Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark, Edwards, and the Bar Fight

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 10:39 PM
Original message
Clark, Edwards, and the Bar Fight
Pretty good for a subject line teaser, eh? No this isn't about fighting between Clark and Edwards, or fighting between Clark and Edwards supporters. It's about which Democrats will stand up and fight for us when the chips are down. And to be more specific, it's about a blog by Matt Stoller at MyDD.com by the name of "The Bar Fight Primary". In it he says mostly nice things about both Wes Clark and John Edwards, and less nice things about some other potential Presidential candidates. It's his blog, you should read it, I'll leave the link below. I agree with a lot, but not all, of what he says. But I absolutely love Matt's basic premise. So here is your basic three paragraph snippet:

"The way to gain my support in 2008 is to show that in a bar fight, your sympathies are with liberals and are set against the bullies that have been running the country for so long. You can run on anything you want, you can talk of unifying the country or any sort of conventional wisdom chatter. You don't have to speak to me directly all the time with everything you say. You can pander on video games or ethanol, or whatever you need. But you have to speak on some critical point, some piece of entrenched power, and promise that you are going to gore that conservative ox.

The key point about the progressive movement that has emerged over the past eight years is that we are a group of people that feel deeply betrayed by our elites. We feel that bullies have run roughshod over our country, and many of us bought your line that compromise with these bullies was the right strategy, until it became clear that you can't do business with these people. In order to unify the country, these bullies need to be pushed out of the way, corrected for, and only then can the healing start. Just as Reagan said he'd unify the country by pushing the liberals out of the way, we need someone who will unify the country by pushing irresponsible right-wing power centers out of the way. They crushed our unions, we need to crush their talk radio, you know, that kind of thinking...

...There are two candidates who can pass the bar fight primary. One of them, Wes Clark, passes the test clearly. He is a genuine liberal, and has fought the right clearly and consistently for the last four years, most recently in Connecticut when he was the only real surrogate against Lieberman. I don't see how Clark can seriously compete, but this willingness to be on our side in a bar fight, recognizing the institutional challenges posed by the right, explains his continuing netroots support. And then there's John Edwards. I think Edwards is split. He's spent much of his time working with unions, on the road, in low-key meetings. Elizabeth Edwards has done outreach to bloggers, so there's at least acknowledgment of the dirty hippy crew. He's announcing in New Orleans, which is dog whistle politics on our issues. He knows he was wrong on the war, and feels our betrayal. Unlike Clark, though, I still haven't seen him stand up for us in a real way. I haven't seen him attack McCain, for instance, or go after the politicians who supported the Bankruptcy Bill. I haven't seen him challenge any right-wing interests in a serious way, and so while I acknowledge he's in the ball park, he's not there yet."
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/12/18/115944/24

OK, since I clearly am a Clark supporter, I'm not pleased that Matt wrote "I don't see how Clark can seriously compete." And I bet a strong Edwards supporter will disagree with Matt that Edwards is "not there yet", and can challenge him over why. But Clark and Edwards are actually the two likely Democratic Presidential candidates who Stoller is most positive about, when it comes to taking our side in the bar room fight that he thinks the next Democratic President will face. That's his opinion, others will differ.

My question is, even if you differ on his assessment of the individuals, does Stoller, in the big picture, have it right? Here is his closing challenge:

"It isn't the job of the next President to have all the answers, that's up to the American people. It's up to the next President to show that he's going to clear the way for us to take back our country.

So that's my test for the primary. Who's with us in a bar fight? And if that's not your test, then you need to explain to yourself why you think the right-wing and the media are going to lie down and go to sleep after fifteen years of increasingly malignant civic behavior."

So, what do you think?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. The question is, WHY can't Clark compete?
As a Clark supporter, I realize that he has an extra challenge since he isn't a senator or governor who can get a lot of TV face time. I also realize that some people might be concerned with his apparent lack of elected experience. However, if Eisenhower can get elected, and Ross Perot can get 20 million people to vote for him, I think Clark can compete. His biggest mistake was staying out of the Iowa caucus. I think whoever won Iowa was going to get swept up in ABB fever and become our nominee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I suspect you and I both say he can. It's all opinion at this point.
And I am also sure that for someone else reading either my post or the whole MyDD blog, they might pick some other part to be "the question".

