clarkforpres

2004-02-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

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

2004-01-29T14:12:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-29T06:46:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-20T07:56:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-15T11:25:00.000-08:00

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

2004-01-13T11:02:00.000-08:00

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...

2004-01-09T12:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-09T08:51:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-07T06:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-01-05T06:47:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year my friends. Short post today as it's a busy day at work. Meetup tonight, which will be my first as an official Clark supporter. It's been a productive first couple weeks, and I've been able to give a few $$ and write some letters to NH voters, and it feels great to contribute.

I for one was pretty happy that Clark stayed out of the debate yesterday. Voters rarely use these debates as deciding factors and it ended up being another one of those snipe-fests, with most people ganging up on Dean. Clark is pretty much letting everyone else do his dirty work for him and that's just fine.

The big news is Clark's rejecting of the VP. Great move. It dispels the rumors that he's running to be Veep, it stops the Deaniacs from saying that Dean can just add someone like Clark to the ticket to plug his national security gap, and adds urgency to his presidential campaign. If, God forbid, he ends up being offered the Veep by someone, he can still accept it and there will be a one-day media furor and then it will subside. But, I think for now it shows his dedication to running for president and I, for one, like that.

So who will be the VP candidate in the end? I still think Bob Graham will be the top choice for most. He's lost some of his luster through his presidential campaign, but he's still a well-known figure from Florida and he's got a Southern accent. He's already worked the Nascar circuit and has some familiarity with the South. Edwards is a possibility, but a long-shot.

But if Clark is the nominee, I'd have two choices for Veep. One would be Joe Biden. Sure, Biden was a bit more hawkish than Clark on the war, but I've never heard a politician make more coherent and concise arguments than Biden about any issue (with the exception of Clinton). His knowledge of foreign policy is without compare and with the two of them on the ticket, we'd have an incredibly powerful foreign policy team.

But Biden would be even better as a Secretary of State. So my top choice would be Gephardt as VP. Why Gephardt? First, it would be helpful for Clark to have an old-pro by his side to negotiate the waters of Washington. Gep could unify the labor vote and help in the midwest states. But even more importantly, it would say a lot about Clark.

When Clinton selected Gore as his running mate, he followed the same strategy. He not only picked a Washington insider, but he picked someone eminently qualified to be the next president should anything happen. And that spoke volumes about Clinton. If Gep would ever accept a VP slot, I think a Clark/Gep ticket would be incredibly strong.

Who do you think would make a good VP to Clark? Post your comments below!

Having said that, this is a whole lot of speculation, and Clark has to win some primaries first. But I'm actually more optimistic than I have been in some time. Even a month ago I would have thought no one can stop Dean. And I don't think 8 other candidates can. But one other candidate can. And should that candidate be Clark, then the real race is on. I think as the primaries continue, Clark should emerge as the alternative to Dean. If a lot of the support from Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, et al go to Clark over Dean, now we're talking.

My favorite answer Clark gave on Meet the Press yesterday came when Russert asked him if the race would be over if Dean won Iowa and NH. Clark said, no, then the race would just be beginning. That's exactly the attitude we need. For too long the pundits had assumed it would be over if Dean won Iowa and NH, but I like hearing that Clark won't accept that conclusion. That's the way we'll be competitive in the end.

2003-12-29T11:33:00.000-08:00

It's hard for me not to react angrily to the latest statements from our good friend Dean. I'm a big believer in Democratic unity, and for all his whining about the divisive attacks made by others (which he's right about), he's just as guilty if not more so about dividing Democrats. As I said, I'm trying to cool my jets about this, but I wish Dean would take a step back and think before making such comments.

What he should be saying, and what Clark should say to provide a counterweight, is that if not the nominee he would strongly encourage all his supporters to put their energies into defeating Bush and supporting the Democratic nominee.

Clark should come out immediately and say this election is largely than whoever the candidate is. This election is about the 40 million Americans without health care, the next generation of Americans who will be footed a massive bill by Bush, the soldiers being killed every day, our environment that is being destroyed every day.

For any one candidate to suggest that their supporters would stay home and not fight Bush to reclaim this country is incredibly irresponsible. But beyond that, it's amazingly arrogant. What I like about Clark is that he's making this campaign about larger issue and the future, and that's exactly right. No one politician is worth mortgaging our future for, even thought many Deaniacs believe their man can do no wrong.

