Step out of character. Tell us what's wrong with YOUR fav candidate.

[jarab]

It seems the norm to tear the other Dem candidates down in order to have the "last man standing".

I would say most DUers have a potential 08 candidate (or three) that they're adamantly vouching (for), or silently hoping for the best. That's OK, imo.

Let's be real! All candidates have actual or perceived shortcomings, some more obvious than others. Tell us the weaknesses - real or perceived - that might encumber YOUR favorite .... without mentioning the other guys or gals who might ultimately oppose your choice.

Rhetorically, IF he be your choice, is DK too close to the left precipice or handicapped by his physical stature? IF your choice, is JK the elitist that will hamper him nationally? IF your choice, is HRC the real or perceived carperbagger or fence straddler to not be the "perfect" candidate? Or being female?
IF your choice, is BHO handicapped by his middle name, race, or his limited national legislative experience?
Edwards, Vilsack, Clark, and the rest?

Perhaps stepping out of your DU character, might you honestly tell us - however painful - what the damaging or possibly disqualifying flaws or genuine concerns are for YOUR choice for 08 without trying to demolish all the other "pretenders" .... goal being to have yours become the "last man standing" on DU.

"My candidate, x, is perfect!" is laughably not a good response.
To thine own self be true.

As for me, I'm just listening to you guys. I simply want to claim last man or woman standing in "November 08".

...O...

[napi21]

1. The problem with My dream candidate isthat he refuses to consider running!

I've only had the opportunity to hear Governor Brian Schweitzer speara half dozen times, but I have been impressed each time! He was asked, on air several times, if he would considerbeing a Prez. candidate in 08. His response every time was "Why would I do that? I have the best job in the world, in the best State in the Country, why would I want to leave all that and move to Washington?"

[dmallind]

2. OK I'll start

Bill Richardson has neither the purist progressive credentials to energize the far-left base nor the name recognition amongst the less partisan to overcome that obstacle. He's the Democratic version of Giuliani - would do well in a national election by swaying moderates, but has no chance of getting past the base in the primaries.

Hope springs eternal, but Paul Tsongas is probably the best example here of what Bill's fate would be in this campaign. I supported him too - one of the few politicians who actually gave people what they SAID they wanted - straight answers to tough problems - rather than what they really want - bumper sticker slogans and glib generalities.

Oh yeah since he may be reconsidering Warner is option 2 for me - but probably a similar result!

[Hippo_Tron]

10. I dunno, Richardson came out pretty strongly for getting out of Iraq

And not to bash Tsongas but wasn't he to the right of Clinton on economic issues?

[aquart]

3. Al Gore is too nice, too decent, too fair.

He believes too much in our constitutional processes. He's too law-abiding.

He won but he's perceived as a loser because he behaved like a gentleman. Because he is a gentleman.

But he understands the real threat to this nation is global warming not "terrorism." He understands what we really have to fear.

[samfishX]

4. Al Gore was in favor of NAFTA, I believe

I have a huge problem with that. I don't know, but I really hope he's since changed his stance on NAFTA.


...even though, sadly, I do see the arguments for it and they admittedly do make sense :(
That doesn't mean it'll pan out that way, but still...

[karynnj]

5. I will try on John Kerry

Two parts of Kerry's character hurt him to some degree. One is that he is incredibly honest and will not shade the truth or lie, even when it would help him.

He also is far more interested in doing good rather than getting credit for it. Last year, for example, Kerry wrote a bill to help the small businesses hurt by Katrina. The bill while being worked on went from Kerry/Snowe to Snowe/Kerry to Snowe/Vitter as it was being voted on. Kerry actually took his name off while the voting was happening because a large group of Republicans wouldn't vote for it with his name on it. On a personal level, as many politicians got credit for going to New Orleans, Kerry and his wife quieting sent planes with relief supplies - a fact that became known only when Trent Lott thanked him in the Senate.

Kerry may be too much an old fashioned gentleman and hero.

[BlueIris]

8. Ding ding ding. Especially as regards the "more interested in doing good..."

"than getting credit for it" issue. I've often thought someone should tell him that self-love is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting.

[BootinUp]

6. Mine ain't independently wealthy to finance his campaign.

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

7. Wes Clark is too intelligent and too concerned about his country

and doesn't like to make difficult issues simplistic. He's too much of a problem solver and not enough of a braggard (he uses "we" way too much, and not enough "I"). Plus he tells the truth much too often even if it might cost him, and appears to not always go with the popular flow even when he could do so easily if he was solely after support.

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." Mario Cuomo

Another bad thing is that the media barely if ever mentions Wes Clark at all as a presidential contender, even though we are still fighting two wars, both which we are losing. The media elevates Giuliani and McCain for the other side, but anoints Hillary, Obama and Edwards on our side. There may be a strategic reason for this apparent disconnect between the qualities of the heralded GOP candidates versus the heralded Dem candidates.

Plus The GOP to this day shits it's pants at the simple mention of Clark's name.

Every faithful Freeper I know shits his pants when I tell them Clark may run in 2008.

[Clarkie1]

89. Clark doesn't talk in soundbites.

He sees the complexity in complex issues, and expects people to think too much. This just isn't realistic.

Also, he doesn't understand how to pander politically. He simply says whatever he thinks the truth is, and not about the political repercussions of what he is saying. He doesn't put his own political future ahead of the truth, or what he thinks is best for the country. This puts him at a big disadvantage since being President is not the most important thing in the world to him. Also, he tends to respect fellow Democrats he disagrees with way to much, and would probably not run a dirty enough primary campaign to win.

[welshTerrier2]

9. the responses are comical so far ...

my candidate is so damned wonderful that it may work to his disadvantage ...

that's getting into the spirit of the question ...

i'd play along but the truth is I do NOT have a candidate and it's not all that clear whether I will ... if you want me to support your candidate, i'm open to it ... but ... i've signed this online pledge at www.votersforpeace.org:

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."

wiggle around any old way, your candidate does not YET qualify ...

