On Clark.

[poskonig]

As a centrist, I do not have a problem with Clark's candidacy. I believe he legitimizes the antiwar position and makes all of the Democrats look credible on defense. I do not mind if people change their positions, and am glad a general is not on Bush's side at this stage in the game.

Why the hell is Clark getting hammered then, particularly for being Pube? And why won't such attacks go away?

Two reasons adequately explain this.

1. When Clark entered the campaign, he refused to say if he was as Democrat or not. Hence it looks like he "just joined the party." The idea was to get as many people, left, right, and center, to join his campaign. Secondly, holding off on his "decision" gave him millions of dollars in free airtime. Given his previous voting record and praise for Republicans, stating he was a Democrat should have been something he declared a long time ago, if such Clark = GOP charges were to be avoided.

2. People's aren't believing that Clark doesn't know where he stands on the issues, given the degrees in economics, political science, and philosophy. The Clark campaign is going Arnold-style, not laying out any issue details. All people get are broad generalities, and that merely reinforces people's insecurities about Clark merely telling Democrats what they want to hear to win their primary. I saw him on Crossfire a few weeks back, for instance, where he answered a question on abortion by saying "I'm pro-life, I mean I'm pro-choice, I support reproductive rights." Other comments, such as the lack of clarity and simplicity on where he is on Iraq have fueled this unease. Yet, I'm guessing they are keeping details off the table so everyone can see what they want in the candidate; sell the sizzle, not the steak.

So what can Team Clark do? Well, they cannot change the way they entered the campaign. However, I believe getting out issue details ASAP is a must, if they want the GOP = Clark charges to desist. For each day they wait, they are giving their opponents, whether they be Gephardt, Dean, Kerry, etc. free political ammo.

[Padraig18]

1. One thing WE could do

We could all try and remember that he is a FELLOW DEMOCRAT, lifelong or new convert, and QUIT taking cheap shots at him!

[diplomats]

2. I agree with your second point

He did outline an economic plan, and more is on the way.

[kang]

3. Thanks people

It's good to hear Dean people say something like that. Unfortunately, the wrap on Dean supporters has become something like ideological purists who will bash anybody moderate (I was talking with some other Clark people about this just yesterday). This stereotype doesn't really fit though when you consider Dean's pragmatic, largely ideological free, approach to issues. Except for his anti-war stance, he's hardly a hard leftist.

So I'll defend Dean supporters when other people say bad things (haven't heard alot of negative stuff from Clark people...mostly electibility issues, concerns about his temper, or commander-in-chief questions in regards to Dean).

For your own specifics, TNR's covered what little policy positions Clark has staked out so far.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/candidate.mhtml?id=7

I think he's being honest in saying that he's working on his own plans, but they'll roll them out as soon as they're ready. Better to have the media complain now about being vague, it'll get their attention and then when Clark gives them something to chew on i.e. cover/talk about bit by bit he can really get the most out of the coverage and bring more attention to each individual policy plan.

[LWolf]

4. Honest questions:

I think it's fine that he's being honest about working on his own plans, will roll them out when they're ready, etc.

But...I have 2 questions:

Why did he wait so long, and then enter a race already well underway unprepared? Didn't he have plenty of time to get that stuff ready while the other 9 have campaigned all year?

Why do people jump on his bandwagon and throw him their support if he isn't ready with plans to show them? Just what is it they are supporting? Why don't they wait to see the actual plans, and then make an informed choice?

[Marlie]

5. As someone on another Clark thread mentioned...

Jim Jeffords is one of my heros, consider him in the same class as
Paul Wellstone. He was a Republican all his life but saw what this
regime was up to, so he changed his party affiliation. Can't Clark
have also have seen the light and decided to run - the bashing of all
of our candidates on this website is deplorable. I bet the freepers
come over and laugh their asses off.

[LWolf]

12. Yes, he could.

Hopefully, he did.

I do not think my questions are "bashing." If we've reached the point where it is somehow disloyal or unacceptable to question our leaders, then we don't even need to run a candidate. We obviously don't need to be informed or to make any decisions based on information. We can just listen, nod our heads, and bubble in the answer we're told to. We've already joined the Bush league.

I'll keep questioning, thanks.

[jumptheshadow]

10. Good questions

I can only speculate on the answer to your first question because I don't have inside information. The second answer comes straight from my heart.

1) Clark agonized over his decision because he was living a comfortable life. But he felt compelled to run because of the crisis our nation is facing. He genuinely believes he has the right experience for the presidency at this moment in time.

He had prepared the broad strokes of his campaign strategy before he entered the race. But, as he said the other evening, he didn't have a staff like most of the other candidates. He wanted to present real, workable alternatives to Bush's policies. Therefore he is taking the time to think them through.

As Joe Conason noted, Clark misfired by giving a too-complex answer to a reporter's question on his airplane interview. It was a newbie mistake. He seems to be a quick study, however, and I suspect he will get much better as a candidate.

2) I support Clark's candidacy because I think his entrance into the race as a Democrat has bolstered the party's traditional vulnerability on national security. Just look at the cartoons that are comparing Bush and Clark with Clark coming out the clear winner. Clark's candidacy raises the level of political discourse. He is a brilliant and principled man who studied the just causes for war with the Jesuits. So far is right on all the issues. And I think he's going to rip Bush apart once he hits his stride.

I will work hard for any Democratic candidate. I think we all can afford to give Clark another two or three months to prove his mettle. He's the best shot we have against Bush, and if he doesn't win in the end, I bet that he will at least take a big chunk out of Bush's hide.

[LWolf]

11. Thoughtful response.

Thank you!

[Shanty Oilish]

6. This is a defense of Clark??

If that's the best one can do, it's abysmal. He held off proclaiming himself a Dem, to amass more money, to get around the law. He's not going into detail because he's waiting to hear what everyone wants him to say.
If that's a man of principle, I'd like to know what principle that would be!

[Marlie]

7. Could it be...

He was playing it smart - since he was getting in the race so late
he needed lots of media attention and some speculation. Do you
think he was feeling it out, Republican vs Democrat, with the intent
of running against Bush or should I say Rove as a Republican in 2004?
Don't think so - he does have brains, even you cannot deny that.
How did he get around the law?

[Shanty Oilish]

8. Getting around

"Holding off on his 'decision' gave him millions of dollars in free airtime."

[carpetbagger]

9. Points of clarification...

1. Wes Clark unequivocally declared his affiliation and allegiance to the Democratic Party the moment he entered the campaign. While I could provide reams of information that would indicate his allegiance and affiliation was already rock-solid, that was your specific gripe.

2. He's already laying out policy specifics. He's released details on his jobs proposals and has a broad base of media interviews, articles, and an amicus curiae brief to boot, which lays out specific stands and proposals.

You might be objecting to his lack of polish in countering "gotcha" questions. All I'll say is that it's still months until the first votes are cast.