Election Math for Democrats: Two plus Two plus Two Equals Clark
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on September 26, 2006 - 2:44am.
Wesley Clark
Sometimes Democrats are as stubborn as the mule that represents us. How many times can Republicans smack us over the head with a "National Security" stick before we see it coming BEFORE it whacks us? Republicans signal their plans to attack us clearer than Al Quada. Republicans Bush whacked us with "security" in 2002, then they Bush whacked us with "security" in 2004, and now they're trying to Bush whack us with "security" again in 2006.
Thankfully there are signs that the Mule is kicking back, but more from reflex than from strategy, and any boxer knows that's not the best way to win a fight. Bill Clinton was right to get angry at FOX, it was past high time to do so. Anger sets off passion and passion shakes up a game board, and something sure as hell needed to get shaken because the way this game's been played of late, Democrats usually lose. But the fact remains, this fight again started out with Democrats playing defense, and it's a usually a bad idea to always wait for the other guy to land the first punch.
National Democrats tried so hard to stay out of the way while the Bush Administration seemed to be self destructing this Summer, that we never pressed the case that we have always needed to press; it's the Democrats, not the Republicans, who know how to keep America safe in today's dangerous world. This is not to say that leading Democrats never make or made that case, what I said was we never pressed it, and there is a big difference. Democrats routinely shy away from fully engaging Republican neocons in a debate about national security strategy.
There are several reasons for this and I already touched on one of them; reports coming out of Iraq remain terrible, and Democrats thought letting the spot light linger on the horrific small picture of Iraq's daily deadly drum roll would serve them well in November. They are right, it will, so of course Republicans are doing everything in their power to move the focus off of Iraq and onto the far more slippery slope of "The War on Terror". Republicans constantly talk about being strong, of having resolve, and of delivering results that all Americans welcome; no repeats of 9/11.
Republicans grab full credit for what has not happened since 9/11 as emphatically as they push full blame for what did happen on 9/11 onto Clinton and the Democrats. It should not have taken a political genius to anticipate how this group of Republicans would exploit the 5th anniversary of 9/11. We could have beaten them to their punch years ago, with no exploitation necessary, just by doggedly advancing the concept of accountability, but few Democrats wanted to dwell on the months that preceded 9/11, the period Wesley Clark referred to when he accused George W. Bush of "Command Negligence" over three months ago as he addressed the Texas Democratic Convention.
Few Democrats had even heard of "The Path to 9/11" when Wes Clark leveled that charge at Bush, let alone gotten furious over that heavy handed effort to pin the blame on Democrats, but Clark could see what was coming and he moved to preempt it. It is relatively easy to respond to an attack. The real trick is to correctly anticipate one and then act first. Here is some of what Wes Clark had to say on June 9th in Texas:
"The truth is…the truth is we could be doing so much more. You know, when this administration came into office in January of 2001, they ignored the advice of the people who’d been in office for 8 years. We knew that Osama bin Laden was the principal threat to the United States of America but I guess George Bush thought he knew more than we did and so he just shoved it aside – he and Condi and Dick Cheney and the rest of the crowd. They didn’t want to hear it. Terrorism – that was a Democratic problem and when he was warned in the summer of 2001 that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike the United States, he went on vacation.
Now I can understand wanting to come back to Texas on vacation – it’s a pretty darn nice place down here and I can even understand wanting to chop cedar – I’ve got a little place in western Arkansas and I’ve been looking at all that stuff there and it makes me want to go out and chop every now and then too – but he shouldn’t have done it. It’s what I call ‘command negligence’ because… I think any reasonable person who was Commander in Chief at the time who had gotten a warning like that would have called the members of the cabinet together and said ‘fellas, ladies, I don’t know what this warning means but this is not happening on my watch – you put your heads together, you’ve got 2 weeks, you come up with an action plan – I want to know what you’re doing in the Justice Department, what the FBI’s doing, what DOD’s doing, what CIA’s doing’ – and he would have been a leader and he might have saved a lot of lives.
