Am I the only Clark holdout that sees Dean as a good alternative?

[unfrigginreal]

In the same vein as my earlier thread about moderate and conservative Democrats, I truely believe that Clark would make the best candidate but since I can't be sure that he's running my second choice is Dean. Does anyone else see it this way?

I've got to say that the longer that Clark holds out, the closer I get to Dean...I'm damned near tempted to send him some money!

I'd be interested in any thoughts about Dean being too liberal. I don't see it that way but according to the press I should.

[sfecap]

1. The "press" is bullshitting you.

Dean is neither too liberal nor too conservative. Dean is Dean. He calls it like he sees it, without pandering to either spectrum.

He is what he is, and labels won't work with him.

That's why the pundits and "experts" have gotten his campaign wrong from the beginning. People are responding strongly to Dean because he is pragmatic and straightforward.

Most won't agree with everything a candidate stands for, but they will respect one who stands up for what he says.

Dean will tell you, "...some of what I say, you won't agree with. That's OK. I won't stand here and tell you something you want to hear just to get your vote. I might not be your guy...."

That's a refreshing statement from a politician.

[Egnever]

2. Come to the darkside luke!

honestly I have no idea on clark I have only seen him speak twice but both times he sounded solid.

far as the press calling Dean liberal. I think this is just a holdover from rush and his ilk lumping all dems in as liberal lefty pinco commies! long as they keep repeating it maybe the sheeple will just kneejerk bush into the whitehouse

[msanger]

3. donate to dean and IF clark runs

you can switch back and support him. Right now dean seems to be using the money well - running the ad in Texas, getting people psyched about defeating bush in 2004....

If clark decides to run, and if people find him a better candidate than dean, all the work dean has done in mobilizing folks will rebound to clark's advantage.

[w4rma]

4. NYT: Defying Labels Left or Right, Dean's '04 Run Makes Gains (4 pages)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/politics/campaigns/30DEAN.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5004&en=b4622f5e6ac88655&ex=1060833600&partner=UNTD
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=41898&mesg_id=41898

[Ishkaboogl]

5. im a holdout for clark too

i consider graham, edwards, and dean as my favorite candidates. of course, kerry would be my favorite president, but i don't think he has a shot of winning as a candidate, and my first priority is to see bush out of the white house.

[Kahuna]

6. Yes. My alternatives to Clark are...

Senator Graham and Al Gore.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Save Your Money Until Clark Becomes The Kerry VP

That would be money well spent.

As far as Dean being liberal, he isn't liberal in policy (where he should be). He is liberal in perception, as an eccentric radical. It's not that he's pro-choice, it's that he seems too volatile and unstable. Which is why he's hammering at being a "fiscal conservative" and not really anti-war now. It gives him more of an appearance of stability.

[VoteClark]

8. I don't see how you can be between the two

To me, I find Dean the exact opposite of Clark. That is why I like Clark and dislike Dean.

Clark is running, that is a fact. He is timing it, not deciding it. I know this.

The only thing that would keep him out is Hillary and Gore because the Stephens Corperation will back Hillary and Gore before Clark, but they don't enter and he will be well padded, well beyond anyone else right now.

We are like 15 months away. Place your money in the Draft campaign, it will not be lost.

J4Clark

[tameszu]

9. Dean seems similar to Clark...

...in that both seem to "call it like it is."

Neither insincerely pulls his punches or minces words.

Both are willing to offer a strong critique of Bush along with a positive message without being utopian or untenably "radical." Both are smart enough to keep from getting burned by guns.

So, sorry VoteClark, I have to disagree, but viewing Dean as an alternative to Clark is sensible, IMO.

Then again, I also have good things to say about Kerry.

I do worry about Dean's electability, simply because he seems to have let the media paint him into a corner. Yes, it's unfair, since so often one doesn't have a lot of control over what the media does--witness the moronic Kerry haircut imbroglio. I have a suspicion that Dean may have cultivated his "ultra-liberal" aura to win the primaries, but it would be trouble if he can't take it off again by the general election, if he gets the nom.

OTOH, it seems like the non-partisan aura that Clark's trying to cultivate will benefit him more in the generals...if he can win the primaries. It's getting late, if only because potential Dem primary voters are starting to think it's getting late. But that's enough.

Graham is also very good, but seems unable (or unwilling) to catch fire. Lieberman gets a "bleh" on his positioning and slamming other Democrats. Gephardt has 0 charisma. That's a problem.

