Wes Clark and the Southern Strategy

[Clark2008]

"It's hard to have better credentials than supreme NATO commander," From said. "There are others, but Wes has credentials that are hard to beat."
Clark calls Arkansas his home, and says he "grew up reading the Bible and going to Sunday School, the way people in the South grow up."
The general said national security and a failure to appeal to Southern voters hurt the Democrats in the 2004 election. Republican President George Bush swept the Southern states, including Arkansas.
"When you look at the results, I think there were concerns on national security," Clark said. "In terms of winning in the South, it's clear that we didn't have the appeal that I believe Democrats have on the local level in the South."
In courting religious conservatives, Clark said he wants to emphasize his own religious faith -- he attends Second Presbyterian Church in Little Rock -- but to stress the need to tolerate those with different views.
"I think Americans, whatever their personal views, have to respect the differences among people," Clark said.
Clark lists other areas where he wants to improve the Democrats' image, including patriotism, "family values," and "the strength of our conviction."
"It's about substance, not office," Clark said.

http://www.ardemgaz.com/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=ArDemocrat/2005/06/12&ID=Ar01903

[prvet]

1. I think Kerry/Clark

could have taken NC.

[Clark2008]

2. And Arkansas and possibly Virginia.

I think they also would have improved relations in Tennessee, helping our crop of local Dems run for US House and, in 2006, Senate.

[TheFarseer]

3. I doubt it

Maybe Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa. Edwards and Clark might have taken Virginia and NC.

[NeoTraitors]

4. IMO Clark can take the WH.

We just need to make him the nominee. This is the person that apolitical Americans have been wanting, whether they know it or not.

We have had 2 polorizing Presidents in a row. Wes Clark is a man who is very difficult to hate. His Patriotism is unquestioned, he is a family/church man with no known skeletons, he is from the South, and best of all, his politics are pretty intune with DU IMO.

I will be working hard to make him the nominee, not because I think he is electable, but because I think he is the best person for the job.

[TheFarseer]

7. I worry that he doesn't have the experience

No one else in the country seems to worry about that though, unless they don't like the guy anyway, then it suddenly becomes and issue :eyes:

I think he would make a much better VP. I think he's an effective attack dog but I can't see that he has much of a domestic agenda. I think he can help the democrats alot no matter what he does. He's hard to dislike.

As for whether he can win, he seems highly electable but it's hard to say how he could stand up the republican slime machine.

[carpetbagger]

14. He had a pretty aggressive domestic agenda.

He took the angle of speaking about broad concerns about community, fairness, and teamwork. His basic argument was this: why can't the rest of Americans benefit from the spirit of community and collective well-being that was present in the military. I think it's a good argument, since the military, if seen as a closed society, is in many ways an exemplar of how much better families do with government benefits, even poor families.

We lost the domestic agenda in 1994, and have never been able to regain the ground, despite the fact that our programs, line by line, are more popular. We're still stuck making the same failed arguments that Hilary Clinton used in her failed attempt to institute an otherwise reasonable health plan. They may win for us someday, but probably only after people become much poorer than they are.

[jmaier]

5. Obviously I'm a Clark supporter

But I'd disagree that he will be much more likely than any other candidate to break into the Southern Red zone. I do think that he has a better chance of bringing some tottering western states like NV, AZ and NM into the Blue category along with Arkansas. Perhaps we'd end up more competitive in MO and erode some Republican gains in places like IA and WI so they aren't as strongly competed.

No candidate is going to be enough by themselves but he will have fewer geographic/political associations to exploit as wedge issues.

[Clark2008]

6. Why do you disagree that he is much more likely than anyone else?

I think he could take at least two Southern states, which is more than Gore or Kerry got out with (with or without Diebold, that is).

But, yes, he can bring in some tottering mid-Western states, too.

I just think the Dem Party needs to HAVE a Southern Strategy - something... anything... instead of ignoring the hard-working Dems down here.

[jmaier]

8. I guess because

"more likely than anyone else" isn't the same thing as likely. Our southern strategy should be grassroots based and should focus on local elections and strong local candidates to build up a notion of Democratic credibility. That will take a few election cycles.

[Clark2008]

10. Oh, I'm with you on building local candidates, too.

But, it would help to have a strong national candidate, as well.

:)

[jmaier]

11. Yep

In fact the best outcome of a "Southern friendly" Presidential candidate would be, not to win the state, but to cut into the straight-ticket coattails. It's pretty hard to beat your Republican opposition, even for city council, when the top of the R ticket is winning by 20+ percent.

on edit: I'm not saying Clark wouldn't be a good candidate for the South but we shouldn't be necessarily counting southern states in our electoral basket with him on the ticket -- look at the collateral good.

[Clark2008]

12. I would count Arkansas in the electoral basket, though.

I would just hope for Virginia and Tennessee (depending on our 2006 elections).

But, definately, we need to work on the grassroots issues.

[brentspeak]

9. Be prepared for a grassroots Repub smear campaign

against Wes. I'm not sure what form it will take, but it's due up, and almost certainly before the mass media Repub smear campaign.

[aquanut]

13. Questions...

There's no question that the smear campaign will start. The question isn't if, it's when. The other question is whether or not they'll drag out the same old accusations or just manufacture new ones.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Don't worry......

we are ready for the smears.

You see, many in the Clark grassroots have been working on the "smear" issues since they were brought out early in the primaries of 2004 to get rid of Clark pronto.

All of the smears against him have been debunked...cause none of them were true. That's why no matter how hard "they tried" the man still did damn well in the primaries of '04. Picked up Oklahoma, and seconds in Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota. And that was on sheer Grassroots alone...considering that he was on the media "black out" list.

With a lot of time ahead of us (unlike the last time).....the Grassroots will be the ones that will see Clark through.

The question is how hard do we hit the media?...I say anytime there is even a peep....and in some cases we will be debunking even before he is even attacked.

I say we go "Oops upside their heads.....oops upside their heads!"

[blm]

16. It's about GOP control of the media and voting machines, not substance.

Dems have to stop falling into the trap that Democrats are perceived the way they are for something that they did or some leftist position. The truth is that the media LIES about Dems while they LIE about Bush and the GOP.

Does ANY Republican voter you know understand that Bush was handed the HartRudman Report on Global Terror on Jan 30, 2001 and that he refused to read it? That Dick Cheney and Condaleezza Rice refused to read the report?

The media never told the public that Bush was INCOMPETENT. Instead, they pushed the IMAGE, the LIE that only Bush could handle the terror issue.

Everything that Dems said to prove otherwise ended up on the editing room floor of all the so-called newsrooms.