Now why am I going back over ancient history? Because it’s not ancient. Because we went to war in Iraq to cover up the command negligence that contributed to 9/11. And it was a war we didn’t have to fight. Thank you. That’s the truth and I hope every Democrat around this country sees you all on your feet acknowledging the reality of the world we’re living in today thanks to the misleadership of this Republican administration. I’ve been in war. I don’t believe in it and you don’t do it unless there’s absolutely, absolutely, absolutely - no alternative. "
http://securingamerica.com/node/1083
It is my opinion that most of the Democratic Party still hasn't reached a comfort level sufficient to run a national campaign highlighting the issue of National Security, which leaves it to Republicans to define that realm of political conflict to the electorate on their own terms. Democrats tend to dwell on specific Republican foreign policy failures without powerfully articulating an overall foreign policy alternative. For example Democrats usually talk about ways to get America out of the Iraq nightmare (as well we should) while Republicans always talk about how to keep Americans safe. Bush, Cheney, and company routinely kick it up a level to obscure the messy details of their specific failures.
Republicans present a clear vision for achieving National Security and it relies on the naked projection of American military force. People know where Republicans claim to stand; they stand on (but never really for) the military. Democrats often come off weaker to voters on National Security, and I think that’s because typically we fail to take command of this issue. Democrats are quite fluent on domestic issues, it's in our political culture, it's what we traditionally have always talked about. But National Security never seems to roll as effortlessly off Democratic tongues as it does off of Republican ones.
That is more than a shame, that is a tragedy, because Democrats have a real vision for National Security, and it is one that actually fits the world we live in, unlike the gung ho neocon military wet dream that propels the Bush Administration. Democrats are mostly running against an unpopular Bush Presidency in this mid term election, and that may be enough to win, but we won't have George Bush to kick around in 2008, most likely we'll get John McCain, or failing that perhaps someone like Mitt Romney. The Republicans won't run anyone too closely identified with the Bush Administration in 2008 unless somehow Bush regains political traction, and if that ever happens we're in worse trouble than I thought we were.
Here's something that worries me. A Democrat who is not comfortable talking about National Security will usually overcompensate by trying to sound "tough", and that is always a dangerous thing. Heaven forbid that he or she might actually believe their own Republican lite saber rattling rhetoric, but regardless it will be seen as just that; a Republican lite shadow of the real thing, and when it comes to feeling safe, people like it real.
Which brings me finally to my subject line, how the Election math adds up to Wes Clark in 2008. For one thing, when it comes to National Security, it simply doesn't get more real than a Four Star General. I'll invoke K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) here. Our 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate can be someone who attempts to explain in great detail why a soft on security label being pinned on him or her by Republicans does not really fit, or our candidate can be the most decorated American military officer since Dwight T. Eisenhower, who led and won a war after serving in our military non stop after coming home wounded from Viet Nam. The Republican Party never concedes a point without a fight, but attempting to frame General Clark as soft on National Security can never pass the K.I.S.S. test, since it is so obviously illogical on the surface.
Ironically though, the obvious advantage Wes Clark presents Democrats in 2008 is the least of it. It won't be his uniform that will be most valuable to us in regaining the White House, it will be Clark's strategic vision, both for our Nation and for our Party. Democrats have a very strong case to make that we know how to keep America safe in today's world but few Democrats besides Wes Clark have tirelessly worked to sell it.
It honestly amazes me how relatively infrequently, since 9/11, Democrats invoke the successes that the Clinton Administration achieved in pursuing our legitimate security needs on an international stage, in contrast to the Bush Administration's failed record. Clark was there for all of them, for containing Hussein in Iraq, for ending virulent and murderous ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, for systematic Nation building in Bosnia and Kosovo, for managing the North Korean threat, for developing detailed plans to deal with Osama Bin Laden, to strengthening our Alliances around the world, and much more. Clark knows how to sell a Democratic vision for National Security, and it is always eminently believable that he can deliver on it for America, as our next President.
