Democrats & Liberals: Archives

If history is any indicator, then a former military leader as president will only do more harm than good for the Democratic Party.

I think it’s the fake former military guys we should worry about. But hey, if Clark was elected and turned out to be a bad president, I would rail against him as much as I do against Bush.

True, but how does this work for Hillary? I mean she has thought about it, say Gen Clark is successful, that would put her 8 years out? Can she wait that long?

God I swear the GOP is still obscessed with Hillary. SHE IS STILL THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK AND SHE SAID SHE IS NOT GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 ABOUT 20 TIMES! Same thing with Gore. MOVE ON!

Not following you Postman. Were you hinting about JFK? He would have been re-elected if the CIA had not killed him.

I think it will be interesting to see Clark lay out his domesitic policy. He might only be in this for a VP position.

Clark is a joke, and I am absolutely outraged the media are running with this proposed candidacy so as to bury John Edwards’ formal announcement.

Don’t think this isn’t a concerted attempt by the media to undercut the strongest candidate in the Democratic field, and the only one who can beat Bush.

Maybe supporters of other Democratic candidates don’t see this move for what it is, but the Republicans sure know it.

Susan,

Any substantial arguments as to why he’s a joke? The guy has amazing credentials as far as I can see and I enjoy the fact that he DOESN’T have any Senate/Governor type qualifications. He *does* have political knowledge though, given his various NATO credentials.

—Joe

Color me impressed. Clark seems to have the right ideas, and I agree that a four star General, especially one with his resume and moral compass would trounce Bush if he tried to play his patriotism card. I’d pay top dollar just to see Clark debate Bush (see also, “run circles around”).

The FAQ link is great too. Wonderful quotes in there. There are some positions that I don’t see eye to eye with Clark on, but on those issues he has provided reasons for his position. Which is more than I can say for any position Bush has taken.

I think it just became a two man race for the Democrat nomination. I got a feeling that Clark is going to surge and rival Dean. But Clark’s support is going to come from the other 8 candidates and the undecided Democrat voters.

Susan, Edwards screwed the party when he voted for the oil war and when he left his Senate seat.

If Dean wins the DNC nomination then the Bush campaign will paint him as an unpopular leftist and liberal. The same thing cannot be said about Clark, whose credentials and policies are far better than Dean’s. I really like what Dean has done so early with the grassroots and Internet campaigning but what it boils down to is: can he win the DNC nomination and if he does, can he escape the GOP’s media-controlling paintbrush of misinformation?

I believe that Clark can and that Dean cannot. On the foreign policy issue alone, Clark outshines them all and those qualifications alone are enough to swing my support to him.

The only people who DON’T want to see Clark win the nomination are the Republicans. They are SCARED TO DEATH of Clark.

Jake, you probably mean the hardcore Republicans (hi Bennett and pete). I considered myself a Republican until the fiasco in Florida (I voted for McCain in the primary, but Gore in the general elections). I think a lot of it has to do with the shame that Clinton brought on the White House, but people are realizing that just because you’re moral with your family doesn’t mean you’re a good president (and vice versa). I think Clark could hit the right chord by reaching out to those who think Clinton and Bush were both crummy presidents.

You know Stephen, Clinton is not running in 2004 and he was not running in 2000

Hillary and Hubbie are working behind the scenes to assist Gen. Clark as alluded to on Capital Report this evening. This would indicate that Hillary is less committed to her own presidential run than to a Democratic win in 2004.

I don’t have anything against Clark but I’d no more vote for someone with absolutely NO governing experience than I would vote for, well…GWBush. I think it’s absurd to compare Clark’s background - however impressive it may be - with others in the field who have answered to constituents, drafted and passed legislation and successfully run a political campaign.

Clark might make an okay VP candidate but the White House is no place for on-the-job training in how to govern. I’m not saying all presidents must be career politicians - but elected office of some kind should be a minimum requirement.

He was commander of NATO that is hardly “no experience” I am still supporting Dean at this point but I think Clark is much more qualified than Bush.

So 9thwave you would be calling Presidents Grant and Eisenhower not fit for office by those rules. Not to mention ARRRnold

Oh I forgot President Washington.

As I blogged about weeks ago, Clark is NOT attempting to get the nomination, he just wants to be VP.

He brings foreign policy legitimacy (as dubious as his record may be), and that will help a candidate like Dean, should he hold off the other candidates.

I learned much about Gen. Clark, I had not known by reading this article.

Of all that I read, one fact is most impressive to me and may justify my return to voting Democrat in 2004, for Gen. Clark specifically. That one fact is that the General is a generalist. His educational background in Philosophy, politics, and economics reflects an ability to think and seek wholistic solutions to complicated problems. His military background gives him expertise in strategy and tactics. This combination of wholistic thinking and expertise in strategy and tactics, could make him the most formidable and effective president of all the choices out there.