Anyway, I recently discovered that there were polls showing Jimmy Carter with 3% of the likely Democratic vote in November of 1975, less than 3 months before the first 1976 primaries. Conventional wisdom has a lousy track record this far out from the primary season. If you go to my blog (link in my signature line) I have several entries explaining why I think Clark can compete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Tom, I'm crazy about Wes Clark BUT
I have this eerie feeling that time might be passing him by. The 06 election did this to me. All of a sudden I saw a new Left emerge, with new faces and fresh voices. No one in particular emerged, just a sense of renewal, some younger potentials filling a space where our more traditional ideas had been left to linger for so long.

AT this point, I can't say anything for sure. I would work for and vote for Wes Clark in a heartbeat, but maybe our political system is ushering someone new in the door. I just read a small piece on Kathleen Sebelius, gov. of Kansas, who is profiled in Newsweek currently. This woman is doing gangbusters in her state: taking on the Pentagon for better equipment for Kansas National Guard troops in Iraq, reviving her state's educational system, while being a fiscal conservative. And she's just one.

I'm not closing any door in my mind on a potential Wes Clark presidential run. As a matter of fact, my gut tells me he could be ideal. And I like the Eisenhower comparison. But he needs a hell of a boost in his visibility and profile. The question is: will he get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Our culture has attention deficit disorder syndrome
I had a friend who is a wonderful comedian, we've been out of touch for years unfortunately, but he gave a one man show in San Francisco where he slipped into being a commercial pitchman, and I always can remember the manic gleam in his eye when he held up whatever it was and screeched with uncontrolled excitement, "And it's NEW!"

Wes Clark does not seem NEW to activists like us who have been following Democratic presidential politics for years, some like him, some don't, but he's a familiar to us. Wes Clark does not seem NEW to the media, and therein lies a more dangerous problem for him now. The media keeps scanning the horizon for fresh faces for them to focus on. But Wes Clark will be NEW to most of the American public if he runs. Many have barely heard his name, I'm sure a lot of FOX viewers never sat down and listened to him until he became a commentator, long AFTER the 2004 election. Sparkly points out on another response how and why Clark pulled out early from the Democratic race in 2004. People may agree or not (I do) but the point is that for most Americans Clark got little coverage in 2004. They may have a lingering memory that Clark failed in 2004, but that impression is a thin one, it doesn't have much depth behind it.

When Clark runs this time he will reframe his 2004 campaign with humor, which he is always good at doing. Clark has already been quoted saying about his 2004 run: "It was my only faith based initiative." But the important thing is he will then follow with a fresh message that most Americans have never heard from him. If they have heard Clark at all, it is only about Iraq, but Clark has a powerful vision for America on a wide range of issues. And it is timely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Not all that is new is suspect, tho. I am remembering how Bill
Clinton seemed to leap from nowhere in 1991. Of course, he was "somewhere" all along, but it just seemed to be his time. I guess what I am saying is that the 06 election ushered in some players to front row or at least second row seats and we Dems have a good chance at showcasing lots of talent.

No doubt in my mind that Wes would make a terrific president. If he is swiftboated he will know how to deal with it. Since he is smart, he will know he needs a domestic policy person as the VP choice, and that could be a dream ticket. And I'll work for him as a volunteer footsoldier.

Have no fear. I am a Wes Clark supporter. I was just musing about how things do change and in another year we could see a very different political landscape. Change, as the saying goes, is inevitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Considering that the media ignores Clark, he WILL be a "fresh
face" to many people this time around.

We know who he is, but I'm betting most of America doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. That's why I was so glad he went on Fox News. Pure genius on his part.
My garage mechanic, an "independent" (you know, votes Republican), has seen Clark and likes him. He's a former Marine so he likes military types.

If he gets really good people to help him with his campaign, he could really do well, I think. I don't think he could be swiftboated the way John Kerry was, for instance. Clark was never a point person for an antiwar campaign the way Kerry was. But Clark will face considerable flak from the RW, we just don't know what form it will be in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Stoller didn't say WKC couldn't, just that Matt couldn't see "how"
If I can see it, and others can as well, most especially WKC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV1962 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clark and barfight, you got me hooked there, Tom!
Edited on Tue Dec-19-06 11:22 PM by NV1962
It's just that itsy bit in the middle of what you mentioned that left me slightly uneasy to participate further than my earlier stated objections. :evilgrin:

More seriously -- really: I'm so done with discussing Edwards here -- if a bar fight breaks out, I'll be there. Especially if and when, uh, he demonstrates his character and integrity issues.