So my big 3 are: Clark, Dean, Kerry. Graham would make a good VP pick.

[Julien Sorel]

10. I like Dean because

from what I've seen, he's a strong campaigner -- he reminds me of Clinton in that respect. I also like his stand on most of the issues. Unfortunately, I suspect the Bush people are going to run a harshly negative campaign and I think Dean is susceptible to that, because he has absolutely no national security credentials to fall back on. He might be a strong enough campaigner to overcome it, but it's a gamble I don't like. Still, if he got there, I think he'd do a good job in the Oval Office. I would have no problem supporting Dean if he wins the primary. Some of Dean's supporters here, though, are so vituperative and nasty that I have to hope they aren't representative of Dean's personality.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Uh, I think

that the Bush people are "going to run a harshly negative campaign" no matter who is the nominee and I think every Democrat is susceptible to that. Do you think the Bushies are suddenly going to learn to be polite? Their trained lapdogs in the media know how to (try to) make a laughingstock out of every Democrat who comes by.

Here's the question: Have you ever before seen a candidate who responded to a smear or a negative attack more quickly than Dean?

We forget our own history so quickly. Dukakis probably would have made a much better President based on policy than Bush I. But Bushco smeared Dukakis, pounded him with lies, misrepresentations. When asked about what he had learned from his campaign, Dukakis said that it was to "fight back quickly" when you are attacked, but the Democrats in this country (Clinton excluded, who I consider a one-man phenomenon) never took his lessons to heart.

Dean doesn't lay down when attacked. Look at what happened with the DLC. His team had responses out the very day it happened - and sharp responses, too, not wishy-washy namby-pamby I just want to get along with everybody stuff. Imagine him focused on the RNC and their smears. Imagine him getting the chance to treat Bushco with the contempt they deserve. Everyone else is so deferential to the Bushies. They act like they deserve to win, and everyone just assumes it is so. But Dean doesn't treat them that way.

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I or someone else thought "I wish the Democrats could post a candidate who would point out the incredible hypocrisy and horrible policy making of the Republicans. A candidate who will fight for all of us against this mob." And now an actual fighter comes along and you are worried that the Bush people might run a negative campaign against him? OF COURSE their campaign will be negative. But Dean seems like the only candidate equipped to handle it. Who else is not going to let them get away with it? Who else will not just smile and pretend everything is all right as they are smeared with half-truths and full-lies? Does Lieberman, for example, really think the American people are going to reward him for kissing Bush's butt on every single issue?

I really love many of the people here, but I am astounded at people's inability to see that Dean's personality is that of someone who is playing to win, and someone who won't just lay down for this group of gangsters. He can be cordial and politic in tone when necessary, but he doesn't give this junta the deferential treatment that the press, the Republicans, and yes, most of the elected Democrats give him. Everyone is just quietly playing the charade of pretending that this moron and his leash-holders aren't the most dangerous bunch of imperialistic war-profiteers ever to darken the White House door. Don't we want to beat them? Don't we want to win? The Republicans impeached Clinton, they accused him of every calumny they could think of, they treated him worse than dirt under their shoe. Many Democrats went along with that (Holy Joe Lieberman even joined in) quietly, and let them smear Clinton, who in retrospect ran one of the most squeaky-clean administrations that Washington DC has ever seen. And you know what? They are in power now, partially because of their smears.

There is power in just not treating these folks as if they are the best thing since sliced bread. Dean has that power. Embrace that message. Don't be afraid to hold them in contempt. They are contemptible.

[Julien Sorel]

13. It has nothing to do with Dean, and everything to do with the

electorate. Dean can 'respond quickly' to every smear in the book, but if the electorate doesn't buy it, then he becomes McGovern, becomes Dukakis. Dean seems to have demonstrated that he is a strong campaigner so far, and the heart of a successful campaign is the ability to get one's message out. But Dean's opposition to the war and lack of foreign policy credentials make him uniquely susceptible among the front-runners to the sort of flag waving, appeal to paranoia campaign Bush is going to run. Whether Dean's campaign skills are up to countering that, I don't know.

[ProfessorPlum]

14. I suppose people have a part in the equation

but if Dean continues to respond strongly to challenges and lies, then there is no way he "becomes Dukakis" because not responding to attacks is the heart of being Dukakis.