Wes Clark has the gravitas it will take to defeat John McCain in 2008, and Clark knows exactly how to position our Party for victory. It is by no means a coincidence that the URL for his web site is securingamerica.com Wes Clark is the prototype for all the "Fighting Dems" who followed him into Democratic politics this year, and he actively recruited and supported strong grass roots endorsed candidates like Jim Webb and Eric Massa who fit that mold perfectly. Clark understands that once the Democratic Party shatters the Republican sponsored myth that we are anti-military and can not be trusted to protect America, that the game is up for them in National Elections, because the Republican Party needs that myth to win. As it now stands, Republicans almost always lose national elections if a race stays focused on Domestic issues.
One more thing, and I saved the best for last because it deserves a whole study of its own which I don't have time or space for here. Wes Clark constantly and skillfully courts a block of voters that is big enough to redraw the entire electoral map if it ever shifts Democratic. That is the military vote; encompassing all those serving now, all those who previously served, plus all of their dependents. Collectively they comprise a massive pool of voters counted on by today’s Republican Party to lean strongly Republican, to the extent that their loyalty has long been taken for granted by Republicans, similar to the way that Democrats once counted on Catholics to vote Democratic.
It isn't just that Clark was a military man himself, it's the way Clark tirelessly defends the human needs of all those now serving in uniform, and all those who served previously. It is a corner stone of Clark's political work, and if he manages to succeed in stealing the loyalty of those men and women away from a Republican Party that routinely chews them up and spits them out under today's Republican leadership, Solid Red States may someday be entered onto an endangered species list.
Hmmm. I think Howard Dean gets it- he always did on some level but I'm hoping more has sunk in since he accepted his new post & he's had some "learnin!" since- because he is a pretty smart guy. I believe he is capable of transcending questions of ego here. If his sincere desire to see change in the country now matches his updated understanding of the snakefest/cabal/mafia that hijacked the gop, he can do it. And it is the nature of this beast that makes a Clark candidacy ten times more urgent.
But your words here really give me pause:
will play a quiet but ugly hand.
I'd like to "edit" that to say "may" instead of "will..." (I know you said "if")
Right now September 2007 seems so far away but of course it is rushing right at us.
I like Howard Dean a lot. The DNC by it's nature has always attempted to represent business as usual inside the Democratic Party, but the election of Howard Dean to be Chair of the DNC was anything but business as usual for the DNC. Wes Clark's efforts to help Democrats get elected in all areas of the nation, including those on which the spotlight of media attention rarely shines, is an actual embodiment of Dean's 50 State strategy.
Still I am not naive about this. I don't worry about left over 2004 campaign resentments, but no matter what work Wes Clark does for our Party, he still has the classic profile of an outsider, and insiders define themselves as insiders by keeping others out.
that Dean appears to be different from 'regular' DNC,tho I haven't studied the history.
I did see Rahm and Reed last week; Reed leads DLC now, and we know that Rahm and Dean have sharply disagreed. Rahm not thrilled when I asked if he would explain his GOTV plan.
So Dems re-aligning? Mebbe Dean, Wes, grassroots vs. 'old' guys who install the likes of, well, you know who.
Really looking forward to the book.
But the question is do you think that the Democrats have any chance of figuring out that they need to appeal to the other 63% of the population (particularly, the Independents) in order to win a national election? Seems to be a fairly simple concept that the Democrats can't seem to grasp.
of the Democrats ever seeing the light about this. Donkeys indeed.
I get so frustrated when other Dems don't see it.
Had a conversation with a young man some time back who desperately wanted Hillary to win because he wanted to go back to the Clinton days, whom he adored.
I tried to set him straight about the losing prospect of a Hillary nomination. Not sure if I succeeded. Sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall. And don;t get me started on the peacenicks who abhor anything to do with the military. sigh
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins
Dem establishment seems incapable of figuring out the difference btw. a primary & a general election campaign.
It's absolutely bizarre.
They cannot figure out how to run a candidate to the middle.
They think John Edwards "I care" used car salesman routine will take the place of Clinton's "I feel your pain."