[karynnj]

11. I agree WT2, and that is why this is kind of a joke

all of us can find things that may hurt somewhat politicly, but reflect well on the character of their favorite - because everyone, by definition, thinks well of their favorite.

These remind me of a section we had in performance reviews where we were asked our weaknesses.( That allowed us to say we worked too hard. etc.) No one is going to list anything that really reflects negatively on their favorite - who knows only they may have seen a specific flaw.

[welshTerrier2]

12. credibility

it's a very interesting business this business about "advertising" candidates ... there's certainly no question about the passion most here have for their favorites ...

sometimes, it's just unabashed praise ... sometimes the troops are summoned en masse and it's more of a volume thing ... wow, what's with all the (your candidate's name here) threads?

you have to really wonder about the effectiveness of such activities ... i mean, that's the point, right? effectiveness ... maybe a little market research is in order ...

the question asked in the OP really cuts right to the heart of the matter ... what credibility do you, or should anyone, ascribe to someone who always agrees with their candidate? when asked, "i know that's so and so's position but what do YOU think?" ... the answer is almost always the same: "well, i agree with my candidate and that's why i support him" ...

well, yeah ... i certainly expect you would agree way more often than you would disagree ... that makes sense ...

but when it's 100% rock solid, where's the credibility? it's one thing to correct errors or elaborate on strengths or successes, but it seems to me as just plain citizens there's something at least a wee bit askew when we seem to be blindly following ... it just doesn't feel right ... it certainly is NOT persuasive when that's what's offered as a steady diet ...

so i wish we were citizens discussing the issues to the best of our abilities rather than having a "candidate barrier" imposed ... and it really is a barrier ... me? my two cents on any issue might be nowhere close to as well informed as "the experts" ... i'm just little old me and my pocket full of ideas ... when i write on the web, i'm writing from a "foundation vision" of how i see things ... sure, i suppose one fine day their might be the perfect candidate and all i would want to do is say "yup, what he said" ... truthfully, it never has happened and it never will happen ...

i wrote a post a while ago that was titled something like "stop following Democrats; lead them instead" ... i really can't say it any better than that ... it's great to have deep respect for a candidate ... it's great to have confidence in them ... it's great to know that they have more "expertise" than you do and that's why you support them ... still, i find it disturbing when there are so many important issues and so many different paths and so many different sets of values and visions that we end up either a. blindly following a candidate or b. keeping our differences to ourselves and out of the public domain ...

what's the point of discussion forums if certain "discussers" are not telling you what they really think?

so, for pragmatic political reasons and in the interest of better citizenship and better online community discussions, i urge those supporting candidates to take one giant step back and perhaps consider a new approach ...

comments?

[karynnj]

13. I think you are right

that there is a loss of credibility if people accept in their candidate things they bash others for.

As you said, though I do agree on almost all positions Kerry has taken - there are some where I disagree - at least in part. When those issues are raised, I am more likely to remain silent or at most disagree while respecting his expressed reasons (which he almost always provides).

I am more comfortable discussing those things over on the JK group because their is a commonly understood respect for him. At this point that kind of discussion is impossible here because, in the past, when I've done that things are quickly spun out of context.

Even when Kerry is completely not involved, I find that that are very few threads that are really substantive serious discussion of issues. You are one of the few who have had success in starting them.

I agree that having many threads on a favorite candidate, while better than having none, is not helpful unless they are on an issue that is important and they have at least some content. The, you know who a good 2008 candidate is threads are monotonous. This one was quirky enough I responded - knowing how disingenuous it was.

[welshTerrier2]

17. that's real nice of you to say, karyn ...

thanks!!

[AtomicKitten]

15. high-five at the attempt at honest discourse

And I too just LUV the 'my candidate is just too fabulous to a fault meme.' Pahleeeeze. Just another attempt at pimping one's favorite candidate.

Money is the biggest problem by far IMHO. It jettisons to the front of the pack candidates that may have nothing else going for them and leaves behind great contenders that just can't work the system. It makes it tough to produce a nominee worthy of a consensus of Democrats.

I long for a leader, somebody that isn't afraid to navigate untested waters to accomplished yet to be addressed problems. Gore certainly could bring his pet project of global warming to bear fruit as president. My truth-telling is that I want to hear more of his evolution politically. He was once quite conservative and admittedly I get tingly at the prospect of political evolution, but I want to hear more. I have an overwhelming gut feeling this is his shot at the top job.

Sorry, I still can't wager on any of the dipshits that voted yes on the IWR. It was poor judgment then and I have no confidence that they will not repeat that poor judgment again. Although some mitigate that vote, the resultant death toll makes it an issue I cannot trifle with in my reasoning process. But that's me.

Obama is green, he works the system, but unfortunately under the current system of requiring $$$$ that cannot be considered exclusively a bad thing. He is liberal and charismatic. He could be a contender.

Wes Clark is a fascinating candidate to me. Some cringe at his military background, but Clark is adored across the globe and that is something that is noteworthy. He is brilliant and eloquent and I believe the epitome of a paradox, a humanitarian military man. Although he is making up for it in a big way, he still lacks political savvy which, again, may not be such a bad thing.

What crosses my mind in these conversations are the qualities of Bobby Kennedy and Paul Wellstone and the untapped promise of JFK Jr. Sigh.

[welshTerrier2]

16. "Money is the biggest problem by far IMHO."

you know, AK, i've written my "proposal" to fix the "money thing" numerous times and it's always greeted with yawns ... i really don't know why ...

if you took a poll about supporting campaign finance reform, DU'ers would support it overwhelmingly ... it's insane what money has done to our democracy ... not just insane but criminally insane ... how can we continue to allow this???

well, comes the response, the republicans have been in charge and they'll never support it ... we don't have the votes ...

maybe so ... i just don't see why we can't initiate spending caps on our own candidates during the primaries ... let them raise all the money they can to prepare for the general but let's start doing the right thing in our own primaries by instituting spending caps on our candidates ... who's stoppping us???

or, even in the Democratic Party, is all this electoral reform stuff just a sham??? ... a rich man's sham???

why in our state and local primaries can't we strive for a process that encourages the best ideas to rise to the top rather than the best marketing and fundraising plans?