I've said this many times: you cannot be a stronger liberal than I am. But I don't like Dean, he doesn't appeal to me. Having said that, I will give time, money, and effort to elect him if he's the Democratic nominee. As I will with any candidate, even (dare I say) Lieberman, for as much as I can't stand him, I know on some core issues, such as the environment, the contrast is night and day between him and Bush. So while I'm strongly campaigning for Wes Clark now, I will work just as strongly should he not win the nomination. Any one of the candidates would be a better president than Bush.

I hope Dean is wrong about his supporters. I give them the credit to realize than when we cast a vote we vote for those who aren't as fortunate as we are. We vote for those who can't donate money online or blog all day as I do. We vote for those without health care. We vote for those who can't go to Starbucks for Meetups. But if they're as petulant as Dean suggests, to the degree that they would risk losing this election because "their guy," didn't win the nomination, then the Democrats deserve to lose and the shame will be on the Left wing for years to come. But I choose to believe that Dean is wrong, that his supporters, while excited by his energy and message, aren't short-sighted and selfishly "principled."

For anyone out there thinking about not voting, voting Green, or doing anything other than voting for the Democratic nominee for President, I want you to do something. After Bush's next inauguration, I want you to go meet with a poor family struggling to make ends meet, with no health care, with kids sick from the pollution that Bush won't enforce. I want you to tell them that the reason they'll have to deal is because you just couldn't suck it up and support a candidate other than your man, whether it's Nader, Dean, or anyone. And see if they give a shit about your principles when they're trying to figure out how to pay the doctors bills.

2003-12-24T06:48:00.000-08:00

For those who haven't seen it, I strongly encourage you to go watch American Son, the biographical video on Wes Clark. Knowing our country, knowing how people respond to stories of patriotism, can you imagine this video being played at the Democratic National Convention? It's exactly what the Dems need. Sure it's cheesy and manipulative, but it's our turn to be cheesy and manipulative in that "Republican" way.

I have to also say I'm impressed that Clark doesn't shy away from his Jewish heritage in this video. I know it may be a small thing to some, but to me it's a sign of integrity. As a Jew, I appreciate the fact that he publicly acknowledges his ancestry. Many politicians and public figures have been very quiet about any Judaism in their background, so when I see something like this, it stands out.

Finally, to finish off yesterday's post about Dean, I want to draw upon the comments of one of the reponses to a pro-Dean post. First of all, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Democrats are automatically toast in the South. We need a Dem who gives us a chance, and that means someone the South can relate to culturally. Once there is a cultural relationship established, then the Democrats have a much easier time making the economic argument. That happened with Clinton. Many Southerners (and especially African-American Southerners) felt that they could relate to him because of his upbringing, that they had shared experiences. That paved the way for Clinton's policies to be listened to. But if there isn't that initial relationship, the substantive issues won't even be listened to. So my argument is that Dean will be tuned out immediately, because few Southerners can relate to the child of wealth from Long Island who moved to Vermont, but can relate much better to a guy from Arkansas who became a soldier. So, the assumption that all Dems will be creamed in the South is a cop-out, and a premise I simply don't accept.

The other argument is that with Dean we get the Greens. Why? Fact of the matter is, far and away the most progressive environmental policies are from Kerry. Kerry has the strongest record on environmental matters as well. But the real truth is that Greens need to realize any Dem is going to be better than viciousness of Bush who seems to want to leave a ruined world for his daughters. Dean's policies are of course better, but there not particularly "Green-ish." But chances are slim that we'll see the same strong turnout for Nader or a Green candidate this time around. There are far too many repentant Greens.

But even if Dean DID give us the Greens, so what? Thousands of votes here and there when he could also turn off countless Democrats and all Republicans? We need to win, and for that we need all the Democrats and many Republicans. Dean gives us no shot for that, and the Greens don't make a whit of difference. We need states, not Greens. We need to win in the South. Greens won't help us do that. But a candidate that can appeal to a wider audience will. And if the Deans and the far-lefties don't turn out for whoever the Democratic candidate is, then they have absolutely no right to bitch about Bush (that's something I tell anyone I know who voted for Nader or abstained - you have no right to bitch about Bush - and if you have any friends leaning that way, tell them that).

Unfortunately I see a lot of denial among many Dean supporters, just as I have among many Kerry supporters. The Kerry supporters would claim that everything was going great when their candidate was sinking in the polls and mortgaging his house. The Dean supporters somehow have deluded themselves into thinking a few Greens and a narrow, but motivated, group of Democrats will win in the South and win back the White House. If we're not all motivated to support whoever the candidate is, we have no one to blame but ourselves. But we also have to start thinking strategically, and that means thinking with our heads and not our hearts.