Hoping Dean has seen the light. When I hear him, he really seem to get it. The question is- does he? And the other thing is- assuming he does, which IS an assumption- how much power does he really have? He seems to be struggling against "THEM" so often, even how controversial the 50-State Strategy is!
...a friggin' bunch of brick walls the whole lot of them. Serioiusly, grab these people by the lapels and explain to them that the whole point of free debate is to EXCHANGE ideas with those you disagree with.
All of us Clark supporters told, screamed, yelled, etc. to the Democratic establishment in 2004 that this was coming and exactly how Bush and Co. were going to attack. It was trying to convince, and remains so, a brick wall. That is why, I feel, General Clark gets no play in the MSM unless he is with Pelosi and Reid. It is the LEADERSHIP of the Democratic party, to entreched into trying to get what they feel they have earned, not seeing the bigger picture. Dean has made some minor changes but for the most part the LEADERSHIP, like the DLC, are calling the shots. That is the delemma that I have been experiencing here in Deleware for instance. ANYTIME, I have mentioned General Clark, tried to solicit his support, I have run into the stone wall of the Biden Camp. "Dont want to anger Joe Biden". Do you realize how long and hard I worked just to get permission to call WesPac to try and get an endorsement from General Clark for Dennis Spivack? I was at it for I know 6 months BEFORE I even got the green light to call the WesPac office. And I know WesPac called the state party and were told thanks but no thanks by the Biden people I even have had people I have known for years come up to me and tell me that I can't wear my Clark buttons as it will offend Joe. What country do I live in any way? I am almost hoping a third party catches fire with General Clark as it's leader because I am about fed up with the LEADERSHIP of the Democratic Party!!!
You should feel free to tell those who tell you not to "anger" Joe Biden (what's he gonna do, bite you with those big bright teeth!!!!!) that Joe Biden called Wes & encouraged Wes to get into the race, saying- if you win the nomination, you'll win (proved to be a mighty big if). They're both national security guys- and they seem to be friends, or at least friendly
If Biden runs, to my mind it would to take up a berth in the field, assisting other candidates, able to bring things to the debate & tip & steer things - deflect subjects, etc. He's in no way strong enough for a run. He may "run" but he can't run to win.
Only an extraordinarily wealthy person who can (and is) willing to finance his or her campaign should consider a third party candidacy.
Ross Perot made a notable difference in the presidential election of 1992.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (some buzz about him taking a look at 2008) spent upwards of $87 million of his own money on his reelection campaign in 2005.
It is "show me the money" for any potential presidential candidate, but especially for one who might contemplate a third-party.
I commend you for trying but favorite sons, especially those as entrenched as Biden, always get the backing of the state Dems.
When Wes announces, it might be more effective to target ordinary citizens rather than the Dem establishment.
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins
Democrats in most States though don't have favorite son or daughter candidates to contend with. High profile Democrats in any state with a favorite son/daughter candidate will usually be looking over their shoulder whenever the 2008 election comes up.
That doesn't mean I don't share your anger, especially in the context of the mid term elections. It is petty to let any one persons ambitions hinder success for our Party and progress for our nation. But in a few states that may be what we will have to deal with. We still want and can get active support and donations from regular Democratic voters in those states.
Hi firefrog,
Ummm ... the phrase "leadership of the Democratic Party" is an oxymoron, and questioning it is rather like inquiring as to the marital status of a tuna sandwich, i.e.: a logical absurdity. The Democratic Party has no leadership, and hasn't had since about 1980 (when Ted Kennedy stepped aside and no one stepped up in his wake).
As the original poster noted, the political history of the past two decades has been a contest between a party with a clear vision and a committed base (the GOP) and a collection of micro-parties with almost no common agenda and no committed base (the Democrats). Guess who has won?
What we need, even more than we need Wes Clark, is a bare-knuckled backroom brawler capable of whipping the Democrats into line and demanding that they all stay on message ... i.e.: a Karl Rove. So long as our opponents act in concert and we act individually, we'll continue to become the Party of Irrelevance.