[AtomicKitten]

18. our entire election process should be thrown out

Don't expect to see that anytime soon unfortunately because the Dems will protect their stomping ground rights as jealously as the Republicans did.

For all of Americas's attributes, we are one dumbass country in many ways and forever destined for mediocrity unless a Katrina-like event occurs in Congress. The problem is that politicians constantly have one eye on the next election and will not sacrifice their political behinds on behalf of integrity and actually moving forward.

Feh.

[Clark2008]

21. See - there you go making sense again.

I do realize my candidates of choice have faults: one has never been elected to office, and, while I don't particularly care about that, the media gnatzies do and will make a big deal about it. My other candidate of choice DID actually win his election against Dumbya, but the "conventional wisdom" is that he lost because he didn't become president and, therefore, will "lose" again.

Americans are too easily led by their media. Until we get a handle on the entire election process, from the big money to the big media, we'll probably never get another populist, another FDR or Truman or even Teddy Roosevelt - someone who actually cares about us "little people" - into office.

[AtomicKitten]

27. "media gnatzies"

[Hippo_Tron]

78. One problem is that general election season starts before the convention

Our nominee is decided in February or March at the latest and the convention isn't until June. So when do we lift the self imposed spending caps. Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the race shortly before the convention in 2004 despite the fact that Kerry had the nomination sealed up although technically he was not the nominee. So should Kerry have had to continue to adhere to the spending cap because Kucinich was still in the race or should he have been allowed to go ahead and raise money to start running against Bush?

How would you propose that we solve that problem?

BTW, I'm all for public financing and taking big money out of politics. I think it's the key to getting a lot of the reforms passed. I just think that spending caps are going to be one of the most difficult ways to go about this, although they would certainly solve a lot of loophole problems. As a legal matter though, the Supreme Court says that spending caps are unconstitutional and that was in the 1970's when the court was a lot more liberal.

[welshTerrier2]

79. excellent points, HT ...

i am far from an expert on campaign finance reform and i think you've raised some very legitimate counter-points to my proposal to cap spending unilaterally during the primaries until we can get something that would restrict the spending of all candidates ...

first, regarding your last point about Constitutionality, it's not clear to me whether that would or would not apply to a political party ... maybe it is true that a law passed by Congress to restrict funding would be overturned by the Court ... it's less clear, however, that the Court would intervene against a political party ... suppose Democrats said, if you want to run on OUR BALLOT, you can't do this ... the issue would be balancing the rights of political parties versus the right of free speech ... for example, if someone with what the party views as abhorrent ideas wants to run as a Democrat, can the party block that person from running on THEIR TICKET during the primaries? ... i don't know the answer to that but the issue seems different than a broader law about funding caps regardless of party ... one is a party's right to define its own groundrules and the other is a Congressional dictate to restrict free speech ...

as for the second point about clear frontrunners and eventual nominees and the timing of primaries and the general election, this is also a very solid counter-argument ... i'll have to take that one under advisement ...

one current thought i had in response was that it seems almost all of the spending that happens is focussed on the next one or two primary states ... how many times have you heard people from later primary states complain that they never see an ad or hear anything at all about the candidates until after the convention because only the first few states really have meaningful contests?

so, it's not to necessarily disagree with your point but, perhaps the reality of a presumptive nominee is that they are not using their massive campaign chest to broadcast their message across the country prior to the convention ... this doesn't suggest that other uses for funding are not present in those later states ... perhaps funds are indeed being spent on building an infrastructure that can be used for the general election ... that's not clear though ...

thanks for your excellent post ... you gave me something to think about ...

[Hippo_Tron]

81. I don't think the presumptive nominee does as much spending as they do raising money

Presumptive nominees tend to spend most of the spring and summer months raising money to try to catch up with the incumbent President. I believe the way that matching funds works is that candidates raise $75 million before the convention and that money is matched. Any excess money that they receive, they can spend while it is still primary season but after they accept the nomination they are barred from accepting any new contributions or spending any money that isn't part of the $75 million.

The RNC spent some absurd amount of money (can't remember how much exactly) in the spring and early summer attacking Kerry while he was still building his war chest but it was incredibly ineffective. Kerry's ads picked up in the early summer months once he'd built his war chest and the Republicans were shitting their pants because they thought Bush was toast.

Also, another thing to consider is what happens when we have the incumbent President. Technically incumbent Presidents get primary challenges every time, but they are mostly completely unknown people. I'd agree with spending caps for a scenario like 1968 with Gene McCarthy vs Lyndon Johnson. But I don't want our incumbents to have to adhere to a spending cap every election because Lyndon LaRouche throws his hat in the ring every four years. How do you determine what primary challenges to an incumbent President are legitimate?

I'm not intentionally trying to knock your idea because it's a good one and it's certainly well intentioned but like with all campaign finance reform there are so many aspects to consider.

[venable]

28. yeah, these responses didn't quite understand the honesty that was asked for

'the only problem with my candidate is he is a god, and people don't truly grasp the Divine'

[ray of light]

46. self deleted

[Clark2008]

14. Lack of media coverage. Period.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

19. Ok.

DK is a white male. He is not respected enough by his own party to ever rise above the glass ceiling for progressives.

Gore? NAFTA/CAFTA.

[kentuck]

20. Perhaps...

Where's Riley when you need him? :)

[Eurobabe]

22. I for one, am not playing these games anymore...

The likelihood of CON OPS on here looking for cannon fodder is too high.

