We can win with a "Full Service" candidate

[FrenchieCat]

I think that some misunderstand the point that Clark supporters make in favor of Wes Clark. Wes Clark is not a moderate per se....indeed, his policies (Domestic and foreign) are quite progressive. The important point, however, is that Clark is perceived as moderate due to his title of "General", and the fact that he did, at one point, based on his own admission vote for Republicans as well as Democratic candidates.

Wes Clark has the unique qualifications of being a perceived moderate Southerner who is also seen as "Strong" on National Defense issues and in addition represents public service, and important heartland values such as hard work and self reliance.....

The issues that actually lost John Kerry more votes during this election was not his democratic domestic offerings...it was his perceived weakness on National Security due to his perceived indicisiveness (lack of him showing anything in his recent background to alleviate that notion other than voting against various weapon systems, the 1st Gulf War resolution and yet voting for the Iraq War resolution didn't help). Although Kerry was in the military for some months back 35 years ago...that was not enough to connotate "Strength and security" to many of the American voters.

So those who keep talking about Moderate Southern candidates are not connecting the dots and, in fact, are missing the boat.
We need to be a "full service" candidate to represent our party.

Part of the problem with Democrats is not that their domestic policies are not strong....they are! The problem is that the "full" picture is rarely represented. We need a candidate that has many of the attributes that would make him attractive to many voters. When we discuss Mark Warner or even Evan Bayh....we are still talking about Milktoast candidates that will not connotate strength in the one area that Democrats keep missing.....there are two wars going on, whether we like it or not. We can't act like that is not the case. Nomnating a woman candidate also won't do...not while 2 wars are being waged...hell even one war is all that it takes!

The last time both the Republican and the Democratic parties did not have either an incumbent nor a VP running in an election was in 1952. It was a time of war (the Korean War)...and guess who got elected? General Einsenhower. Now, I am not saying that Wes Clark is an Einsenhower (he's actually better prepared, more intelligent and a Democrat)....what I am saying is that it is not incidental that Republicans are attempting to run candidates in their party such as Hagel, McCain, Guiliani (why him, I don't know) and Schwarzenneger....they all represent a certain strength or hero manifestation that works well in a time of war.

We need to get smart in the strategy of winning.

The Daddy party will be the winners in 2008 over the Mommy party. The "Icanprotectyounomatterwhat" party will win over the "Icannurtureyouandkeepyoueconomicallyviable" party. I can guarantee it.

Sooooo when we talk about who to nominate......"full service" has got to be the guiding light.

[Catch22Dem]

1. What she said!

Seriously, very good post, and I thank you for saying it!

[rockymountaindem]

2. Well put.

[robbedvoter]

3. The only major Dem candidate who called himself a liberal

and moderate Republicans can vote for - because he is a general.
It was so obvious, I keep doing this when I think of the waste

[dogman]

4. We should have learned our candidate has to project strength.

Voting irregularities aside we need a candidate that is not so close at the margins.

[VolcanoJen]

5. Except that they would have found a way to dismantle him, too.

I've always thought that had Clark entered the primary race sooner, he'd have done better, and might even had been Kerry's strongest challenger. It seems that, looking back, we Democrats were so hungry to beat Bush that, rather than choose the more progressive candidates, the ones our hearts belonged to, we decided to nominate the candidate we thought could win, and given a few more months and a bit more political seasoning, I think Clark could have closed the gap against Kerry when you frame the primaries in terms of national security/war hero issues.

I don't intend this as any kind of bash on Kerry as the Democratic Challenger. He won the primaries decisively, and when all was said and done, I found him to be an excellent candidate, and one I really grew to admire and respect. I'll always have his back.

In hindsight, the fact that Clark was a southerner, and that Oklahoma Democrats chose him in their primary, would have been attractive traits in "marketing" our candidate to the general electorate.

All that being said, Clark is a hard sell to true progressives... remember all of our DU in-battles during the primaries, Frenchie? I'm really starting to come out in the camp of "Let's Move Left and Build the Base," and I don't think Clark is the guy to help us do that, given the resistance he's received from so many of us, and I don't see us winning another election if we can't turn out every single base vote out there.

Let's keep an eye on The General and see what he comes up with in the next few years. I hope he stays on the national scene; I even think going back to a role of TV military expert could serve him well and expose him to voters. But for him to be nominated by the party, he's going to have to address progressive issues in a better way, and he's going to have to win over the hearts of progressives who still find him untrustworthy because of his career. I think he can do it... I think his heart is in the right place, and if he can convey that clearly and work on his impulse to blurt out politically inappropriate things, we'd all be wise to take a long look at choosing him.

