clarkforpres

This blog has moved to another site, please visit http://2004race.blogspot.com and set your bookmarks. All comments welcome!

Just going through past comments on this blog and came across this gem:

"Hello from the Deaniac world.

I would ask that you consider the likelyhood that Howard Dean will be the Party nominee. This is partially because of the work of we unpaid supporters. You can only begin to imagine the donated time and work from us. This will continue after Spring. We will travel anywhere and do anything to get Dean elected. Sorry you feel you have to fight us. Thanks for the time. Happy Holidays."

Oh well my man. If I were a Deaniac right now I'd be very upset at my campaign. A campaign that has about $3 million in the bank and over $5 million in debt. What happened to the $40 million he raised? Well, it was poured into Iowa and NH and the result was two losses.

This suggests one of two things: one, mismanagement of money. Two, money can't make up for a candidate that isn't connecting with the broader populace beyond his narrow base. And yet the Deaniacs are still tossing money at him like crazy. As a businessperson, it doesn't make much sense to me, but that's what happens when certain elements of the left deify a politician and determine he's the second coming.

I give Dean a ton of credit. He expanded the voter base of the Dems. He forced the other Dems to ratchet up their criticism of Bush (and it is having an effect). So he has a lot of commendable qualities.

But the fact that so many are willing to swallow the empty rhetoric of being a "Washington outsider" boggles the mind. George W. Bush claimed to be a Washington outsider. So did Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc. But while some of those candidates played Washington's game exceptionally well, none of them actually fundamentally reformed the city. If anything it's become more and more a tool of the lobbyists. The beast is bigger than any one man, including, heavens forbid, the governer of that behemoth of a state, Vermont.

So when you replace your campaign manager with a bonafide Washington insider, tout more superdelegate endorsements than anyone else, and claim to be a Washington outsider, it's time for a bullshit check. Especially when that kind of rhetoric is generating 0 wins.

LBJ, for all his faults with Vietnam, on many levels was a great president. He pushed through vital and progressive legislation, like the Civil Rights Act that we take for granted today. He did it because he was a Senator for years and knew how to play the game and played it well. Experience is not always a bad thing. I'm not saying Kerry is LBJ (and I know this is supposed to be a pro-Clark blog, but let's be honest, I'm on the fence about that).

But I am saying that one day I hope the deluded Deaniacs will wake up and smell the shit they're being shoveled. Dean's a good guy. I admire him for standing up to Bush. But he's tossing your money down the drain at astonishing rates. And if you really believe the age-old rhetoric of being a Washington-outsider, you're falling for the same scheme that's worked for countless other politicians in the past.

I know it's been awhile since I've written, but I've been all over the country for work...now I'm back and plan to do more blogging.

When I began this blog I warned you that I planned to be honest, and it wouldn't simply be a cheerleading site for General Clark. Unfortunately, that warning now seems prescient. The General and his campaign are not doing well and are in danger of getting knocked out entirely on Feb 3rd.
He needs to win at least one, but most likely 2-3 states to be competitive. And while Oklahoma looks like his best shot, there's no guarantee.

It's been a rough week for Clark. Two major developments have seriously hampered his progress. One: he's no longer the anti-Dean. Why not? Partly because Kerry's a strong candidate, but also because it looks like his gamble to opt out of Iowa failed. Kerry emerged as the most viable anti-Dean in Iowa, and the resulting momentum made many in NH take another look at him as the electable anti-Dean.

The other developments have been Clark's own flaws as a candidate. Let's all be honest, it was a HUGE mistake to pull rank on Kerry immediately after Iowa. Whatever you can say about Kerry, he's an honorable man who served his country well. To pull rank seemed childish and amateurish. To compound this with Clark's own refusal to distance himself from the Moore remark along with some other mis-steps has hurt him.

Now, before you start pounding me with negative e-mails and comments, consider this. One reason I initially had a problem with the Kerry campaign was too many of his supporters were unwilling to acknowledge mistakes. But Kerry ultimately realized his own mistakes, shook up his campaign, and became a better candidate, and you can see the results. Clark's team needs to acknowledge mistakes and Clark's own limitations as a candidate, and they need to come up with a compelling NEW message (suggestion: tax reform).

It is to no one's benefit to enter into denial, claim everything is going great for Clark and that he hasn't made mistakes. He has, and I hope he fixes them and becomes a contender for the nomination again. But, I'm open-minded, and have always felt Kerry the person would be a solid nominee. Now it looks like Kerry the candidate is getting better.