Semper Hi. ;)

Edit: just as in 2004, when I busted several pairs of real-world shoes around here in NV for Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jen4clark Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is what I have a hard time with
Most liberal bloggers despise and distrust the Corporate Press. So why then is it not clear to many that we should be paying most attention to what the Corporate Press isn't telling us? To me, whomever Corporate Press is pushing is the person I'm most likely to be suspicious of -- and likewise, the person who they ignore at all costs is someone I would check out very carefully. We all know (at least those of us who pay attention to such things) that Clark worked non-stop for the last 2 years to get Dems back in control -- yet unless you read blogs or his site, WesPAC -- Securing America, you would not have heard a word about the man.

So anyways, to me, people who say or think Clark doesn't have a chance are simply buying in to Corporate Press's agenda for who the Dem candidates will be and it makes me sick.

Other than that, I guess Matt's got a point. I definitely am sick of Dems who go along to get along -- it's like the abused spouse who keeps going back sure that s/he can change the other person if they are just good enough, smart enough, good looking enough, etc. We are dealing with outright criminals, thugs, ultimate schoolyard bullies and the only way they're going to stop is if we stand up to them and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Clark does that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. True - people SAY they know corporate press is manipulative then let them manipulate
our perceptions as we close in towards primary time.

I would choose Clark on my team in a barfight. Kerry, Clark and Cleland always show up to take on the lies and take on the backlash, and I wish more Dems had shown the courage to do so when BushInc was at their strongest. Seems alot of folks want to say they're the toughest now that a category 5 hurricane tore holes in Bush's wall of media protection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. I've always loved em both. My support went Edwards-Clark-Edwards-Kerry in 2004
as the various candidates came in and dropped out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think Clark is unique in our field of potential candidates...
And this "can't compete" is a meme without any basis. It's amazing how the MSM goes out of its way to avoid saying his name, even as they're supposedly coming up with ALL the potential candidates they can think of (and of course, they did the same thing when speculating about Kerry's vp pick).

I think Clark has shown his unique vigor and capability for taking on BushCo and the Neocons in general. He's done it through writing, through Fox newz, and through tireless campaigning for other Democrats. Things he's been saying for years are slowly coming from other people's lips.

But even back in 2004, I think a key difference between Clark and Edwards became clear. (And I'm sorry if Edwards supporters don't like this.) The writing was on the wall very early on that Kerry would be the nominee. His momentum was just unstoppable. General Clark bowed out quickly to get behind Kerry, and went to work fighting for him. He could have stayed in to present alternative views, add to the debate, argue his differences with Kerry, and promote himself to gain a higher profile and name recognition, but he didn't. On the other hand, Edwards could have dropped out early to support Kerry, but despite having little in the way of differences with Kerry to add to the debate, he hung in as an opponent.

And after the 2004 elections, Clark fought not only for high-profile candidates getting lots of media attention, but sought out lesser-known Democrats all over the country and worked for them. He didn't focus on frequent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire. He didn't seek his own spotlight, but focused on the fight itself.

Finally, when it comes to fighting Republicans on foreign policy, Clark's voice rings with gravitas. I know it's popular to dismiss him as presidential material and put his experience into secretary of state (or defense) -- as if that's the only place such experience is needed or useful. WRONG. I think we can see the lesson of that mistake playing out right now. A Commander in Chief can get terrible advice and take it, or great advice and ignore it. The power of that position is critical to foreign policy, war and peace, use and misuse of the military, credibility of the country, and our standing as a nation worldwide. It's never been as critical in our lifetimes than it is right now, and I believe it takes a VERY sensitive hand to steer out of a situation like this. We need the best Commander in Chief we can get right now, and in my view, that's General Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooga booga Donating Member (271 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Clark IS very unique in some very good ways.
First, he's a REAL leader. Something we haven't seen in the White House in the last six years.

As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, he was essentially accorded the same status as a European head of state. He's played with some of the big dogs in Europe and knows what's going on over there. A useful bit of experience for a POTUS applicant.

For all of his intellectual bandwidth, Wes Clark was a neophyte in the domestic political arena in 2003 and 2004. He's a fast learner, and he's up to speed now in my view.

