lost today. Seems like a straight shooter who cares, a rarity among politicians these days.
Was typing a post to you while you were typing to me...lol... Every pre-Iowa prognosticator was saying that A) the worst thing for Clark would be a clear Dean win, thus seeming to annoint him, and B) the best thing for him would be if a couple of the 'underdogs', they named kerry, Gerphart and Edwards, would finish with or ahead of Dean without one of them being the clear winner. Seems to have gone just that way...but we all know that political predictions are somewhat like weather reports, so i guess we'll have to wait and see. Certainly it will be interesting, and ( sorry CC) I am breathing easier now that Dean eems done. Any of Kerry, Clark or Edwards will be strong against Bush, IMO, although I know the least about Edwards.
batman, here's a good interview with Clark on GLBT issues that made me feel a lot better about him: http://www.houstonvoice.com/2004/1-16/news/national/clark.cfm Houston Voice: The U.S. military policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been criticized by gay civil rights activists. If you are elected president, what would you do with that policy? Wesley Clark: Well, I’ll call in the United States military’s uniformed leaders and the Department of Defense leadership and tell them that we need to get a policy that represents America. I don’t want the armed forces to be the last institution in America that discriminates against people. I believe people should have equal rights. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not working, at least that’s all the indications I get, and furthermore, it’s still discriminatory. So they’ll have to look at policies elsewhere and find other ways to do it. I won’t tell them how to do it. I want them to fix it in a way that’s right for America. Voice: If there’s a resistance like there was under the Clinton administration, would you intervene or just leave it up to the military? Clark: No, you have to lead. You cannot leave it up to the military people. But it’s up to the uniformed military to come up and address the issue, and they’ll have to do it to my satisfaction. Voice: Do you have any thoughts on why there’s more resistance to this change here than in militaries in other places such as Europe, including Great Britain? Clark: Because it’s been politicized in America. One party has attempted to exploit this situation for political advantage. Voice: Do you feel you can remove it from the political arena? Clark: I think I can. Voice: There has been legislation stalled in Congress for more than 20 years that seeks to ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. Do you support that legislation and, if so, do you have a plan to shepherd it through Congress? Clark: I do support that legislation and if I were elected I would have a plan to shepherd it through and get it through Congress. Voice: The Republican Party platform, as of four years ago, strongly opposed the legislation. How would you go about persuading those who don’t agree with it to support it? Clark: You have to build coalitions and you have to work through issues. It’s just a matter of leadership and priorities. I think equal rights is a very high priority in the United States. Voice: One of the impediments to passing this has been conservative Christian groups, such as the Family Research Council, who have said gay civil rights laws should not be passed because they would legitimize homosexuality and threaten family values. What would you say to someone who would urge you to oppose the bill on those grounds? Clark: I’d say that my administration will address real family values: jobs, education, health care, the environment and treating each person equally. Voice: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has issued a decision that many believe requires the state of Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage. What is your position on that issue? Clark: I believe people should have equality and full rights under the law, including the rights to a pension, health insurance, medical leave, bereavement leave, visitation in hospitals, survivor benefits, etc. Voice: Do you have a view on whether this should be part of same-sex marriage? Clark: I think whether it’s called marriage or not is a separate matter. If the state wants to call it marriage, the state should vote on that. If the church wants to call it marriage — or a synagogue — they should vote on that or make that decision. But the important point for me is, legally, people must have equal and full rights under the law. Voice: Do you have a position on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage? Clark: I’m against that. Voice: Do you think this will be used as a wedge issue in the presidential campaign? Clark: Of course it probably will be a wedge issue. We just have to argue against things like that. Voice: Some states have laws that ban lesbians and gay men from adopting children. What is your position on gay adoption? Clark: I think the most important consideration in adoption is to be in a loving home. So I don’t think there should be any bans for adoption based on sexual orientation. Voice: There’s legislation pending in Congress that would provide Social Security survivor benefits for partners in same-sex relationships. Would you support that legislation? Clark: Yes, I support that. Voice: Another bill pending in Congress, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, would allow American citizens to sponsor a same-sex partner from another country seeking immigration rights, in the same way that a married partner can. Do you have a position on this legislation? Clark: I support that. Voice: President Bush has called for greater U.S. funding for global AIDS programs, but some have said the increased international funds have come at the expense of AIDS programs in the U.S. How would you balance treating the AIDS epidemic at home and abroad? Clark: We’re going to, abroad, double the AIDS funding to $30 billion. We’re going to go through the Global Fund rather than doing it on a bilateral basis. We’re going to apply it to all nations that have AIDS problems, not just the states in southern Africa. And we’re going to invite, using the Global Fund, we will actually promote