Cris Brown
Remember, Wes Clark held NATO together, with a consensus based decision making process, through out a war. It is called leadership, and yes we need it, but we don't have to resort to deception and lies of the Rovian sort. We need someone like Wes Clark who can cut through the fog and articulate a coherent winning strategy that resonates with the American people. With that, the Democratic Party will follow.
Hi Tom,
"Remember, Wes Clark held NATO together...."
NATO was, and is, a military alliance. The C-in-C of NATO has an inherent authority that has no parallel in the political arena, and certainly not in the Democratic Party.
General Clark may have chosen to use "a consensus based decision making process," but he was not compelled to. Once the political decision to intervene in the Balkans had been made -- a decision made not by Clark, but by the political leaders of the NATO member nations -- Clark had the authority to issue orders and expect his subordinates to carry out those orders.
By contrast, the Democratic Party has no political C-in-C -- the DLC's attempts to claim such notwithstanding -- nor has it the kind of rigid, hierarchical command structure that we find in the military. So comparing Clark's NATO experience to the current state of the Democratic Party is simply apples and oranges.
Cris Brown
Individual bombing targets had to be cleared in advance by NATO's members. It was a highly political task to guide NATO through fighting and winning a war, which is one reason why Clark held formal Head of State status while head of the Alliance.
Regardless, I stand by my earlier comment. We can disagree if need be, since we don't have a rigid hierarchial command structure around here, lol.
there are basic principles of leadership that compel cooperation and leave everyone feeling good about their decisions. Bare-knuckled coercion is more like rape. It might achieve the rapist's objective by force and satisfy his lust for power, but it leaves a lot of unintended consequences in its wake.
Susan,
"Bare-knuckled coercion is more like rape."
What, exactly, does this kind of flaming rhetoric contribute to a discussion? Not everyone you disagree with is a would-be rapist, and not every act of coercion is morally evil.
Cris Brown
Hi Susan,
"I was comparing coerced compliance to rape. And yes, that's how I see the Karl Roves of the world. Do you disagree with me?"
Yes, I do. First, though, let's both agree that we've misread the other and stop hissing at each other. :)
Karl Rove isn't a rapist, by any matter of means. Those who enter the political arena give implied consent to being pushed around, usually on the theory that, at some point or on some issues, they will get to do the pushing. Call it "paying your dues" or "putting out/calling out markers," or whatever, it's a very real and inevitable part of the political process.
We Dems haven't done it well lately. That great for everyone having a chance to speak his/her piece. It's lousy for formulating and presenting the kind of clear, consistent message that can penetrate the brain stem of Joe Sixpack in Iowa and make him think "I see what they stand for." And until Joe Sixpack can see what we stand for, he can't decide whether to agree with it.
As someone noted in another (excellent!) post here, the big advantage the GOP has, and has consistently played to, is its capacity to define Democratic positions and candidates before we can define them ourselves. They accomplish that through "message discipline," something we're lacking, and something we're paying for.
Cris Brown
that I did not hiss at you. You seemed to take exception to a remark that was not aimed at you. This isn't personal.
As a matter of fact, you seem to misunderstand the whole context of what I am talking about, so I will clarify.
I'm not talking about Joe Sixpack, though as long as we're taken that side alley, I agree with your points about message discipline.
I'm talking about the, shall we call them, "players" in the big game in the Democratic party. And yes, we apparently have a difference of opinion about the type of leadership needed to make the ducks line up in formation.
I think the whole game needs to be transformed to something less distasteful, because we're leaving a lot of people in the gutter along the way. The "little people" whose participation makes our form of government a desirable thing are backing away in disgust and running for the hills. And that, of course, leaves the whole mess to those who enjoy mud wrestling with pigs.
So I object to the whole status quo that takes for granted that those stepping forward to participate in our democratic process will be "pushed around." There is a better way. It's kind of like the difference between authoritarian parenting and nurturing parenting. One takes a little more careful consideration while the other relies on force.
There are different kinds of leadership. I don't subscribe to the Karl Rove kind. It might "work" but it leaves everyone feeling like they've got a mouthful of sand from the cat's litterbox.