[MGKrebs]

23. Clark has shown no ability to raise money for himself.

[Clark2008]

25. I assume you mean this time around.

He has some faults, but that's not one of them. To wit: Clark raised the most money of any of the Democratic hopefuls in January 2004. And he'd only been running for three months at that point. Pretty quick on the uptake, if you ask me.

Now, this time around, it has more to do with the media's abject failure to even mention his name than his abilities, alone.

[MGKrebs]

26. You can't say "the media's failure".

It has to be construed as Clark's failure. Clark is unable to get the necessary media attention. Why, I don't know, but a realistic candidate must be able to do that.
He is again starting out way behind.

[jen4clark]

32. You're serious???

Have you seen General Clark's schedule for 2006 alone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3021911&mesg_id=3022047


And yet if you don't read blogs, or his own website, you'd think he'd been hiding out in Little Rock. Yes, it IS the media's failure, and it's no accident.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

35. Seriously?

Are you under the impression that around the country there's a cabal of rightwing journalists, bent only on the destruction of Wesley Clark?

True story: most newspapers are under intense financial pressure to squeeze every spare cent they can out of their budgets. A working journalist goes into the trade at barely 22,000 a year, and whatever they're covering better be something that sells a paper NOW. Under these circumstances, a speech by an undeclared presidential candidate to an Elk's Hall in rural Pennsylvania isn't worth the resources.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Clark frequently is left off Presidential Polls

You can easily research this at PollingReport.com
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm
Here is the latest example:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 8-11, 2006.


Hillary Clinton 37
Barack Obama 18
John Edwards 14
John Kerry 11
Joe Biden 4
Evan Bayh 3
Bill Richardson 2
Tom Vilsack
Other (vol.) 3
None (vol.) 3
Unsure 5

[MGKrebs]

50. But he is not left off of EVERY poll, and

when he is included, he polls at 1-4%. He is not always considered viable. He is not succeeding in getting his name out there as a legitimate candiate. If this is his idea of testing the waters, he's got a ways to go.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see him as a candidate and I think he would likely make a very good president, but he is going to have to start doing something different if he is going to have a chance. He may be trying to act presidential, but you have to be a good candidate first. That means raising money and getting pub.

We had a candidate for Secretary of State here in Georgia last year who was an excellent candidate, but he lost badly. Although he was a native Georgian, his parents are Indian immigrans and he has an Indian name. We felt that the basic problem was that he had no built in "base". First time candidate, no demographic base to speak of, no name recognition and a foreign sounding name to bot. Clark has kind of the same problem. Incumbant office holders can get publicity pretty much whenever they want. Minority or women candidates for president get pub just because of the drama of it. Guys like Dean got pub because of the novelty of their campaign. Clark has none of these things. He's another potential candidate in a large field of potential candidates and he has nothing to distinguish himself from any of the others. He has no congressional district to start from. His best political ally is probably going to run too. I think that to the extent the public is aware of Clark, the most unique things about him are that he has no elective experience, and he apparently had trouble deciding which party he belonged to.

Need more to run a successful campaign.

edit; I wanted to add these polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. We don't completely disagree

However it amazes me how two distortions can exist at the same time without one raising a red flag on the other. The most obvious one is that polls at this stage in a Presidential election cycle are notoriously and consistently wildly inaccurate at predicting who the major candiates and eventual nominee for a political party will be. The fact that every four years people act like they have total amnesia about how toatlly wrong the early polls were four years prior is almost laughable. Yet these polls get trotted out to prove how so and so almost has the nomination locked up, or only has one serious challanger left, every four years.

The second is this matter of viability. You said of Clark: "...he polls at 1-4%. He is not always considered viable." So who is it who says who is and is not viable? Actually, there is a whole roster of beltway pundits, "political insiders", and political correspondents who make a living doing exactly that. They get paid to, among other things, instruct the public on who is and who is not a viable political candidate. Some of them actually do monthly roundups of the potential 2008 field, and they get a lot of press and air time doing so. If you do the research (I have) you will find that almost to a man (and most of them are men) these pundits always spoke about Marc Warner and Evan Bayh as serious contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination for well over a year. They barely even mentioned Wes Clark.

During that entire time I don't think I ever saw a poll where Bayh got more than 1% of the votes. Warner maxed out at about 4% but usually he was at 1% to 3%, and Wes Clark almost always polled higher than Warner when included in the polls. Wes Clark has almost always outpolled Russ Feingold, Marc Warner, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson in Presidential preference polls. Clark and Joe Biden go back and forth in popularity, often they are tied. The only person who polls stronger than Wes Clark who has not previously been on a Democratic National Ticket or lived in the White House is Obama, and he has been the subject of a media frenzy.

And I think you are being wildly unfair and inaccurate in what you descibe as unique about Wes Clark at the close of your piece. I would counter you. I think that to the extent the public is aware of Clark, the most unique things about him are that Clark led N.A.T.O. to victory in it's first war, and that Clark having served as a national security analyst for two cable news networks, for two quick examples.

Unlike some of the others in the potential Democratic field, Wes Clark has not yet begun to actively promote himself for President. Yes the time has come when he needs to do so. Lets see what happens once he starts.

[MGKrebs]

57. You're right, we don't.

And certainly there are pundits who just spew whatever is on the tip of their tongue or the top of their head. But many pundits do their homework. They know who is speaking where, and how they were received, whether they are getting any money, who they are surrounding themselves with, and generally what the right moves are at this point. But what seems to get the most attention is drama. Hillary is drama. Obama is drama. Gore would be drama. Biden is not drama and neither is Clark, but that's pretty much all that gets attention at this point. I agree with you that early polling doesn't mean much, but I was respondng to someone about an alleged media conspiracy. Biden (or Vilsack or whoever) and Clark may end up near the top at some point, but it will probably be because they built great field operations, raised a lot of money, and didn't sleep, unless they resuscitate someone dying from a car wreck or personally thwart (my new favorite word) a terrorist attack.