the full development of effective health care systems in those countries. At home, we’re going to increase funding for the Ryan White CARE Act, increase funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and research, and we’re going to make sure low income Americans are not required to become disabled before they’re eligible for Medicaid. Finally, we’re going to make sure we have comprehensive, age appropriate sex education for American students that includes science-based prevention methods. Voice: Some critics in Congress have called for prohibiting federal funds for AIDS prevention programs that discuss gay sexual activity, saying such programs promote homosexuality. Supporters of these programs say frank discussion on this subject is needed to achieve the most effective prevention results. Do you have any thoughts on this? Clark: Exactly. You can’t not talk about a problem you’re trying to correct. We’re not going to gag people, either at home or abroad, on talking about how to do the best job of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. It’s that simple. Voice: President Clinton created a full-time White House staff liaison position to the gay community and issued an annual presidential proclamation commemorating Gay & Lesbian Pride Week. President Bush abolished this staff position and discontinued issuing the Gay Pride proclamations. What would you do concerning a gay liaison position and the Pride proclamations? Clark: We’ll find some appropriate way— I haven’t really looked at the White House staff. Yes, I will find some appropriate way to make sure we have continuous effective liaison with the gay and lesbian, bisexual and transsexual community. We’ll also recognize the Gay Pride activities in the appropriate ways. Voice: Do you have any message for gays on why they should vote for you rather than one of the other Democratic presidential candidates, who have also expressed support for gay civil rights? Clark: Well, I want to bring a higher standard of leadership to America. Leadership is directed at America as a whole, not for special interests, leadership that looks to the next generation, not just the next election cycle, leadership that gives specific, measurable goals to be held accountable and leadership that works to pull people together in this country. Gay issues brought up at ‘every other stop’ Voice: Has the issue of gay rights come up much in the campaign other than in the official debates? Clark: It comes up relatively frequently. I’d say at least every other stop someone will ask about it. It’s an important issue. People are concerned about it. They’re concerned about it, obviously, if they’re part of the GLBT community. But they’re also concerned if they’re not, because it indicates attitudes and how people are treated and respected in America. And I think certainly everybody in the Democratic Party, but I think people across the spectrum, want to see other people treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. It hurts us all when that doesn’t happen. Voice: Since you’ve articulated your views on the issue of gays in the military on the campaign trail, have you received any feedback on this from your former military colleagues and, if so, would you consider sharing what they said? Clark: Well, I’m not really talking to my former military colleagues. I can’t. I mean the people that are still in the military. The retirees— no, I haven’t gotten any feedback on it. I haven’t asked for it. I haven’t sought it. I think that most of them, when they’re out, the retired generals and colonels that I know, when they get out and they reflect back on it, I think most of them are ashamed that our military hasn’t done a better job of standing up for the rights of every single serving soldier. Voice: What about the argument that military leaders have used to support the current policy — that allowing gays to serve openly would destroy unit cohesion in the military, which they say is so necessary? Clark: I think there was some of that out there. I had soldiers tell me that. But I also think that a lot of the resistance was drummed up by the politics. And I think that over the last eight years attitudes have changed. How much the politics of it are going to stir up trouble, I don’t know, I can’t be sure. But this is a military that is already under profound stress. This campaign in Iraq, especially for the United States Army, is exerting — this is the greatest stress in the history of the volunteer force. And we just don’t know what’s going to happen. Voice: Is there anything else you’d like to talk about that we haven’t discussed? Clark: I’m very happy to talk with you and appreciate the questions you’ve asked. I’m running for a stronger, higher standard of leadership for America. That’s what I’d like you to convey to your readers.
MacBeth: Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm fine. If Dean comes back (not in the polls or the primaries, but for real), I'll be happy. But he's not my brother or anything. I liked him cause he was right and he was kicking ass. He stopped doing that and my enthusiasm waned. If you'll remember, while I've always had a soft spot for Dean, I was originally with Kerry. I've seen tons of Clark lately. On the Daily Show, the Tonight Show, Bill Maher's thing and plenty on C-SPAN. (I've been in a lot of motels lately with nothing but cable or internet to keep me busy.) If you check old posts, no one touted a potential Clark candidacy harder than I did. And I think he's awful. I keep trying to like him and he keeps disappointing me. Not a little, but a lot. I still hope he'll prove me wrong -- we have far too few inspirational Democrats and less still with military credentials -- but as of today I'd be more comfortable with any other major contender than I would with Clark. By a mile. He doesn't just strike me as a bad campaigner. He's not even a guy I'd want to get a beer with, as the saying goes. And if you know me at all, you know I'd get a beer with just about anybody. If I got one with Clark and had to go pee I'd be scared he'd drop something in my drink. He is that creepy to me. Did you see my second post above, by the way? I'd like to hear your response to the good news for Kerry being the worst possible news for Clark. Since it is.