And finally, the war. I was opposed to the war. Most of us were. But most of the country wasn't. Deaniacs and Dems in general need to reconcile themselves with this fact. If things go badly, they will blame Bush for not planning and handling the post-war situation well and will look for a candidate to fix it. But they will NOT change their fundamental support of the war. Why? Because it's basic psychology. People do not want to believe their decisions were wrong. That's Dean's real problem, he can't win a general election on an "I told-you so" platform, when most of the people in this country supported going to the war in the first place and still do.

Clark opposed the war, to be sure. But his emphasis on fixing it and his experience leading coalitions make his candidacy other than an "I told-you-so" candidacy. And that's the only way to win.

2003-12-23T07:21:00.000-08:00

This is gonna be a long one, so settle in. Time to address this Dean thing. I just don't get it, and I'm deeply concerned that Dems are voting with their hearts rather than their heads. And no, that doesn't make me Joe Lieberman. I couldn't offer a more concise analysis that this one on why Dean will lose, and this guy used to love Dean. But we share many common themes, not the least of which is Dean's "anti-establishment"-ness is total bullcrap, a marketing tool. But there's more fundamental issues, and I'll go through just some of them.

I give Howard Dean a lot of credit. He opened up the world's eyes to a new way of doing politics. His organization brilliantly used the Internet along with other grass-roots organizational techniques to tap into a deep anger among much of our populace. His campaign shattered the myth that our country was united rather than divided under Bush (I'd love to see Bush use that "uniter" line again).

Every Dean supporter I've spoken with says Dean can win because he'll "stand up to Bush" and present a stark alternative. They say he doesn't speak like a Washington politician, that they love that he sticks to what he believes in and that everyone will respect him for being himself.

My response is, "You're completely delusional." I've said it before and I'll say it again, every Democratic candidate in one way or another will stand up to Bush. Gephardt termed Bush a "miserable failure." If you read Kerry's site they publicly mock Bush for the imbecile he is. Clark is unabashadly stating that we were misled into this war. Why, then, are Deaniacs so convinced that their candidate is the only one who will stand up to Bush?

A few reasons: One, the 2002 mid-term elections did indeed feature many Dems fearful to stand-up to Bush. The major Democratic candidates were not involved with that election, but Dean has skillfully placed the blame on them.

Two, the war. According to Dean, many Dems didn't ask the tough questions that were needed. He's right to a degree. And I opposed the war. But unlike Dean and his followers I also realize that some of these people were in a tough spot. The past three administrations, including Clinton's, all believed Iraq to be a threat and believed they were building WMDs (that's why Hillary is so hawkish). Viewed through the prism of 9/11, some of these Dems were terrified at the thought of Saddam with WMDs in the hands of a dictator they had no control over. On top of that, they were privy to hyped intelligence that outsiders didn't see. So, while I disagree with their decisions, I think some of them were in a very tough spot. Dean has skillfully ignored this nuance and attacked them on their decisions, rather than taking into consideration their circumstances. Fair enough.

And three: Dean is running as the anti-Washington candidate. Don't believe the hype. Every candidate in history has run as the anti-Washington. Bush even convinced people he somehow was anti-Washington even though his dad was, among other things, THE PRESIDENT.

I'm a professional consumer marketer for a large media company, and I'm absolutely amazed at the skillful marketing of Dean. From the beginning he started using phrases like Bush-lite, and the Washington-insiders, to paint his other candidates. And his followers have bought it (granted, Lieberman is, in fact, Bush-lite). But it's a marketing tool. Dean started out as the anti-Washington guy, but he's been courting every Washington insider's support from Gore to Clinton to Senators, Congressman, and beyond. If you believe that he's somehow virulently anti-Washington and completely outside the system, while everyone else is no more than a bureaucratic cog in the wheel, then you've succumbed to some skillful marketing.

I couldn't agree more that the way to beat Bush is to stand up to him. I couldn't agree more that the last thing we need is "Bush-lite." And I couldn't agree more that we need an alternative to Bush. That's the way to win. And I believe a Dean ticket is a sure way to losing.