The other side of your red flag scenario is that people can complain about a media conspiracy keeping poorly performing candidates from succeeding in polls but also say that the polls don't really matter.

Clark's uniqueness- I agree that those are unique things about Clark, but everybody has a unique resume to some extent. The NATO thing didn't take him too far last time, what is to make us think it will be different? Why should it be compelling? And I'm not sure the pundit thing is a positive or not. Face time, yes, but that hasn't translated into much support either. And every candidate gets on TV one way or another.

Let's see what happens!

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

59. I have no idea what you're getting at

Duncan Hunter is frequently left off polling results for Republican candidates.

Being new to this DemocraticUnderground thing, I'm trying to suss what's being thought here. Is it:

A) Clark isn't being given a fair amount of media coverage?

or

B) The media is purposely not covering Clark?

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Fair questions

Duncon Hunter was a very late entry into the potential field, so no one would have thought of him period a while back. Plus I can't remember when a Congressman actually won a nomination, which hurts him being taken seriously (last General of course was in 1956).

There is a history behind this discussion. For example during December/January of 2004 Inside Politics on CNN went over 20 days straight with Judy Woodruff refusing to even mention Wes Clark's name. When Marc Warner took himself out of Presidential race in October, the first Associated Press coverage of his announcement included this:

"...Warner leaves a crowded field of possible Democratic candidates.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is widely considered the front-runner for the nomination. Others considering or positioning themselves for a run include Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic nominee; former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the vice presidential nominee two years ago; Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson."

No mention of Wes Clark in that coverage. No one was talking about Chris Dodd as a Democratic candidate, either then or now. Dodd, Richardson, Bayh and Vilsack were polling at 1% or less in October. The weekly Washington Post poltical column, "The Fix", just ranked Richardson Vilsack and Dodd as their longer shot contenders, after the ususual favorites. Again, no mention of Wes Clark, who almost always polls higher than all of those men when he is included in polls.

There is a lot of speculation about why this happens, and ultimately that is what it is, speculation. But there is clear evidence of uneven coverage of Clark's potential candidacy.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

67. Obvious answer? Clark/Hunter 2008.

As we speculate on the media making judgement calls on viability, you kind of did the same thing in your first paragraph. With unlimited media coverage of his every bowel movement, would Duncan Hunter be a viable presidential candidate? Is it really fair to equate this general with the win of a previous general who was known far and wide and beloved in every household, a general in which a great deal of the voting males in this country had actually served under arms with?

I won't argue about cable news coverage, mostly because my background has been in print, and because cable news is seething with partisan bias. STILL:

1)Wes Clark holds no elective office, thus generates little news other than his campaign for president.

2)Wes Clark hasn't declared for presidency, even when other candidates who've recognized their need for visibility have (or are about to, or have dropped out).

3)According to Josh Marshall's (and you can disagree) pretty exhaustive list of the political operatives who've been snapped up for '08, Wes Clark apparently has two, one of which is the original 'Draft Clark' guy. Notably, where's the bloody fundraisers?

You've got to be news to be in the news, and like I said in an earlier post, fundraising PACs for local candidates and appearances at 'inside baseball' rallies aren't newsworthy to people who need to make money from the news. He's gotsta delcare and start building infastructure if he's gonna get press.

I'm not saying this out of rancor or anything, and fuck knows I'm not an attatched "Clarkie" or an "Edwardie" or a "Hillaranamy" or whatever, BENT ONLY ON THE DESTRUCTION OF OTHER CANDIDATES VIA MESSAGEBOARDS OTHER THAN MY OWN. I'm just sayin, is all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. I don't expect Clark to get the media speculation that Edwards does

...or Kerry, or Clinton, or Gore. Obama can genuinely be an inspirational figure, but he's also a media darling at the moment. I would like to be able to expect for Clark to be included pretty much every time there is a poll with more than the top four candidates listed, or every time there is a print article that lists more than five Democrats considering a run for President. I don't think that is unrealistic or unwarranted. For a year now, the only Democrats who routinely poll higher than Clark for President are Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Gore, and just recently Obama. Biden and Clark trade places and Warner edged Clark only once in one poll, otherwise Warner always polled lower.

Clark generates some news as a Democratic Party leader on national security issues, and his importance in this area has been directly acknowledged by the Democratic Party Congressional leadership.

And of course you are right that Clark now has to go out and build a real campaign organization if he wants to seriously run for President. He will not earn any extensive coverage until he does so. Clark pretty much has to start doing that now, but it is premature to say he's late for the game this time if in fact Clark does shortly establish an exploratory committee.

I hope your capitalized comments weren't directed at me. While I do support a candidate I never "attack" other potential Democratic candidates, and I seldom even address my concerns with any of them at this early stage in the process. Right now Al Gore is my second choice behind Wes Clark.

[MGKrebs]

40. Well if so many are right and HC and BO can't win,

then Wes will be one of the remaining left standing. I hope he has some money and an actual campaign operation in place instead of just a bunch of personal appearances.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

33. The media...

Reports on current events, often with the hope of readership, and sadly as of late, a driving hope for higher profit margins.

Its the job of presidential candidates to generate enough publicity to generate visibility. Tom Tancredo also doesn't get mentioned a lot. The conspiracy deepens by the moment.

[venable]

36. Clark=Jesus, Neo, or the Bodhisatva? You make the call.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. With all of the Edwards boosting going on here over the last few days

I expect better from you than this.

[venable]

43. I thought I was being funny

Really. I don't know how to apply emoticons, or I would have made a winking face. Well, actually, I wouldn't have, because I just don't like the way emoticons look...


It must have come off as snide, but I was just being cute (I thought) about how the OP asked for weaknesses, and the Clark weakness was basically too good, too fair, too smart. I didn't mean it badly, really. You know that I have no problems with Clark. At all. Pretty much like him, and could definitely support him.