I want someone with national security credibility. I want someone who won't make the rookie mistakes Dean makes. I want someone strong. Clark has 2 out of 3, but needs to cut out the rookie mistakes. I hope he does well, but I am happy to live with Kerry if he is the nominee.

It's reaction time the morning after Iowa. Everyone seems to be worried about what Kerry's victory will do to Clark in NH. But I prefer to take a bigger picture view.

First things first: my heart goes out to Dick Gephardt. He just got creamed. But what a great guy, with a great family. He has done so much for our country and is such a genuine public servant. I don't think there's a bad bone in his body. I hope he remains a factor in the party and the nominee takes a serious look at him for an advisor/VP/cabinet position...(we all know what an amazing Secretary of Labor he'd make).

Secondly: Dean got beat, and beat bad. But don't gloat too much. A big reason he got beat was he wasn't viable in a lot of precincts, so I'm sure he had more than 18% support. But not much more.

Here's why we have to be careful: if Dean wins NH, he's now "the comeback kid" and could get a huge boost. But Dean HAS to win NH, if he doesn't, he's toast. Does this mean we start going after Dean? No way.

I hope everyone takes a close look at Iowa and the lessons learned. It wasn't heartening to see Lehane go after Kerry last night on TV. A big reason I left the Kerry camp to begin with was Kerry's negative campaigning. Is it a coincidence that he started rising in the polls when he turned his message into a positive one that touted his own strengths? Of course not, and this lesson shouldn't be lost on Clark. Keep doing what you're doing, tout your own experience, go after Bush, but DO NOT start attacking Kerry or Dean viciously.

And I'm happy for Kerry. He's a strong candidate, much stronger than Dean. I'd rather have Clark, but I'd rather have Kerry over Dean any day of the week. We need national security legitimacy in order to have a shot, period.

Two last notes: First, I'm very impressed with Edwards. He's a player and can't be ignored. His rally speech last night was the best of the bunch - focused on the "two Americas," a message that can really resonate.

And Dean was nothing short of an embarassment to the Democratic Party last night. I've never loved the guy, but I never thought he was a disaster until I saw his rally speech. What has become incredibly clear is that he believes the hype that his owned devoted supporters throw on him. They think he's a rock star, and now he believes it too. His embarassing screaming-fest last night could be shown without comment in a Republican advertisement.

And what really dismayed me was a visit I made to the Dean blogs last night...it seemed 2 out of 3 comments were, "If Dean's not the nominee I'm voting Green or not at all." Yup, this is why the left loses. The short-sighted, selfishness of people like that. I certainly don't believe all Dean supporters are like that, but I do believe more are like that than you'd find in other campaigns.

Please people, stop being selfish. It's the poor who suffer under Bush. It's the next generation that will have an unliveable environment and a huge debt. If your candidate doesn't win, suck it up and vote for someone else. But don't hand Bush a victory.

First, two quick things to report: One, the race in Iowa is tightening like crazy. There is lots of discussion about which scenario would benefit Clark the most, and that's easy: any scenario in which Dean loses. Some worry about Kerry's momentum if he wins...now explain to me why you'd worry about that vs. Dean's momentum?

I'd much rather see Kerry win Iowa. Why? Because I'd rather have Kerry and Clark in the homestretch as potential candidates since I believe both have a better chance of beating Bush than Dean, and that's the name of the game. But Dean doesn't need more momentum after all he's already had. Dean's the clear frontrunner in NH, not Kerry. If Dean loses Iowa, that will make this Dem primary longer, more competitive, and produce a stronger candidate in the end (one I hope is Clark).

Second news item: I just returned from Al Gore's MoveOn.org address in NYC about global warming. It is terrifying stuff. It is amazing how anti-science the Bush administration is. That's why, more than any other reason, my number one is the environment. On this issue, Kerry actually has the strongest record, but I know Clark or any of the major candidates (even Lieberman) is significantly better than Bush, and we should still support whomever will beat the crap out of Bush.

Finally, with Michael Moore's kind permission, the following is the full re-print of his Clark endorsement letter. It puts into words concisely and brilliantly why we all support General Wes Clark for President. Thank you Mr. Moore:


I’ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush — by Michael Moore


Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class-at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) – and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state’s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

Tough to tell how things are at this moment. I've become addicted to my friends over at the Wesley Clark Weblog, who do an excellent job of breaking down daily tracking polls, etc.