Check out this column by Eleanor Clift. In it she shows that Dean may be right on a number of issues, but he shows a lack of understanding of how what he says hurts his campaign. The Deaniacs tell me that's what they love about him, that he says what he means and he's often right. But he'll lose.

The problem with so many on the left is that they're principled rather than victorious. That's why there is a Green Party, but no party to the right of the Republicans. The right is disciplined. The Christian Coalition knows they'll get much more, but not all, of their agenda accomplished under the Repubs than under the Dems. The Greens SHOULD realize they'll get much more, but not all, of their agenda accomplished under the Dems. But they don't. They'd rather vote for someone who reflects exactly their views and attitudes rather than someone who can win.

And this is what is happening with Dean. FACT: Dean does worst in a head-to-head matchup with Bush than any other candidate. FACT: Dean will get absolutely creamed in the South. FACT: A whole lot of Dems, whether we like to admit it or not, are hawkish on Iraq and national security and don't subscribe to Dean's views. FACT: As much as those who argue that what we need is a motivated Dem base support Dean, the fact is he doesn't unite the Dems.

Think about this my Dean friends. Dean was supposed to steamroll everyone and sign-up a million online supporters by the end of the year. It jumped over 100,000 each of two months in the summer. And yet now it stands at about 543,000. In other words, there are limits to the degree Dems are motivated for Dean. There is a plateau.

I've heard from Dean supporters that this notion that he's unelectable is garbage. Really? Why? Well, I've heard some say, "if he could motivate me to support him so strongly, he can motivate others." You know what the cardinal rule in marketing is? You are not the typical consumer. Never say, "I feel this way, so then everyone else must."

If Bush wins exactly the states he won last time, he'll get 7 more electoral votes than he did last time because of population shifts. In other words, we need to get at least one or two states that he won. In other words we need to win in the South.

The argument is that Dean will use economics to trump cultural issues in the South. It's never worked before, and it won't work now. It may seem foreign to some of us not in the South, but to so many there, NOTHING trumps cultural issues. Read this article about Nick Clooney's Congressional race. In it they talk about a district which is largely Democratic. And yet they are more conservative than most Republicans there.

I know a great working-class woman from Alabama. Her husband lays tile and she was a cop, but is now a stay-at-home mom. They are not rich. They would never consider voting for anyone but Bush. I've tried making economic arguments, but it doesn't work. To them the issue of the year was the Alabama 10-Commandments Court crisis. They believe God should be included in more of our government and that the notion of separation of church and state is silly. Not to rely just on this anecdote, but everyone they know feels the same way. This is what we're dealing with. What the Dems need is a candidate they would consider voting for. A candidate they would even listen to. But they will tune out someone like Dean before he even speaks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I know a whole boatload of Dems who would vote for Bush over Dean or would abstain. What we need is a candidate that they would even consider voting for. And these are Dems!

There's one other argument I've heard from Dean supporters: Dean's not really that liberal, he's actually very moderate on most issues. I agree. But the problem is that he comes across like a liberal, and it obscures his actual positions. Many of my friends have asked, "I disagree with Dean about Iraq, I don't want to cut and run." And I respond, "Dean doesn't want to cut and run." They are completely suprised. They are all under the impression that he is in fact THAT liberal. Some will blame the media, but I think Dean has perpetuated this feeling himself through his style and much of what he's said. And sometimes the messenger obscures the realities of his policies. Dean seems more liberal than his policies actually are. There's a perception gap that will be tough to overcome.

I'm not seeking Bush-lite. I'm not buying Lieberman's crap. And I plead my friendly Dean supporters to not accuse me of this. That's equivalent to Bush supporters calling me a traitor for opposing the war. It would be buying into the marketing that Dean has skillfully employed (and by the way, I give him credit for this, and I don't mean to equate it to what Bush and the right has done, that example was simply for clarification).

But on a very reasoned, thought out, way, it's clear to me that Dean is a sure loser. And I don't think a loss is a good thing under any circumstances. "Well, at least we'll be true to ourselves," some say. "It will help remake the Democratic party," others say. I believe two facts: (a) it will divide the Dems, not unite them. Dems are not all in love with Dean, get used to this fact. (b) we cannot afford to be "true to our principles."

If we vote with our hearts, we can look forward to four years that will leave a shell of our former country. A country on the downhill slide of its peak in civilization. A looming fiscal crisis that will cause a Depression that could surpass the 30s. An environmental crisis that will be all but unsolvable at that point. Poor families getting absolutely crushed by this administration, getting no compassion, more tax burden, making it almost impossible to break out of poverty. Underfunded education, rising college tuition, a bankrupt social security and Medicare program. A world that hates us.