Hi Susan,
"There are different kinds of leadership. I don't subscribe to the Karl Rove kind. It might 'work' but it leaves everyone feeling like they've got a mouthful of sand from the cat's litterbox."
The problem, as I see it, is that we can get a mouthful of sand from our own cat's litterbox, or we can get another mouthful of sand from the other side's litterbox. "Nurturing" works great in a family of four or five. It's not so effective in a family of 40-or-so million (the Democratic Party).
We may need a "mom" who can build consensus, but then once we we need a "dad" who can enforce that consensus. Coz if we don't have that, and the other side does ...
... we're going to be eating their cat litter for a long, long time.
Cris Brown
I think what gets in the way is the specific Karl Rove reference, because he is more than just a strong conductor leading an otherwise unruly chorus in a harmonious rendition of the Republican Party message. More too even than a basic Party enforcer, one willing to pull out the brass knuckles when it seems a brawl is brewing.
Karl Rove seems quite willing to undermine the institutions of American Democracy itself if need be to keep Republicans in power. He also seems quite willing to endanger the lives of American soldiers, and risk the actual mission that they are fighting and dieing for, if political considerations dictate interference in battle field strategy.
Look for another example and I think the reception to your argument might be warmer. It seems from comments you made that you have prior experience with attempts to ensure Party Unity. What Democratic model could you possibly point to who could pass the basic integrity test? Someone like Tip O'Neil? I admit I am not as familiar with possible role models as I would like to be.
Hi Tim,
"Look for another example and I think the reception to your argument might be warmer. It seems from comments you made that you have prior experience with attempts to ensure Party Unity. What Democratic model could you possibly point to who could pass the basic integrity test?"
The problem is that party "enforcers" tend not to be the kind of people who "pass the basic integrity test." By and large, they're people most of us wouldn't want to have as friends and certainly wouldn't want to have as enemies. They're part pit boss, part pit bull, and part pit viper.
A good example would be Kenny O'Donnell, from the JFK White House. His image was burnished some for the Kevin Costner role in the film Thirteen Days, but the scene near the beginning where he's browbeating a party worker over the telephone is ... well ... part of the job description.
Cris Brown
we just need one who is honest. Chris, your point can't be overstated, I'm just surprised you think rape is a bad analogy.
I think it was meant more like we need messaging that obeys certain principles, we need to run it more like Sparta & less like Athens
Madison Ave. Ad Exec Reveals How GOP Wins Elections
Oh yeah- zero leadership from Bill Clinton for what- eight years of unprecedented peace & prosperity. Nothing. In fact, he made the Democratic Party a laughingstock worldwide.
Who is this bare-knuckled backroom brawler you describe Cristian- Dean? We're becoming the party of irrelevance, or we have been since... Teddy Kennedy?
Exactly how many sides are you on- and for what purpose. Using your power for good, or for evil? Mmmmm?
Hi Bluemoon,
"Who is this bare-knuckled backroom brawler you describe Cristian- Dean?"
That's the real question. Who will step up to the plate and take the reins of the Democratic Party? So far, no one has. We are still a fractured (and fractious) party, lacking a clear, coherent message, and lacking a leader with the political muscle to keep the rank-and-file in line.
Remember, Karl Rove has never run for or held political office himself. That's not his role. His role is to make sure that the GOP toes the line on Bush's agenda, and by and large he's done a masterful job of that (sadly!). He's the consummate political "operator," one who knows where the bodies are buried and who can twist the right arms to ensure that GOP challenges to Bush are always muted and, ultimately, ineffectual.
The Dems don't have a Karl Rove. Wes Clark cannot be Karl Rove, because we want Wes to be president. So ... we need someone who can be that political "operator," the one who can turn the screws on recalcitrant Democrats who would dilute the party's message.
Who will that be? Frankly, I haven't a clue. I haven't seen anyone in the Democratic Party with that kind of muscle and the willingness to use it. But we need to find one.
Cris Brown
Are you applying for the job? Something tells me you could.
An updated Carville, a counter-Ralph Reed. A PR maven.