But the truth of the matter is this: nobody really knows what the future holds. We don't know what will happen out of Iowa and how that will affect NH. I don't think Kerry can pull of a suprise #2 so I don't there should be measurable boost for him, which should solidify us as #2 in NH. If we can get at least 20-25% in NH we should be well-positioned to go Feb 3rd.

The one thing that would surprise me would be Dean absolutely obliterating everyone in Iowa and NH in such a way that everyone else will roll over and play dead. But some shake up will happen. Gep won't drop out if he's a close 2nd, but he'll be done. Who knows? It's all speculation.

But Clark's got money and he's just starting to get his feet under him as a candidate, so I have a feeling he'll be making a strong push until the end, especially with poll numbers going his way in states like AZ and OK...if we get SC we're going to be very strong.

But I'm no good at making predictions and I'm not going to try...how do you think it will play out? Comment away...

Not directly related to Clark, but read this and tell me if you think the mass media will cover it? It's priceless and sad at the same time.

I think one thing is becoming clearer every day: the primary for the Democrats is going to go the distance. There's still the outside chance Dean could just demolish everyone, but like this article in Salon shows, if he doesn't win and win in a big way early on, this fight is going to be tough.

Some worry about this and say it will benefit Bush. The Republicans are crowing that all the Democratic in-fighting benefits them. And they have some points, especially if Dean becomes the nominee. But to be totally honest, I think we're toast if he's the nominee anyway. As Lawrence O'Donnell stated on the McLaughlin group, Dean still might have a shot against Bush, but he is the weakest of the major nominees (I'd argue Lieberman is, for different reasons).

But personally I think a long battle for the nomination is a good thing. First of all, I believe it can only help Clark. And if not Clark, people will give a second look at people like Kerry and Gep who I would happily support. But more importantly, we need someone who is battle-tested.

This is WHY we have a primary. To ensure that whoever emerges is the toughest candidate with the best campaign. People have short attention spans these days anyway, so if the general election is a little shorter than Terry McAullife would have hoped, that's not going to kill the Dems.

Imagine if we didn't have a tough primary season. Imagine if Clark wasn't forced to improve as a candidate and then had to go up against Bush. Look at how Kerry has started to improve as a candidate as a result of the tough competition. And look at how Dean is having trouble handling adversity. These are the kinds of things we want to see.

The reason we support Clark is because we believe he is the strongest candidate to take on Bush. But a long primary should ensure a tougher candidate, no matter who that is. I think the last thing we need to do now is roll over for Dean as the presumptive nominee.

Dean's leading in polls, but in nowhere is he the majority candidate. It's a different ballgame when others start dropping out. I know Clark will probably be the last man standing vs. Dean, but there could be one or two suprise candidates in the mix too. Kerry could surprise people and be one. Unfortunately I think Lieberman may last too. But one thing's for sure, Clark's going to be there for awhile. And no one should play dead for Dean the way some would have. This race is just beginning.

Monday night I attended my first Clark MeetUp here in Manhattan. As some of you may know, I spent much of 2003 a Kerry supporter. The MeetUp Monday cemented my conclusion that I did the right thing by throwing my hat into the Clark ring. It was a genuinely inspiring event.

The first thing I noticed when I entered the bar was the size of the crowd. There must have been close to 100 people there, the place was packed. At the entrance there was a sign-in form with row after row of literature for us to take, pass out to others, etc. Then silence descended on the crowd as Wes Clark's appearance on "Hardball" came on. When Clark was done with his strong performance, the crowd erupted into enthusiastic applause. The folks from NY for Clark then spent about 20 minutes taking us through a concise agenda of ways we can help, from cavassing New Hampshire, to letter writing, to helping organizations like Students for Clark or Young Professionals for Clark. All in all, it was an inspirational night and the excitement in the crowd was palpable.

But it was my experiences with the Kerry campaign that really made me proud to be a Clark supporter. At the Meetups I attended on Kerry's behalf, there was no organization, no sign-in form, not even an agenda. I once asked a Kerry staffer what the purpose was, and they responded it was to "hang out and get to know each other." I remember thinking, "You've got all these people out here for your candidate, why not capitalize on our energies?" The contrast could not have been more stark when I attended the Clark Meetup.

Clark's organization really seems to be coming together and the enthusiasm is growing daily. It's a great feeling to know that my efforts may actually make an impact and that I'm not on a sinking ship anymore. Every day that passes I know more and more I did the right thing by switching to Clark, and every day I try to convince a new person to join us.