Later in the thread, an Edwards supporter finds a real weakness in my guy, and I agree.


The only time I get riled up, and speak harshly, is when certain posters (about four of them - not all Clark supporters) are UNFAIR about my guy. Fair criticism is welcome. Unfair is expected. But incessant, predictable, brutal and false accusations drive me up a wall and I start to give back in turn. I always regret it later.

I 'botched' the joke, like Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. OK. Explanation fully accepted

Just so you know why I reacted like I did, it was the combination on the same thread of this comment by you with the one above from you that said in part:

"There is at least one cult on this board, and that is the most dangerous kind of support imaginable."

If I got my math wrong in adding two plus two together, I've been known to botch balencing my checkbook also.

[venable]

45. oh, yeah, that makes sense

I can see that math, though I really isn't how I meant it.

as regards the OP...I do think that seeing a candidate as someone with faults as well as virtues is a good thing.

Just as one should recognize that your opponent has virtues that coexist with his/her faults.


For instance - I think Obama is being treated as too perfect right now. It is not fair to him, not only because he can't match up (even he says this, and sees it as a real problem), but also that when painted with such a brush, his real nature is obscured.

We must look with eyes as unfettered by our preconceptions as possible. Our vision can never be absolutely unfettered, but we should try, out of fairness to truth, and fairness to those upon whom we gaze.

[venable]

52. just to be clear

I'm not being sarcastic in my post title...I just saw it and realize that it looks sarcastic. I'm clearly way off my game last night and today, repeatedly missing the tone I mean to convey.

so, please don't take it as sarcasm.

by the way, I read through your Forum, and, as I've said before, you make good points about Clark. Should he get the nomination, I will work all the harder as a result of your reasoned advocacy of the man.

Peace.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Peace to you also venable. Thanks. n/t

[rucky]

24. Mine's Kucinich...

and we've already had that discussion about 100 times.

My take on it is that there's not a whole lot wrong with DK, but with a huge segment of the voters from the left who are too afraid (or cynical) to fully implement a progressive vision for this country.

Saying you like DK but won't vote for him because other people don't like him is like saying: "I'm not a racist, but all the racists around me won't like you, so I'm not going to hire you."

Don't be afraid to ask for what you want.

[Infinite Hope]

29. Edwards could have more experience and appear less of a pretty-boy.

He's working on the latter by saying what he thinks now, it seems, and speaking less from a script and more from his heart.

[venable]

37. agreed

well said.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

31. Too far left. Also, long since dead.

<img src= >

Oh Estes Kefauver, the minute we figure out how to breathe unholy life back into you, the White House is yours.

[UrbScotty]

34. Wes: inexperienced.

He has not held one office.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. No, he only headed the NATO Alliance

Unlike all of the quarterbacks, wrestlers, movie actors, baseball pitchers,lawyers, and corporate CEOs who jump immediately into a Governor's mansion or U.S. Senate seat with no prior office held, Clark hasn't been meaningfully employed. Of course we all know that first getting elected to something, like Governor, is such a perfect screening tool. Ask all the Americans who are thrilled with the current President.

The last time America elected a sitting U.S. Senator President was 46 years ago. The last time America elected someone President who had held no previous political office was 50 years ago.

[ray of light]

42. Honestly? I do have many 'choices' but this is a good and fair question

In random order

1. Clarke-- Not enough known about his skills in politics. I really like him for vp potential.

2. Kerry--too nice--too much integrity. Often a difficult combination in politics.

3. Obama--I'm afraid the south wouldn't vote for a black man. I never thought this until after the "call me" commercial during the Ford race. Now, I'm afraid that racism is still a powerful force in the south.

4. Edwards--I like his poverty work. But does the fact that he's been campaigning since 03 hurt him? Also, the last email "What do you think?" (as if people don't already know he's running) came off as a little slick.

5. Gore--Love Gore. Doubt he's running. Not running is a serious flaw for the 08 Presidential elections. Guess I can't vote for him.

Now that I've answered your questions--fairly and from my heart--I'd like to see DU actually strategize about Republican candidates. Because like it or not, most people here will vote for whoever wins the primary. Therefore, what would be most effective to help any of our 'fav's' beat the Republican candidate?

1. McCain--kisses up to the people who attacked his child and wife. He doesn't protect them--why would he protect you? He's sided with the religious fundies and the corporations and is no longer Mr. Straighttalk. We need to change his meme to Mr. side-talk or something. Media helps him. He is also blatently corrupt by hiring a Republican thug to run his campaign. (Nelson is it?)

etc...

Get the idea?

[Vektor]

66. Ray! Help me out here...

What is the "call me" thing? What happened? I never heard anything about this.

[ray of light]

68. oy!!!

The 'call me" ad--check this (hope the link works)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkiz1_d1GsA

Keep in mind--Ford is black...and check the white woman's comments and the voice at the end.

[Vektor]

72. Wow. Pretty disgusting.

Pathetic mudslinging. Horrible, sensationalist trash.

Typical GOP attack methods, however.

Interestingly, the ad could be perceived more like a parody of how ridiculous the Repukes are. It seems more like a satirical jab at the RW.

I know it wasn't meant to be, but the right wing is so over the top that they often end up mocking themselves more than they do their opponents.

[ray of light]

73. Nelson...the guy who admits responsibility for the ad...

who has ties to the phone jamming, to Rove, and to other nefarious schemes....was just hired by McCain to run his 08 presidential campaign.

[ray of light]

75. Vek...I know you've been gone, but...

that commercial cost Ford the race. He lost because it tugged the racist hearts of the electorate there.

Ford had one of the best concession speeches I've ever heard.