I think you might find a more receptive audience here to your interestingly challenging & forceful thinking if you take a stick just a bit harder to the gop than to the dems, or rather to those dems who do actually qualify as "the loyal opposition" because it is not all of them. Put it this way, you are preaching to the converted.
The person of whom you speak- (unknown to me) might be whoever is the brains behind the Eliot Spitzer campaign operation. There are not so many absolutely first rate candidates who have the personal strength of will & quality of character to forcibly re-brand the entire Democratic party- (as reformers, I think). Clark and Spitzer are the only two I can think of. Don't even bother to type out the words "Obama," please. And I and anyone serious about anything can't take Edwards seriously at all. Clinton- been there done that, if we could have Bill it'd be one thing.
Yet, truly Wes is the only potential candidate whose stature "could" conceivably stack up to previous American heros, presidents & statesman- Wes is a guy whose profile could end up on Mt. Rushmore. Because - I don't have a lot of time here right now- he's already had the military equivalent positions & to move to the other side & for him enter into overt politicking makes him an altogether different animal. So if we/he/they can ever make it manifest....
What do you think dems should do (besides stopping their constant editorializing!!!!!) to solve the perceived and actual gulf in leadership?
Hi Bluemoon,
"Are you applying for the job? Something tells me you could.
An updated Carville, a counter-Ralph Reed. A PR maven."
I'm not qualified for the job, simply because I don't know where enough of the bodies are buried. I no longer have enough of an intimate knowledge of who the D.C. players are that I could leverage one against another and kick their butts into line. That is a job that requires an insider's knowledge, and I don't have it, sorry to say.
Coz it'd sure be fun to do....
Cris Brown
...and I'd be happy to take the job if someone would give it to me, but that's the point, there's no one to do the appointing; or rather, Chris' point is that the Dems, by and large, don't even see that this is the pivitol reason we can't gain the upperhand.
Are you talking to me? I don't understand what you think I didn't understand.
And I'm not sure I'm getting that you are a potential Ralph Reed doppelganger, either! heh
The DLC seems pretty irrelevant to me. I attended its national conference in Denver a few weeks ago, and they rolled out its "American Dream Initiative" with much fanfare, at least inside the hotel venue.
Never heard of The American Dream Initiative? That's my point.
Other than Hillary and Vilsack, the people there were state reps, town council people, and a bunch of people like me. No other big hitters. They were deperately trying to be relevant. It didn't work.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
They're the ones with the big corporate donations.
I wouldn't discount what a DLC candidate can do with that kind of money behind them
This is not a time for a candidate who will offend no one; it is time for a candidate who takes clear stands and kicks ass.....Molly Ivins
I assume you've cross-posted, and I wonder whether you've considered submitting for publication somewhere[s.]
Not that I've looked into it much, but from what little I know most publications want you to submit, give them an exclusive, and then wait up to a week to see if they use it. Given that, I've been sticking with posting on blog sites when I write. Should send it to my local paper I suppose though. Thanks for the reminder.
The Phoenicia Times, in the Catskill Mountains of not that upstate New York, about a dozen miles from Woodstock actually. It'a a weekly, and there is a daily out of Kingston about 25 mile east of here.
In fact there is a pretty good core of Democratic activists living in these parts; think globally act locally!
...I think Wes' speech in TX was what he meant when he said he would beat the shit out of [anyone who deserved it]
"If truth were self-evident, then eloquence would not be necessary."