My fear, of course, is that the Rovians will shred him somehow... when I think of what the Swifties did to Kerry, I can barely fathom what they'll pull on Wes. Thing is, I think he'll weather it better, and I just know he'll fight back. Quickly.

[dogman]

7. They udoubtedly would but nothing like we've seen on DU.

The DU attacks came from the left primarily, along with some freeper input, that obviously the right could not use. They would only repeat these attacks to divide us. I do not suggest we write off the left but you must consider the value of the votes you capture in the middle. These votes carry double value since they are not only a plus for us, but they are a negative for them. I know anecdotally that people were giving Clark consideration but would not vote for Kerry over B$$$. We only needed a couple hundred thousand to defeat B$$$.

[robbedvoter]

9. Extreme left and right work together. I've seen sites - on Clinton

containing Chomsky, Nader, Starr and a few others rolled into one.
I saw RNC sites on Clark full of matt Taibi tipe of BS (Serbian complaints that Clark empowered the genetically inferior Albanians...Oh, wait. the RNC never quite went as fat as the Nation, Fair.
But they obviously drank from the same poisoned well.

[dogman]

13. Yes, Rush worked the same angle as some of the far left.

Military men are unstable killers. He portrayed him as Jack DeRipper from Dr. Strangelove. They only like the military when they are their subservient attack dogs. That's one reason Powell and Meyers and Franks are acceptable. Any time Powell showed any independence his stability was suspect. Tey wre the same with haig. He was fine until he showed he thought for himself. Understand I have no use for Haig either. The thing that people don't understand about Clark is that he is not really judgemental and sees the good in people. I think that is one of his plusses that can serve as a negative. Like I stated, the Right would repeat any lie that would hurt him with the Left just to hurt him because he is such a threat to them with the average American.

[BootinUp]

14. Yea but No

Sorry Jen, but there was plenty of conventional wisdom against Kerry as a successful candidate (I won't bore with a recounting). What we witnessed I truly believe was the power of the party insiders. They used their contacts in the print and broadcast media to discredit Dean. Clark wasn't there when Dean fell. Edwards was never serious challenge.

[cg]

6. Wes Clark would indeed be a "Full-Service" Candidate

Foreign Policy and National Security Expertise
The depth of his knowledge and his significant administrative experience in foreign policy and national security are unmatched by any other candidate. General Clark is already well-known and much respected among the leaders of many countries and would be far ahead in the ability to reestablish broken international relationships. His skills and experience in strategic planning will enable him to prosecute the war on terror effectively and end our occupation of Iraq successfully.

Working Class Background with Southern Roots
He comes from humble Southern roots and identifies with the struggles of working families. Based on his graduate education in Economics and his years of experience caring for the day-to-day quality of life needs of his troops and their families, he worked out a series of detailed policies to address issues in health care, education, environmental protection, energy independence, the economy and many more, with special attention to the needs of minority populations including Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian-Pacific Americans. His proactive practice of inclusiveness throughout his army career has led to strong followings in these communities. They can clearly see that he's "walked the walk".

Pragmatic Leadership Skills
In addition, General Clark brings a fresh perspective and pragmatic problem-solving skills to the country's problems. The skills he used to successfully turn around poor-performing army units, his active participation in rebuilding the Army after Vietnam and his leadership of the NATO alliance would readily carry over to the executive responsibilities of the presidency. He comes with no political obligations, so he would serve the country, not special interests. His administration would be open and transparent, and he'd hold himself accountable for meeting clearly defined goals. He stated his intent to hold regular Town Hall meetings, as President, in order to continue to stay in touch with the needs and concerns of the citizenry. He would reach out to Americans across the political spectrum to overcome the severe polarization that currently exists in Washington.

Electability
General Clark combines the best qualities of other prospective candidates and to those adds international executive experience and a remarkable intelligence, together with a humble, compassionate, authentic and warm personality. Those of us who've followed his work closely feel like he is truly a "gift" to our country. I hope the Democratic Party will have the wisdom to accept his leadership should he choose to offer it again.

[Eurobabe]

8. hey writer!!

zat choo?

[cg]

10. Hey to you 48percenter!

Pilgrim from CCN

Love Charlottesville BTW!

[TruthIsAll]

11. What we REALLY need is a full-service recount - in 2004.

tia

[robbedvoter]

12. I'll settle for the end of the first count - to start with.

let's remember: like in 2000, the votes had not been counted once.



