Late-Arriving Candidate Got Push From Clintons

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 — Behind Gen. Wesley K. Clark's candidacy for the White House is a former president fanning the flames.

General Clark, in fact, said today that he had had a series of conversations with both the former president, Bill Clinton, and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, as well as close aides to them and that all of them had encouraged him to run.

The story, though, is not simple.

At first glance, it would seem that Mr. Clinton and General Clark would have a longtime bond. They each lost their fathers early. From the same small patch of 1950's America, they emerged as ambitious, high-achieving golden boys, becoming Rhodes Scholars and attending Oxford University, then soaring to the tops of their respective professions at relatively young ages.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLIN.html?ex=1064548800&en=a22c107fd37f03dc&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[polpilot]

1. Surprise. Surprise.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party

[kang]

3. Why is it a bad thing that the Clintons encouraged Clark?

Howard Dean is a big fan of Clinton as well. He often cites getting back to Clinton's policies and getting back on track. So Dean people, please honestly correct me here, but Dean isn't anti-Clinton is he? I understand objections about Clinton's lack of political courage etc., but his political skills and judgement of Clark as a legit candidate have to be taken seriously.

And on a sidenote, Dean's running on a campaign theme of a new Democratic party. That's great, but hasn't he been implicitly saying that those Dems in Congress were cowardly and didn't stand up to Bush while he was "the only one" who did? How are reps who are up for reelection going to run on that message?

By saying he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party he subtly condemns those more moderate Democrats who have good reasons for being moderate (they accurately represent their district). Perhaps this is an overblown and such details can be swept under the rug. But we need to win work towards winning the Senate and/or the long-shot of taking back the house (too many safe districts unfortunately). Have Dean people been talking about this? I'm interested in responses.

[TacticalPeek]

6. Your points are KEY.

And, remember, there were many thought-to-be-but-weren't-safe districts in '94.

[burr]

7. I disagree...

Dean started out as a DLC moderate.

I think Dean is not ripping moderates, but pointing out that there are times to compromise and times to fight for Democratic Party principles. Compromise is only possible after a specific mandate has been established in the election, and it should only be the last option available to pass some as opposed to none of the agenda that voters supported.

In other words...what is the point of being a Democrat, moderate or liberal, if you are willing to sell your soul on any issue?

[burr]

2. Wesley Clark, not the second coming of Clinton...

From American Prospect...

"But a Rhodes Scholarship and Arkansan heritage do not a politician make. The reality is that while Clark and Clinton have some superficial attributes in common -- and while they seem to respect each other -- they are, for better and for worse, very different men.

Though Clark enters the race for the nomination with considerable foreign-policy expertise, he has much to learn about domestic affairs -- the reverse of Clinton's situation in 1992. Clark's late entrance leaves him little time to publicly hash out his strategies for reducing the huge federal deficit or curtailing the flight of manufacturing jobs overseas. And recent polls show that Americans are most concerned about the economy, an area in which Clark has no experience. Clinton, by contrast, anchored his 1992 campaign to a comprehensive economic-stimulus package -- and with it he traveled the country, feeling other people's pain in the face of a recession.

That may be the starkest difference between Clark and Clinton: the empathy factor. Seeking to drum up support for embattled Gov. Gray Davis (D-Calif.) last week, Clinton took to the pulpit in the First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles. His oratory drew 'amens' from the congregation, while his mere presence in the church generated enthusiastic applause.

The former general is a smart guy, and he may prove capable of mastering a steep political learning curve -- but for now it is difficult to picture him wowing an audience in a similar setting. Voters will likely appreciate his stoic military persona during debates on foreign policy and national security. But to connect with laid-off factory workers or retirees facing rising health-care costs, Clark will have to convince people that he is compassionate and understanding. Based on his stiff performance in Little Rock yesterday, he has a lot of work ahead of him."
<http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/09/mcgarvey-a-09-18.html>

[kang]

4. They state the obvious: nobody is as good as Clinton

at getting a liberal crowd going. But from what somebody reported on Clark's Florida and Iowa campaign stops, I think he's a tad better than alot of media types thought. Time will tell anyways.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. I implore everybody to watch the video. Then respond.

http://www.c-span.org/