In keeping with your important KISS reminder:
Wesley Clark 101 Lesson Planner
Introduction: Election Math For Democrats: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8654
Homework
American Son: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JKchifzp2Po
His Record of achievements and basketful of superlatives http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5613
"A Long, Tough Job", or "Wes Clark Doesn't Futz Around"
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm#A%20Long,%20Tough%20Job
"Wes Clark Knows War, Wes Clark Knows Diplomacy. Wes Clark Achieves Peace" Hoover Interview with General Clark: http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/3001961.html
"The Real State of the Union 2006" http://securingamerica.com/node/560
"Before It’s Too Late" http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26
"Ignore Clark At Our Own Peril" ...Clark testifies to Congress on 4/6/05 http://securingamerica.com/node/409
"Broken Engagement" http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonmonthly/2004-05-01
"What We Must Do Now" or "Listen To Wes, PLEASE" http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8589
"Wes Clark: The Voice of Sanity and Precision" ...Wes on how to undermine Hezbollah with carrot and stick: http://www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php
"Wes Clark Averts WWIII" http://www.u-wes-a.com/myth4.html
"If George Bush Had Listened to Wes Clark on Sept. 26, 2002..." http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
"You Don't Say, Wes": "My view on it was and has been that at some point you're going to need to take actions to deal with the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. But those actions didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now. It's the administration that chose to do this set of actions at this time. And the reason they've had problems persuading people of the necessity for doing it has been because they couldn't address the urgency." http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index.html?pn=1
"Wes Clark Knows Priorities" ...Wes delivers Democratic radio address http://www.democrats.org/a/p/retired_general_wesley_clark_delivers_democratic_radio_address.html
"A Man's Man" Esquire profiles the general http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=9&filename=/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark.html&x=53&y=10
from "Waiting For The General", or "Wes Clark The Professional"
I spoke recently with retired General Walter Kross, a former four-star Air Force general under whom Clark served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs in the mid-1990s. For two years Kross worked with Clark from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night six days a week, and sometimes on Sundays. He disagrees strongly with Shelton and Cohen about Clark's abilities and character. When I asked him why Clark was disliked by some military officers, Kross replied,
He's not the army general officer from central casting. He's the extra-ordinary senior officer who can do extra-ordinary work on the entire range of challenges senior officers have to face—including Kosovo and the Dayton Accords, on which he worked himself into exhaustion. No army officer from central casting can do that work, but Wes did.
He added, "Some senior officers misinterpret drive, energy, and enthusiasm for overambition...he is outside the mold and that makes some other officers uncomfortable."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
"Clark Knows Alternatives" ...from Winning Modern Wars
p. 171: Disbanding the Iraqi army—effectively adding 400,000 angry, armed men to the ranks of the unemployed—must rank as one of the least efficacious moves in recent U.S. peacekeeping operations. p. 169: Despite all the evidence pointing to the unsuitability of the Army to a long overseas deployment, no extra resources had been provided to prepare for a drawn-out campaign in Iraq. Moreover, other diplomatic levers had been neglected and international alternatives discarded. U.S. foreign policy had become dangerously dependent on its military. The armed forces were practically the only effective play in the U.S. repertoire. p. 147: [N]o alternatives to the use of force were attempted. Longer-term containment, accompanied by intrusive inspections, was dismissed without real discussion. The viability of inspections was consistently undercut by statements from leading administration officials who debunked them in principle as ineffective. Therefore, it mattered not whether Saddam complied with the UN Security Council Resolution or not—no compliance would ever have been adequate to assuage the Bush administration’s concerns about his hidden capabilities. […]Nor was any evidence presented of any imminent Iraqi threat to the United States or its allies. And imminence was the key.
"Any Questions?" The Clark Reading Room
http://www.america-patriots.com/ByTheGeneral.html
REMEMBER WHAT DEMOCRACY FEELS LIKE: Vote Wes Clark
point that "the best books tell you what you know already."
Tom, You eloquently set forth a rationale for a Wesley Clark presidency.
My forthcoming book to be released September 17, 2007 is entitled "Wesley K. Clark: Why the Democrats Cannot Win Without Him."
My premise is that unless the Democratic Party chooses Clark as its presidential nominee, or the nominee chooses him as his vice president and assures Clark a leadership role on foreign-policy and national security, Democrats are unlikely to beat the likes of John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or a ticket containing either or both of them!
Another premise: If it is going to be politics as usual, with the Democratic National Committee playing an instrumental role in who gets the nomination, watch for a third-party candidate to emerge.
Another Premise: If the Democratic National Committee exerts its heavy hand in determining the presidential nominee in 2008, the residual resentment (to a Clark candidacy) of its chairman Howard Dean will play a quiet but ugly hand.