1) Re: short memory...One of the things about the current system is that as soon as one primary is over, the focus shifts to the next one...In fact it has become a joke that condidates will try and make victory speeches before the results are in to try and capitalize on what little screen time they have left. 2) There are several factors which are strongly in Bush's favor going into this election which weren;t in place last time; 1) The war. Also strongest factor against him, but as, to a large degree, the war debate has for a while seemed to be an argument of the US vs. Everyone Else, to vote against Bush at this point, irrespective of the right or wrong of the issue will seem like many Americans to be a vote against America... 2) Also many Americans support the war, so long as we win. Remember that the moral ills of Vietnam didn't come home to oost until it became apparemnt we also weren't winning. The fact that, despite all seeming common sense, Bush's popularity got a huge spike when an already out of power Saddam was finally caught speaks volumes about how many voters make their decisions on this matter. 3) Ironoically, the Great Uniter might well benefit from the fact that the nation has never been this divided. What's more, the conservative wing is much more in step with each other than the liberal wing, which makes for a strong base of support. 4) Generally speaking, incombents gain some prestige. 5) Lastly...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If Dean doesn't win, it wont matter. I thought that he gave the Democratic party a boost. At least he brough up a lot of issues that the others were afraid to say. He's still in the race.
What do you think the chances are of Dean pulling a Nader and going 3rd party on us? He's got the cash.
outlaw: Good interview. I think you could count on the same from Kerry or Edwards or Dean, but still good. I'm totally impressed by Clark in print. He's extremely intelligent. Still comes off as not only creepy but kind of dumb on TV. To me anyway. JAG: Missed yours the same way. Those pundits didn't count on Kerry coming from way down to way ahead in a few days. He has the Big Mo. The reason they were saying it'd be good for someone else to slow Dean is so that he could show up as the most viable alternative. His whole strength over the last few weeks was that he was the best anti-Dean. That particular strength is now completely dead by any standard (there are now three anti-Deans and, moreover, an anti-Dean is no longer even necessary -- it's a wide open race). After that, he's got several weaknesses (none of them exposed by scrutiny yet) and only two strengths: military, Southern. Kerry's got one, Edwards the other. And, I repeat, they're both better campaigners, better politicians, better on the issues and better in debates than Clark can hope to be by the general election. And... he's creepy.
Zero. If the other guys weren't picking up every single one of his issues, then maybe five percent. Since they are, zero. If somebody was gonna pull a Nader, by the way, I'd rather it was Jerry Brown. I liked him better. But he's not gonna do it either. I wouldn't count on Nader to do it either.
There is a line of thinking that the incumbent has an advantage over a challenger. And often, that incumbency extends to the VP running to succeed the outgoing President, though that VP often does not have the same level of incubent advantage as a person who is running as the sitting President. There would also be a great deal of disagreement on what makes a strong candidate.
mrpaige: My respected colleague from across the aisle... Have you been following the primary race? (I trust you have.) Would you be willing to handicap the Dems in a race against Bush? I'd be interested in your take.
Agreed...but as we were so alone in the pre-war arguemtn...not to metnion arrogant...many Americans became entrenched in the belief that, as usual, We Are Right, They're All Wrong. This is one of, IMO, the strongest reasons many are still unwilling to admit many things which have become patently obvious. To admit we were wrong and everyone else was right is not something Americans are noted for being fond of doing. It's interesting that, while the original lessons we took from Vietnam were about just causes for war, etc., over the long haul the greater lesson seems to have become " Always Support Our Wars!"...because following Nam, Watergate, etc. we experienced a period of national insecurity, and since Reagan convinced us once again that we are better than everyone else, most don't want to do anything that will risk going backwards in that regard. This also explains why, despite all kinds of documented examples to the contrary, such as Watergate, and all it uncovered, when anyone suggest ulterior motives for actions like the war, many just roll their eyes and sound off about conspiracy theorists, the assumption being, I suppose, that American President just wouldn't do that kind of thing...and when all the original reasons start to one by one fall by the wayside, these same people will continue to cling to the idea that, whatever our reason was, it had to be noble in conception.