[Dude_CalmDown]

47. Kucinich - gets his hair cut in the back of a Hummer while off-roading. n/t

:smoke:

[burythehatchet]

60. I was gonna say - mine looks like a farkin elf

[Dude_CalmDown]

71. Yeah but I think that's a good thing.

With the idiots we've got in this country I'd say it's good - elves make people think of cookies.

-"Mmmmmm I like cookies, maybe I should vote for Mr. Keebler."

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Your question is extremely broad

I can focus on gaps in Wes Clark's resume, unpopular positions he has taken, positions he has taken that I disagree with, problematic public perceptions, problematic personal qualities , enemies he's made, his relative base of support, issues that will hurt in the Primaries but help in the General Election or vice versa, etc.

Obviously the fact that Clark has not held previous elected office is held against him by some. The fact that someone can never have held elected office before being elected a U.S. Senator, but then starts running for President without seeking reelection to the Senate, doesn't trigger off the same type of scrutiny and doubts in some people's minds as never having gotten elected in the first place. The fact that Clark is not a current Senator means he doesn't have a re-election campaign bankroll that he can dig into to help finance a Presidential run. The fact that Clark ran once before without winning the nomination leaves some thinking that Clark was a failed candidate.

For Democratic Primary voters the fact that Clark has not embraced a fixed timeline for withdrawal from Iraq loses him a lot of votes that otherwise might have leaned his way. The fact that Clark is thought of almost exclusively as a foreign policy and national security expert inside of a political party whose activist base (when it isn't busy opposing a war) is almost exclusively focused on domestic issues is a potential liability for Clark in the Primaries. The fact that Clark wasn't a life long Democrat hurts him with some Democratic voters, though it could help him win a General Election. In many ways the same can be said for Clark's life time of service in the military, which some Democratic activists have trouble seeing compatible with seeking the Presidency, but I believe it would help Clark win the General Election for President.

There is a cluster of things like that, ways in which Clark doesn't fit the profile of who Democrats usually vote for. Despite being a strong advocate for civil liberties and dissent, Clark's personal reverence for the American Flag jars some left leaning Democrats. I disagree with Clark over his personal preference for protecting the American Flag from dishonor, though it is not an issue that Clark would ever push. Someone above said that Clark uses "we" instead of "I" too much, and that is true, but not only because it prevents him from tooting his own horn. After a lifetime of service in the military, Clark literally accepts that the U.S. Government is our government (the flip to that is he believes it is the obligation of all U.S. citizens to hold our government accountable for it's actions). This naturally results in Clark using "We" when describing actions of the Bush Administration in the world. He will say something like "We don't trust the North Koreans to abide by such and such agreement", and by that he means the United States government. He means how the United States is being seen in the world when he says something like "We are telling the world that they need to get on board..." The problem is Clark's opponents have a field day cut and pasting such remarks into attack pieces that imply Wes Clark personally supports everything that he says "we" are doing.

I can write an essay on potential weaknesses of a Wes Clark presidential candidacy, but I'm not sure what the point is.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

49. Gore, because he's seriously considering

not running. We really really need him.

[PresidentObama]

51. Kerry, has the damaged goods label.

Though he's went leaps and bounds trying to turn the ship around, and basically has shown the true side of John Kerry we didn't get to see much of in 2004 because of the media.

And probably, the media as a whole. I know, the media was against him last time--and he pulled through. But the media seems to not even consider Kerry at all. Which is stupid when they cover Obama and Clinton over and over. And candidates like Kerry, Clark, Biden, and others don't get the time of day.

[ray of light]

53. damaged goods could be a plus--if you consider it insider v outsider

And right now, Insiders are part of the 'bad crowd."

[AzDar]

56. John Edwards is just a lovely man. I have a tremendous amount of trouble

getting past his IWR vote, however.
I think EVERY potential candidate has at least one negative aspect..the question is: what can one manage to overlook?

:shrug:

[jgraz]

61. posted in wrong place -- bush sucks

Replacing my incorrectly posted message with one that goes anywhere:

BUSH SUCKS ASS

[venable]

63. You make a good point

and I think that the IWR vote is his biggest albatross. I also agree that having weaknesses and blemishes is part of being fully real.

Can this vote be overlooked? I try to do it this way:

I know that he was very concerned about whether to vote for the IWR, but that Tenet told him, point blank, to his face, privately, that Saddam was on the verge of having viable WMD.

He voted for a process, not an invasion. Once he made that commitment, he pushed as hard as he could (hence what is called his 'cheerleading')

He apologized with no excuses: 'I was wrong'.

He voted against the 87billion war supplement, risking being called a warmonger who doesn't take care of the troops. This vote was a way to hobble the real war monger, and he made it with complete disregard as to how it could be used against him.

He is for immediate commencement of withdrawal.

He genuinely suffers for the loss of life. He knows that brothers and sons and fathers have lost their lives in the awful, pointless war. He knows exactly what that means.

It is not Edwards' war. It is bush's.

[ripple]

58. Obama

The 'rock star' label the media has tagged on him only serves to trivialize him as a candidate. I know a lot of folks here believe the media is giving him an unfair advantage, but I tend to think that all of the hype will only work to his disadvantage. When one is painted as someone who can practically walk on water, it's inevitable that some will be disappointed when they realize he's human, just like any other candidate.

I have confidence in Obama's ability to overcome the hype and convince voters that he is the best candidate for the job, but he's going to have to work hard to drown out the voices of those who insist upon sensationalizing his potential candidacy.

[venable]

64. the rock star label is not fair to Obama

I suspect he wants us to see him as he really is.

the hype will hurt him, and that's unfair.

[Greatwildbeast]

80. Obama speaks poorly "off the cuff"

His prepared speeches are excellent. When unscripted? Makes me uncomfortable. Too many "Uh uh uh uh's".

And while this is not an indication of leadership, character policy it needs to be addressed. Not everything a candidate says is a canned schpeil.

His chat on the Ed Schultz showed this flaw in his speaking skills. Obama needs to take control of everything he says. Have an "Uh" counter sit over him and make him break this habit.