That being said, I am willing to think on 2 tracks - in the remote posibility elections return. It's also keeping some hopefulness that is necessary to either action. We are not W. We can hold 2 thoughts in out head at one time.

[cg]

17. Agree on 2 tracks

Counting is critical, but it also helps to have some hope. . .

[TahitiNut]

15. I see no reason to differ much from the charts, here ....

[dogman]

16. Did these people take the test?

Or were the answers filled in for them?

[Donna Zen]

18. Answers

were taken from speeches and position papers. If that is the same chart that was going around during the primaries, many of the questions were left blank for Clark because it was done before he entered, or shortly after.

[robbedvoter]

23. Oh, yeah, a test devised by libertarians , based on THEIR perceptions

Now I'm convinced, saw the light, wow! wow! Will this come in South Park episode format too?

[Texas_Kat]

19. Wes Clark appeals to a diverse spectrum of voters..

In Texas, as with most of the rest of the county, Wes was the candidate that drew support from Democrats, Greens, independents and moderate Republicans. By the time he withdrew in February, there were 10,000 of us in Texas waiting to welcome him to the Texas primary.

He inspired newcomers to politics, long-time party faithful, idealists, pragmatists and even cynics to believe again in the political process and in his clear vision.

Between now and 2007, Republican moderates will become more alienated by a political party that insists that common sense government be replaced by radical ideology. (It's already beginning, you can feel it in the air).

Only a candidate that can inspire trust in American values (patriotism, tolerance, inclusion, faith and family) like Wes Clark can will win them over.

We'd be fools to pass up the opportunity again.

[cg]

22. Exactly right

As one of those newcomers-to-politics inspired by Wes and preparing to support him in the Texas primaries, I can confirm his special appeal across ideological lines here.

[ArkySue]

24. Me too

I know of many conservatives here that would have voted for Wes Clark but could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry.

[sandnsea]

20. The media will skewer anybody

And that's what's wrong with all these my guy is better than your guy posts. It's amazing to me that none of the pundits and few on DU are even talking about the skewering the media did, and the help Democrats gave them. The campaign should have done more on Kerry's 20 year foreign affairs record, but where were the rest of the Democrats on that issue, and the media? It's not like it was a secret. The media will skewer Clark and everybody knows exactly how. Nothing is sacred with these people, absolutely nothing. That's what we ought to be dealing with, the media and too many Democrat's willingness to help them out.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Great Post!

:kick:

DTH

[AP]

25. Why do you think Kerry lost because of indecisiveness?

Check out the media studies at Mediatenor.com.

I think Kerry did a fine job of convincing people Iraq was a mess and that he offered better solutions. The problem was that the media convinced people that Bush wasn't to blame.

When it came down to election day, Kerry lost support because the media scared people by reporting ONLY about OBL and the missing explosives. Even though people probably felt that Bush was to blame, when people are afraid they vote for fascists because fascists promise the destruction of enemies within and without. I don't think Kerry could have been any more pro-national security or any more critical of Bush for the problems with foreign policy.

But the more you talk about Iraq as being the problem, the more you're playing into the hands of the Republicans. War is the Republicans issue. Opportunity is the Democrats issue. Talk about war all the time, and so long as the media can shift the blame off Bush, you just leave voters thinking that war is more important than opportunity and they vote for Republicans.

What he could have done more of was convince people that hope triumphs fear -- that opportunity is more important than war. He could have talked more about middle class opportunity (or could have been more a symbol of those things himself). Clinton won that way. FDR built every one of his campaigns on that theme, even though he was a wartime president for two of those campaigns.

I don't think ANY Democrat is ever going to win by arguing that the world is a frightening place and that Democrats can do better. It's not that they can't do better. It's just that it's incompatible with what is really appealing about Democrats. The Democrats simply are not about destroying enemies within and without. For Democrats to win they have to argue that decentralizing power and wealth is actually the route to greater security -- that's what FDR argued, and that's what he achieved. He made America powerful by making as many Americans as powerful as possible. The Democrats simply are not the party of concentrated power in the hands of a strong father. When they start building their campaign around that theme, the rest of the knots which tie together Democrats start to come undone.

The Democrat who breaks the Republican stranglehold on Americans perceptions of what the important issues are will be a Democrat who appeals to people's feelings that we should all have an opportunity to accumulate wealth and power rather than give it up to someone wealthier and more powerful.