He may be the only candidate capable of dealing with the coming Perfect Economic Storm.

Jake - I said “no governing experience.” And while NATO is a formidable intergovernmental agency, it’s not an elected office. And it’s funny that you’d mention all three presidents that were elected to the highest office of the land following military conflicts that caused widespread fear among the American public - it seems we need a military leader to calm us down, historically speaking. So I’m skeptical.

Grant and Eisenhower were mediocre presidents at best (although I’m being kind to Grant whose tenure as president is consistently ranked as among the worst in such ratings — though personality-wise I consider Grant among my favorites).

And Washington really is in a class by himself. He wouldn’t let them make him king, despite repeated efforts. That quality is always found in the best leaders. And is truly rare.

I haven’t figured out who among the 10 has the best leadership qualities. But I don’t think Clark is as anti-war as the press has made him out to be. So I have my doubts about Clark and just think that commanding a military force is a far cry from leading a nation.

Clark energizes the race for the Dems in some very interesting ways. Despite not openly campaigning for the presidential nomination, I think Dems will begging clamoring for him to do so to counter the arguments against Dean and Kerry.

A good moderate candidate who tempers the Republican arguments right out of the box. Reminds me of Clinton’s argument against Bush, about the Democrats being soft on the death penalty. His response: “The Republicans may talk about the death penalty. But I’ve actually applied the death penalty.”

Clark would be a nice antidote to National Guard Flier Bush.

9thwave, nearly all generals are anti-war. It’s their ability to lead when war comes that distinguishes them from others. Clark’s leadership during his NATO years helps give him the experience in the mixture of war/politics that is needed in these days of the war on terror.

Had some trouble with the Clark FAQ’s, and now they are down. Anyone else getting in?

****** SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM ******
Cool site! Check out my new blog, Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope - The Great Grassroots Campaign. Also, check out my Dean stores, The Great Grassroots Campaign and You Have The Power. The proceeds from the shop will be given to the new Generation Dean chapter on campus. If you feel like linking to any of the sites I gave you, I’d be happy to add a link to your site on my blog. Keep up the good work with your site.
****** SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM ******

I have read extensively over the last few days (as time permitted) about General Clark, and I am impressed by what he has to say. Unlike Grant and Ike, Gen Clark is intelligent, well educated, very articulate; is a visionary, and seems to have common sense; all traits I hasten to add that Bush is not equipped with.

I will keep an eye on his candidacy and positions on the issues and make up my mind with the New Year as to whether or not to throw my support behind him.

Edward what are you talking about? Ike was the best Republican president we ever had. My grandparents are Democrat and they still have nothing but praise for President Eisenhower.

It will be interesting to see how Clark lays out his policiy and how it effects the other 9 Democrats. I am thinking about supporting both Clark and Dean once Clark tells us his positions and plan.

Clark is the least impressive of the Democrats from the standpoint of personal charisma and the ability to connect with an audience; he makes Al Gore look warm by comparison. He’s in the race at Hillary’s bidding, to serve as her placeholder and proxy, to be a demonstration of her influence over the party and to be a sacrificial lamb in a November election she doesn’t believe she can win herself. So he runs at her bidding to fill time while she gears up to make a serious run for the nomination in 2008. She’s not dumb, and she knows her best shot is to run when the presidency is an open seat and the Reeps have to heir apparent as Cheney clearly isn’t running himself in 2008.

If circumstances radically change and it appears that Bush is really vulnerable in 2004 - a last minute terror attack and the economy starts going the other way - he’s a loyal soldier who’ll step out of the way and let her take the nomination herself.

She’s going to serve as his campaign co-chair, and her people will run his campaign.

He may win the nomination — Dean will probably melt down like McCain, victim of his over-heated rhetoric — but he can’t win a general election because he’s too bland, too weak, and too naive.

Richard did you watch Clark’s speech today? I did and the crowd loved him. He was a good speaker and the ticket is now a two person race. Dean and Clark.

God what does Hillary have to do to convince people that she is not going to run in 2004 and she is not trying to sabatoge the race for 2008. How many hours a day do you devote to hating Hillary Clinton?

See this is why i don’t bother commenting anymore. This is just a Democrat love fest and we conservatives are totally outnumbered….even over on the conservative blog. There is just so much hate for Bush that Liberals are losing thier minds. I enjoy reading the lunacy but I don’t even read Jake’s site anymore because of this stuff.
I even had an editor personally email me and make racist statements and call me a bunch of names. It is just pointless.