"Verbal filler" we called it in Toastmasters. Easy to fix but sounds unprofessional and weak if left untreated.

[ripple]

84. I've noticed that as well, but I consider it a positive

Instead of just spewing a line of rhetoric, Obama thinks through questions and provides a reasoned response. I think this makes him seem sincere and thoughtful, as opposed to politicians who draw from a repertoire of canned responses and choose one that best fits the question posed. I've yet to see Obama either fail to answer a question, or to come across as insincere in his response.


Edited for spelling

[Greatwildbeast]

85. Agreed he is prepared.

However it would hardly take a weekend cram session in public speaking to break him of the "UH" habit.

And THAT my friend will help him with the less sophisticated voter.

Also: Assuming he goes all the way in '08 a better off the cuff speaking voice will make him appear stronger on the world stage.

Exuding confidence is a major plus. The "Uh uh uh" is always perceived as a sign of weakness.

[ripple]

86. I think I see what you mean

The pause, or "uh" (and "ah") usage could potentially hurt him when it comes to the primary (and hopefully, presidential) debates. I think there are certainly worse qualities to have, though. For example, John Edwards rarely pauses, but he always comes across as a salesman to me. I know he gets his style from his experience as a trial lawyer, but I don't think it necessarily helps him- he fits right in to the "slick politician" stereotype. I like the guy, but it's a little bit of a turn-off for me.

Obama's nuanced approach is refreshing and his thoughtful and measured responses make it less likely he'll say something stupid, but I suppose it could leave some voters believing he lacks confidence. That could potentially become more of an issue when he has a limited amount of time to articulate his point and when he's up against more seasoned politicians. I still think the sincerity he brings will overcome those potential deficits, provided he's able to get message across.

[Greatwildbeast]

87. Getting rid of the "uhs"

can be accomplished quickly. "Verbal filler" we called it at Toastmasters. I was guilty guilty of it and would once embarass myself with NINE friggin "Uhs" in one short paragraph of speech.

They all sat around the table COUNTING my "uhs". However the removal of that word is crucial to politcal survival especially in an unseasoned public speaker.

Obama gets away with it because he IS experienced, however if he got rid of the habit he would be an indomitable public speaker. So look at it as a plus.

I really should take the time to write the good Senator and give him this constructive critism. Could make the difference in his getting the nod or bowing out.

That's if anyone takes the point seriously. I may know what to say & do but most folks won't pay much attention to it because am just a small time plumber and gadfly.

[Greatwildbeast]

88. Copy of letter to Obama

Sent this one off to the Great senator just a minute ago. Hope it didn't piss him. But then again i REALLY hope he takes it seriously!!!

Dear Senator,

This is not an e-mail on the subject of the economy. The format did not have my topic choice.

The reason for this e-mail is to comment on your "off the cuff" speaking style:

While your speeches are great you tend to say a lot of "Uhs" when talking unscripted. This is very noticeable and makes you sound less strong than your more scripted performances. Noticed this in particular on the "Ed Schultz Show" last week.

"Uh" is a form of verbal filler. Completely unecessary. In fact SILENCE instead of the filler makes a speaker sound STRONG. It develops a sense of DRAMA that the audience picks up on.

We are all counting on you to carry a message of hope to the American people. So i hope you will accept this constructive criticism positively and incorporate it into your habits.

Toastmasters is an excellent source for ridding oneself of the described horrendous habit. It is a severe distraction and yet so easily corrected.

Sincerely

(my real name)
California

[ripple]

90. Awesome proactive approach!

I hope Obama takes you up on your advice, without losing the qualities that make him so likeable. Your assessment of silence vs. filler makes complete sense. It certainly doesn't hurt to keep the bases covered. Thanks! :)

[Greatwildbeast]

91. Dangerous to stroke the BEAST'S ego

However i agree with you: Am absolutely dead on right on this one. So much so that would urge a bunch of us to do the SAME thing for the Senator: Stay on his ass until he breaks the "Uh uh uh" habit.

Do that? We got another JFK in the making.

Extra credit: Someone tell his friggen wife to do the dishes. For Christ's sake I would wash the dishes for a friggin Senator!

[jgraz]

62. My candidate has one insurmountable flaw

He isn't running :(

http://www.runrussrun.com/

[mloutre]

69. the big problem with my fav candidate is...

...that everybody seems to dislike him, and/or be afraid of him, and/or think he's a great guy but shouldn't run in '08, and/or look for chances to call me and my friends candi-fans because we like him, and/or think we must be getting paid by him if we say anything positive about him on DU, and/or think he's gotta lotta damn gall running for anything in the first place, and/or think the only reason anybody's paying attention to him is just coz Shrub sucks so much, and/or...

...oh, wait, that's *your* candidate they're talking about.

And hers. And his, too.

Oops.

Sorry. My bad. Never mind.

:0)

[whalerider55]

74. Eugene McCarthy is dead

[On the Road]

76. Al Gore Tends to Sound Whiny and Didactic

even though I don't think of him that way.

And his proposal to shore up Social Security with a carbon tax strikes me as as terrible policy, and makes me question his judgment.

I still think his combination of foresight, integrity, experience, and passion would make him the best president, and possibly the best candidate.

[fuzzyball]

77. I have only ONE thing against my favorite----Hillary

and that is she did not clue me in how to make
100 grand in the stock futures market in a short time.

But I won't hold that against her, since I like all her
positions on important issues to me.

[talk hard]

82. Kucinich is said to be unelectable

I think that means he just can't raise the big bucks.

[SanCristobal]

83. Condoleeza Rice is such a great person,

and she has helped so many people in so many ways. All around the world peoples lives have been improved by her work, especially in the Mid-East. I'm afraid that peoples racism and sexism will prevent her from continuing her important work as our first black female president.

Wait, what are we talking about again? I think I have to start over...