The general's got an army ready to mobilize for him. I'm one of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. your post summed up why I admire him so much
"He didn't seek his own spotlight, but focused on the fight itself."

Boy howdy, did he ever. Since February 2004 he's been working his tail off for other Democratic candidates, trying to get this country back.

He's been motivated by his love of this country all his life... as a Rhodes Scholar he could have done anything he wanted and made a gazillion dollars too, but he and his wonderful wife chose a life of service. That's one reason I disagree with the assessment on myDD that he wouldn't have a good chance of winning; I think that after 8 years of Bush and his cronies, voters are going to be more than ready for somebody who puts his country first and foremost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
10. Clark has real world Democratic bona fides
that have stood the test og time in the past few years. Wes also has the added benefit of being prescient and holding (former) Democrats and Bush loons accountable. He is authentic and doesn't pander with cheap theatrics that other candidates engage in for purchase with the public. In disagreement with Matt, I can see a strategic way for him to do this, but the patience needs to be with Clark supporters as he guages when would be the best time to get in and most importantly how much does he want to go through it again. My hopes and dreams and loyalty go with Wes first and I want him to wait until its a go on every dimension for him.

GO Wes!:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
capi888 Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wes Clark is a Stratigist...
I believe WHEN he announces he is running, it will be with a plan unforseen, by any candidate. He has been building his supporters for the past 2 years...working with candidates for the House and Senate. If this man can plan strategy for the "Dayton Peace Accords", plan and activate a winning war, with NO NATO troops killed, meet with WORLD leaders, (highly respected by arabs and muslim leaders and loved by their people) I believe he will put together a campaign, that will knock the socks off anyone else. So be patient all, HE IS A LEADER, in all sense of the word.
I really think, he DOESN'T want his name released as a possible candidate ON PURPOSE!!! There were some mentions, then silence...may work in his favor!!! January 2007 we will know...Fingers crossed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveT Donating Member (447 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. If Clark gets the nomination,
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 02:00 PM by DaveT
you can bet that a group of military veterans will come out with a book proving that he wasn't really a general. Instead, the Clinton traitors slipped him in as a ringer when they wanted to dismantle our national security apparatus. Before 1994, Clark was actually an ambulance chaser in Fort Smith.

Note to mods -- hey, this is satire, not really wingnut trollery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
16. Clark has some unique gifts that would augment
the presidency in a way we haven't know before, and I think that is recognized by the RW and MSM. They were reduced to ridiculing a sweater in 2004 because that's all they have. I like Edwards but he is
VP material if for no other reason than paucity of experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think Clark would kick anyone's ass in a bar fight...
...but that ain't what you were askin' about.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
21. He nailed it. Both Edwards and Clark have well-honed weapons to use against the right-wing.
Edited on Wed Dec-20-06 10:18 PM by Clarkie1
Edwards with his anti-poverty message, and Clark with his anti-neocon message. I would also mention Gore, with his pro-environment message.

Of course, Edwards is anti-neocon, Clark is pro-environment, and Gore is anti-poverty, etc. But these three (for example) have a focus they have made their own either through their own expertise or choice. In that way, they provide a rallying point to attack the "bullies." Or, as famously recorded in Farenheit 9/11 for all posterity, "the haves and the have mores."

The problem with other candidates like Hillary and Kerry, is they simply don't have a clear message...it's to amorphous, and that's why in the general election they would not be as effective, in my opinion. There has to be something a leader simply won't "triangulate" on, and they need to be passionate about it. I suppose that could change, perhaps Hillary could focus her candidacy on universal health care or children's welfare, for example.

There has to be a clear focus of attack, within a context that encompasses the wide range of progressive issues. If Democrats were smart (aren't we?) we would determine what the weakest, most vulnerable part of the Republican body politic is (or perhaps the "heart" of their power...like attacking the Death Star at just the right spot to blow the rest of it to pieces), and chose our candidates accordingly. Or, if you prefer a boxing metaphor, once we get them on the ropes and have the American people on our side, we will have the political capital to advance all progressive issues further.

And since I'm a Clark supporter I'm sure it's understood exactly where I think the most vulnerable part of the Death Star is that's holding the whole fearsome thing together. Once Americans believe strongly that Democrats can better defend America from all threats foreign and domestic, the neo-con Death Star will implode and a new progressive era will begin...in other words, we'll knock 'em out. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC