Reply #8: Nicely stated, here's my take: [View All]

[Tom Rinaldo]

They are my top three also. Edwards and Kucinich have appeal too but were never really in the running for me. I am playing to win from start to finish this time. I wanted to back a candidate, who I could feel good about, who both had a real chance of winning the Democratic nomination and of beating Bush in November. Very early I toyed some with Kerry while still backing Dean. While I thought Kerry might have a broader appeal in the Fall than Dean, the passion both behind and in Dean put me in his camp. This summer I switched to Clark and have stayed firmly behind Clark ever since.

Events have moved on and I sincerely believe that only Dean and Clark now have an actual chance of winning the nomination. I concede that Kerry has a real (though outside chance) of boxing Clark out of the final two, by pulling enough support that might otherwise go to Clark from those who want "gravitas" in their candidate (I use that word as shorthand for a certain kind of experience) and combining those votes with enough loyalists who respect Kerry's lifetime of service in elected office. However I think that would only be a set up for Kerry ending up the official "also ran" in the race. Kerry's campaign did not manage to build effectively on his natural advantages. He did not catch fire, and he can not at this point start one big enough to propel him beyond Dean, especially now that Dean has some party regulars behind him also after Gore's endorsement.

The "Washington Insider" candidates, no matter what flavor of liberal/conservative they come in, have been discredited as a fighting force in this election cycle. Perception becomes reality. With Dean having built such momentum, having grass roots organizations in all of the states at play, and with a huge war chest to spend on more mass media buys, very few party regulars will step in front of his speeding train to back a Senator at this late date who couldn't even stay competitive in his neighboring state, and who had to mortgage his own house to keep his campaign afloat.

We can debate whether such perceptions, or treatment, is deserving of John Kerry, or of Dick Gephardt or even Joe Lieberman for that matter, but it is academic I believe. I think the most either of those men can muster right now is too little too late. They have had well over a year of campaigning, and they were routed by Dean's forces. Look at Kerry's and Gephardt's polling numbers after NH, or after Iowa in Gephardt's case, then look at their finances. If one of those men emerges as the perceived Dean Alternative, that will hand Dean the nomination. Pragmatism (bandwagon effect) and idealism (Deans grass roots movement) will both be on Dean's side. No contest.

That leaves Dean and Clark with a chance of actually winning the Democratic nomination. If I believed as Gore stated he does, that Dean was our best and strongest candidate, and that Democrats should close ranks early around him, I certainly would, even though Dean is not my first choice. Right now I would back Dean over Kerry because if Kerry can't win, the sooner the internal blood shedding ceases the better. Kerry has really antagonized many of Dean's supporters with his frontal attacks. If they ultimately are for nothing, better they cease sooner rather than later. I suppose Kerry's attacks on Dean might indirectly help Clark by exposing some of Dean's vulnerabilities, but they won't win Kerry the nomination. If Kerry emerges as the alternative to Dean, I will shift my support to Dean for my own pragmatic reasons, getting on with party unity heading into November.

So why Clark over Dean? First, I think Dean will lose in November, by a significant margin. No I am not convinced Dean will lose. I see the same strengths in him that you outlined above, it is possible for Dean to win, and I would fight for him, but I think we would fall short. I know this is all up for debate, but that is how I see it. Rather than rehash the arguments, I will leave it at that, with it being my considered opinion. At this point I think Dean likely is our second best chance of winning in November precisely because of the strengths he brings to the table, and also because Dean is the only candidate certain to have Dean's grassroots supporters fully on board for the Fall election, and bless their collective hearts, they are a potent force.

Clark however has some important similarities to Dean, as you noted above. He has grassroots support, he has outsider status, he is strongly identified against the Iraq invasion as it played out. He has excitement behind his campaign, he does get press. He is not a failed candidate who has struggled for 18 months to build a campaign only to be polling in the single digits. Clark is able to raise money and he does have money to spend. Clark has for the most part stayed above the intra mural brawls, to the extent any first tier candidate can while running an aggressive campaign. Every candidate's support ultimately fractures, it can never be delivered whole to anyone. But I believe a higher percentage of Dean's supporter will be able to rally around Clark than around any of the other somewhat viable candidates. I think the opposite is true also, Dean would get more active support from Clark supporters than from the ranks of those backing other candidates. Despite significant differences, each camp can recognize and relate to the elements of insurgency present in both campaigns.

What Clark brings to the table is the capacity to unite the Democratic party behind him, because Clark has not used his campaign to attack elements of the Democratic party. Clark brings a more natural appeal for Southern voters. Even if Clark were not to ultimately prevail in the South, Bush would have to expend real resources there opposing Clark, that Bush could otherwise shift into battlefield states like Ohio if Dean were the nominee. Clark has experiential strengths in foreign affairs and national security that can reassure voters who would like to vote their pocketbook and go Democratic, that it is indeed safe to do so in these troubled times, since they can picture Clark as Commander in Chief. Clark is very solidly Democratic, even Progressive, with his stands on domestic and social issues. Clark can pick a Gore type VP with strong ties to Capital Hill and deep expertise on legislative matters, to make that further clear.

Regarding Clark's campaign, after some serious growing pains in the first 6 weeks, it increasingly has become brilliant, which is an amazing growth curve to pull off, and highlights Clark's natural skills in this area. Give him another 3 months on the stump and you can expect to see further exponential growth in this key political arena. Lately in Town Hall meetings Clark has spoken fluidly about a range of domestic concerns in response to questions from those in attendance. Yes there is an element of risk in nominating an outsider with limited experience in the political realm. To a much lesser extent, that is actually part of Dean's appeal, his lack of national political ties and inside the beltway experience. Somewhat balancing that risk is the element of excitement and interest it would inject into the Fall race. Clark will draw lots of free media converge to himself, which will help offset Republican money. Clark, as we all know, is a very bright man, he doesn't come across as angry until he wants too, and then look out. With most of the best talent that the Democratic party can assemble (which would become available to Clark if he becomes the nominee), I think he will wage a strong campaign. Anyway, that's why I'm backing Clark.