I don’t think Hillary! is trying to sabotage the 2004 race for the Dems - she just doesn’t think it’s winnable, and that’s why she’s not in it herself. She’s the head of the Democratic Party now, so it makes sense to watch her, even for those of us who don’t hate. I think she’s sad, but I don’t hate her; hate is more a left-wing thing than a centrist thing, after all.

What’s sad is that Republicans simply cannot get over the Hilary thing. It’s like a mother complex to them—it all boils down to Hilary. Or, more to the point, the Clintons.

Republicans never understood the Clintons, were continually wrong about them when they were in the White House, and are like guys continuing to plug their nickles into the slots, knowing that with all those losing pulls the next one just has to be right.

“Republicans never understood the Clintons, were continually wrong about them when they were in the White House”
Do you mean Republicans like Dick Morris?
Clinton’s advisor and current contributor to Fox News?
I can tell you that we do understand the Clinton’s….and the Democrats. That is why we control ALL three houses of government.
The problem with your “logic” is that you guys think you are in control, even though you are, quite obviously, out of touch with mainstream America. This is why you will continue to lose.
Keep supporting the wannabe’s. It is working for us very well.

Damn! All that I have to do now is plot new ways to steal social security funding from old folks and retarded children! I am bristling with evil thoughts AS WE SPEAK!!!!
Now where did I put that crackpipe?

The Left may not have the support of the majority of the people, Pete, but they have the support of all the really virtuous people. Just ask them.

Pete and Richard,
Ya’ll are amazing. Still trying to hide the fact that Gore got the popular vote majority in 2000 with blatantly false statements like those about a main stream America being conservative…

History shows politics between left and right swings like a pendulum — if the polls are any indication, the pendulum is on the downswing in the other direction —

Gore did not get a majority of the popular vote in 2000, Remer.

Look it up.

And by the way - Gore’s a centrist, not the kind of fire-breathing radical leftist I was talking about.

Bull! Gore got a majority of the popular vote.

Let’s look at the numbers.

Gore got: 50,999,897
and Bush got: 50,456,002

Last time I checked 50,999,897 > 50,456,002

I know the GOP is know for some Fuzzy math from time to time. Bush calles them revision historians.

Ten percent is greater than nine percent, but it’s not a majority. Since Gore’s total was less than 50% of votes cast, the term you’re looking for is “plurality”, which doesn’t quite make the point Remer sought to make.

Try again, Jake.

Richard, your semantic analysis is correct. I still fail to see the validity of the argument that the majority of mainstream America is conservative in the face of Gore’s plurality victory over Bush. Let us not forget that 49% of eligible voters did not vote. How do you factor them into the “mainstream America is conservative” argument?

I didn’t say that mainstream America is conservative, I said it’s centrist, which is almost true by definition. The country has shifted slightly to the right in the past decade, according to all the major indicators: federal elections, state and local elections, and the emergence of the DLC as the dominant power in the Democratic Party. Republicans are certainly dominant in national politics at the moment, but not my much; moderates of both parties, however, have more power than extremists.

I don’t base any of this analysis on people who don’t vote, as I have no more insight into their thinking than the man in the moon, and I don’t draw much significance from Bush v. Gore. Gore is a centrist candidate with views scarcely different from Bush’s on most issues, and the only real left-winger in the 2000 election was Nader, and guy who didn’t fare too well.

Clark has a lot of Dems paying attention because he, like Gore and Clinton, is a pro-business, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-tax cut centrist Democrat and not a fire-breathing radical like Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich, Moseley Brau, etc, etc, etc.

Jake,

I’ve deleted one of your comments as well as modified another for profanity. Please keep the debate intelligent, otherwise I’ll be left no other choice but to disable comments.

Richard, I think you’re correct with your centrist comments. The Washington Poll post I talked about reflected that a majority of Americans are grouped in the middle with some slanting slightly left and some slanting slightly right.

I’d also agree that Clark is definitely not a bleeding heart Democrat, which is why I liked him so much.

—Joe

There is no chance in the world that Howard Dean can beat George Bush…the economy is slowly starting to recover and the American people by and large SUPPORT George W Bush.

Comparing Dean to Clinton is ridiculaous, considering that Clinton was a Southerner, was viewed as a Moderate Democrat, and relied largely on Ross Perot to draw votes away from Bush Senior.

Howard Dean is going to lose in a landlside against Bush…mark my words. I’m going all out for Wesley Clark.

In response to Dan (and your silmilar albeit misplaced commment in the Saddam/911 thread):

I am so sick of hearing how Dean is “too far left to be electable.”

or as you state:
“Comparing Dean to Clinton is ridiculaous, considering that Clinton was a Southerner, was viewed as a Moderate Democrat..”