The final Deaniac observation: Since I believe Dean is going to lose, I must be part of the "establishment." That's the last thing I am. It is time we think like Republicans. And I mean more than just fighting back. I mean coming up with a strategy to really win. Personally, I believe Clark is our best chance to win. I believe after him comes Kerry and Gephardt. I don't want Lieberman any more than you do. But Dean, in my opinion, is a "principled" vote that will lead to a country we won't want to live in.

2003-12-22T07:44:00.000-08:00

Welcome all to my newest blog. As some of you may know, I used to be a Kerry supporter. In my heart, I still have tremendous respect for John Kerry. But his vote for the war has complicated his campaign efforts to a fatal degree.

Anyhow, as those used to my writing may also know I am incredibly honest in my assessments. In other words, I will not hesitate to criticize Clark and his campaign if I feel criticism is warranted. I criticize not to be negative, but because I think sometimes people have to acknowledge mistakes in order to fix them.

All comments will always be welcome. Requests for links, etc, and anything else can be mailed to me at dsachar03@gsb.columbia.edu (I'm an alum of a graduate program there and that's my lifetime e-mail address, FYI).

The following is a re-print of the last post on my old pro-Kerry blog:

My friends, I am throwing my support behind General Clark. I appreciate the offers I've received from other blogs, but I've decided to continue writing on my own. From now on my new blog can be found at http://clarkforpres.blogspot.com. I will continue to analyze the campaign in general and will offer comments, advice and criticisms to all campaigns, including but not exclusive to Clark's. All comments are very welcome.

Why Clark? He's become a much better candidate and every time I see him speak I grow more confident. I was strongly impressed by his performance on "This Week" yesterday morning. He came out and accused the administration of deliberately misleading the American people. He revealed that Dean offered him the VP slot (a bold admission for Clark, but one I fully believe - word is Dean is campaigning hard for endorsements and Clark's would have been a huge one). In sum, he doesn't appear to back down from a fight.

A larger indication that Clark wouldn't back down came from a "slip-up" on C-Span. A supporter approached him and asked how Clark would respond to slime attacks from Karl Rove and the right. He responded, "I'll beat the shit out of them." I hope he does.

It's further indication that this notion that Dean supporters have that their candidate is the only one who will "stand up to Bush" is basically a bogus premise. I understand their anger, I'm angry. But when the anger is enough to start a grass-roots movement to draft a non-politician into the race, clearly that politician is going to stand up to Bush.

And Clark's indignation is real. My favorite thing about him is his utter disdain for a man I believe is the Devil incarnate - Tom Delay. Check out what Clark's official campaign released about DeLay's little snide remark about Clark. The official campaign went as far as labeling DeLay a "chickenhawk." That's EXACTLY what we need in this campaign, and only someone with the military experience of Clark has the credibility to go after DeLay in this manner.

Here's what Deaniacs sometimes don't get when it comes to their guy. Bush is a probable win, but not a sure win. He's a horrible president on a ton of issues. But Iraq and the war on terrorism IS going to be the dominant issue in this election, period.

So what we need is a candidate to make the case that Bush's aggressive, pre-emptive policy isn't working. That the war on Iraq was sold on the basis of misleading information. That the real terrorists were never in Iraq before the war, only after. And that this preposterous theory that killing them in Iraq is better than killing them here is again a bogus claim of the right, because who's to say those terrorists would ever make it here?

As far as I can see only one candidate can really sell this to the American people, and that's Clark. Why? Because he has enormous credibility.

As many regular readers may know, I'm a dual citizen with Israeli citizenship. A decade ago a great leader named Yitzhak Rabin was able to strike a peace deal with Jordan and initiate the peace process with the Palestinians. Had he lived I have no doubt he would have fulfilled the deal and gone on to make peace with Syria. And the Israeli people were willing to believe it was in their interests.

Why? Because Rabin was a soldier. He was a general who led the Israeli forces into battle in war after war and to victory after victory. If a GENERAL believed that peace was in the national security interests of our nation, then the Israeli people were inclined to believe it too.

Dean has no such credibility, respectfully. Kerry would have had more credibility had he voted against the war and remained consistent.

So the only one whose consistently opposed the war AND who brings the credibility to sell it to people beyond only the most motivated of our base is Clark.