Bush can appeal to the all jingoistic idiots that are in this country. In fact, he is sure to do so. But a nearly leak-proof case can be built that this war is the worst screw up we have ever been fear-mongered and lied into - ever. This war is a monumental mistake, and Dean seems like he plans to hit Bush over the head with it.

Can you suggest other candidates who have seemed so adept at turning what is supposed to be a Bush strength around and making it a weakness? No one else ever seems to want to challenge Bush on national security, when in fact that is exactly where Bush has failed the most!

People need to wake up.

[blm]

15. Really? No one else?

Kerry and Gore were doing it in early 2001. Dean would only say he backed Bush back in 2001 and refused to back Kerry and Gore's criticisms.

Gary Hart has also been highly critical of Bush since 2001, and he is one of the nation's top experts on national security. And lets not forget that Gary Hart said there are two candidates who shouldn't be in charge of foreign policy - Dean and Lieberman.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. You're right - I have to give Gore credit for speaking up

those few times before he withdrew his name for the nomination. He was absolutely right then. And I have to give Kerry credit in pushing so hard for multilateral disarmament as a goal, before Chimpy's true strategy was unveiled.

Gary Hart is a smart guy. He was half right.

[Julien Sorel]

21. We're seeing this from different angles.

Can you suggest other candidates who have seemed so adept at turning what is supposed to be a Bush strength around and making it a weakness? No one else ever seems to want to challenge Bush on national security, when in fact that is exactly where Bush has failed the most!

It isn't the reality that's important; it's the perception. The public believes Bush is strong on foreign policy -- he starts and wins wars, and for people with a casual interest in the political process (most of the people whose votes are up for grabs fall into this category), that makes him look 'strong.' Dean has to overcome the perception that Democrats are not strong on national security, the perception of Bush as being strong on national security, and what will surely be an onslaught of negative messages that Dean himself is 'soft on terrorism.' It can be overcome with a strong campaign and counter message, but to deny the hurdle is there is to stick one's head in the sand.

By the way, I haven't seen Dean turn anything around on foreign policy yet. He tapped into the liberal opposition to the war, but that was easily done -- he's still dealing with a relatively receptive audience. The problems will emerge in an actual election, when he's confronting the skeptical and downright hostile.

[ProfessorPlum]

22. I don't think the angle is all that different.

I think that Dean can overcome the perception by telling people a bit more of the truth. He is one of the rare messangers that can do that to good effect. I agree the perception is what's important. I also think that any candidate could immediately turn that perception around by pointing out that Bush has been horrible at what it would actually take to keep us safe. Like some money for port security, etc. And the "fact" that we have "won" the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is very much open to interpretation. Again, I believe Dean can question those outcomes to good effect.

Dean has been quite outspoken about foreign policy, especially at the time of the war. He believes in multilateral engagement, involvement in the international community, and also believes that Bush tearing up all of our treaties with the rest of the world was a stupid, arrogant, and self-defeating thing to do.

[blm]

11. Clark is more liberal than Dean.

Amazing how unaware some are of Dean and Clark's actual records. In the media and on the internet, this legend of Dean being a fighting populist of the left is a real hoot. There's certainly no evidence of this in his 11 year record while governor.

[JohnKleeb]

18. I really feel uncomfortable with both of them

Dean actually was at odds with the populist democrats in Maine. That said thats not my kind of democrat.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. What exactly are you talking about?

I don't know of any fights Dean had with anyone in Maine.

[JohnKleeb]

20. d'oh i did it again I meant vermont

[killbotfactory]

23. Clark is in line with Dean on a lot of issues..

including gun rights, balanced budget, the environment, the Iraq war.

At least according to the limited information I could get about him from pro-Clark websites.

[Composed Thinker]

17. What are the chances of Clark entering the race as Dean's VP?

Or how about someone else's VP?

[ignatiusr]

24. Thinking

The more I think about it, the more appealing a Clark/Dean ticket seems to me. Clark brings the obvious stength, credibility, charisma and vision to the ticket, along with his grassroots appeal, and Dean brings his own even more massive crowd of grassroots supporters. In the beginning, I didn't think it would work, because I thought Dean was too liberal. But now I see that they may be very similar in their views. And people have been debating Clark coattails vs. Dean coattails. Why not the best of both worlds? Imagine Clark/Dean, with huge coattail potential, AND with a larger combined army of grassroots supporters than any other ticket in history.