The key wored being “viewed”- Deans opponents are taking the “too-far left” thing and running with it when its painfully obvious that he is farther right than almost all the other dem candidates if you actually look at the issues. He has governed as a fiscal conservative, he is for gun-rights, and his stance on the middle-east is a bit flip-floppy, but he has always backed Isreal’s right to exist. He is only liberal on social issues (as are all the other candidates, so whats the point of mentioning it). But everyone see’s him slamming Bush and thinks he is soo far left. Give me a break, even a lot of republicans slam Bush, I mean he’s a pretty controversial president,a nd he’s easy to slam. That doesn’t make you an extreme liberal.. but we’ll see if people ever figure that out or not..

Like him or not, at least call him what he really is- a moderate democrat.

Pete, The fact that Republicans simply cannot let go of the idea that Hilary Clinton was running (is running? is stealth runnin?) for President (in 2004? 2008? 2016?) is ample demonstration that the Republicans don’t understand the Clintons. They have never understoon their support, which is one basic reason for the fact that the attacks on the Clintons are so personal.

Richard, I don’t always agree with your posts, but your last comment was right on the money.

Hmmm. Should have spell checked that one.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President with the intellectual capacity to see the big picture, small picture, and all points in between? Where have all the smart people in this world gone. Apparently not into politics…oh, wait, look…Wesley Clark is in the race! Finally, a candidate with substance and intelligence.

Howard Dean will soon become as relevant to this election as Al Sharpton is. And too bad John Kerry is so smug…a race between he and Clark could (have) be(en) interesting (those of you that witnessed the Kerry vs. Bill Weld election will know what I mean).

(Speaking of Bill Weld…too bad he faded away. He had potential.)

Go General!

I personally enjoy watching Braun and Sharpton in the debates. I was surprised how articulate Sharpton has been without leaving his homespun colloquialisms. And Braun has at times real appeal to the audience when she speaks. In fact, they both are capable of generating positive responses from their audiences, more so, than any of the other candidates. Sharpton’s wit was a pleasant surprise and brought some needed levity to the last debate I watched. Kucinich is good for some levity at times as well.

I don’t think any of these candidates are irrelevant. They each bring a constituency to the debates and the participatory process. They each help convey the feeling of inclusion for the Democratic Party, and each, in their turn, will guide their constituents for reasons pertinent to their constituents, to a single candidate at the convention. It is wondrous process and fascinating sociological study in power sharing and the dynamics of human groups.

I agree with your sentiments David. I especially feel that the constituents that all candidates (in addition to Sharpton and Braun) bring to the party and process are valuable and important. And while It is a “fascinating sociological study in power sharing and the dynamics of human groups” I don’t want to lose sight of the key mission (at least mine) here, which is to get George Bush out of office. I wasn’t feeling positive about that in any way until Clark joined the field.

Jeff, you are right of course about the key mission. I would even vote Republican for someone like McCain or Jack Kemp if I thought it would get Bush out of office.

I keep trying to remind myself that the majority of the electorate are not yet tuned into the politics of the parties. At best they are occasionally tuning into the party of their choice at the last election. Between January and April, many, many more of the electorate will begin tuning in.

This is precisely why the Bush administration is trying to get its negatives out in the press now, so that it will be old news to the media and won’t receive much coverage during and after the conventions.

Needless to say, the smart thing for third parties and the Democrats to do is to revive all this negative news and views at, and beyond, the conventions. If they do that, give Bush’s negatives a new face, slant, interpretation, the chances of removing this non-centrist President will be far more likely.

Dave, you are really on to something here!

“This is precisely why the Bush administration is trying to get its negatives out in the press now, so that it will be old news to the media and won’t receive much coverage during and after the conventions.”

Also, the Republican party is stategizing and highlighting the Dems in a big way. Fox news is highlighting the Democratic candidates to the point where the country experiences what I call “burnout”.
The “strategery” goes like this…
1)Highlight the Dems and thier rhetoric in a huge way more than a year out from the election….MISERABLE FAILURE, BAD ECONOMY etc.
2)Highlight just how BAD everything is going in Iraq. (just watch Fox news if you don’t believe me)
3) Election time finally rolls around in about 6 months…POOF! Everything is fine. Iraq has a new interim GOVT. The French are cooperating as well as the Russians. We now have international support(by giving the French and Russians what they wanted anyway, A share of the oil and re-construction efforts as well as thier previously promised revenue that was owed the by the Iraqi GOVT.)
4) unemployment is down due to the economic upturn and the time it actually takes for jobs to start opening up.
5) Bush is re-elected. No amount of negativity will work against him since there will be very little and the press has a chronic short attention span…(because of all the drugs they did in the sixties).

Time will tell, Pete. Since neither of has a crystal ball, time will tell.

Of that, we can be sure David.
Although I wish that I had a crytal ball.
I would probably just drop it and break it though….I am kind of clumsy that way.