The general and his ground troops

Howard Dean is not the only Democratic candidate who has inspired an army of followers. Wes Clark's ranks are growing, and they include Bush deserters.

Oct. 23, 2003 - Since she found Gen. Wesley Clark, Beatrice Moritz, a Manhattan photographer, has stopped hating George Bush. She's taking down the full-page MoveOn.org ad she'd taped to her wall, with its scowling picture of the president labeled "Misleader." Before becoming a Clark volunteer, she'd spent months seething, becoming obsessed with photographing those who were "speaking back" to Bush with their signs at protest marches, incredulous about the nation's acquiescence to an administration that seemed to her so self-evidently awful. Then Clark turned it all around.

"Now I feel like I have an alternative because Wesley Clark, he's going to win," she says. "It makes me feel that I'm not going to waste my energy thinking about all the bad things Bush has done. I don't hate Bush as a person. I went through a period of that, but I'm more focused now on the very positive experience of supporting a candidate who's a real president, and I know it's not just me. I feel it."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/23/clark/index.html

Here's something that summarises why Clark is the Democrat that can beat Bush:

"Those are exactly the kind of people you want," Teixeira says of these Clark fans. "The people who hate Bush 24/7, those voters are not the Democrats' problem. The Democrats' problem are the people who say, 'Goddamn it, he did a pretty good job after 9/11, but he's really doing a lousy job now.' That's the sweet spot. Those are the voters you're going to need to get in droves."

From that Salon article (and I agree):

<SNIP>
"Dean makes me angry about the present," Richards writes in an e-mail. "Clark, on the other hand, gives me HOPE for the future. Hope feels better than anger."
<SNIP>

intoxicus

Speaking as a Dean supporter, I would say that Dean is the one who gives me hope while Clark just feels like a stop-gap against the dangers of the present.

I've met Clark supporters whose primary reason for supporting him seems to be simply that they think he has a better chance of beating Bush than Dean. That's NOT what I would call a message of hope.

The point is, most Clark supporters have considered seriously all other candidates - just by the timing of things. We didn't settle down - or else why do you think we'd be so enthusiastic? Michelle Goldberg came on the Clark2004 yahoo list to invite us to participate in interviews. A lot of us wrote. Some got phone calls. I didn't - but my e-mail to her about Clark's heroism in Serbia was included and so was my reason of picking Clark over Dean: he elevates the dialogue, gets to the sources of our anger ("It's the Democracy, stupid")
I am not arguing with your reasons to support Dean. But it bugs me that you dismiss us as "we only think of electability". This goes right up there with "the establishment candidate" "the stalking horse for Hillary" and "you guys can't resist an uniform"
SILVER STARS VS SILVER SPOON


©2003

Leadership is a lot about interaction and relationships and how you work them into sound decision-making. It's not just about conviction and decisiveness.

Dean has a hard time controlling himself. It hurts him. It is a trait that is very difficult to overcome. Unfortunately, a short temper (clearly evident during some of the debates, you could see his internal struggle to keep it in) makes Dean prone to rash decisions. He would be prone to poor timing. Playing hardball is a good thing, but when doing so, timing is everything. His temper would hinder his efforts.

A good example is his published economic plan. He spends 25% or better of that document raking Bush over the coals, when, instead, he should be focused on explaining his plan in clear, logical, sensible terms. He shouldn't be pandering to Bush haters, he should be highlighting his ideas for America's future when presenting his official stance on an issue.

Dean strikes me as an overzealous little league coach. He probably knows a lot about the game and can play it real well himself, but probably isn't the best guy to coach the team.

Clark, on the other hand, is calm and collected and controlled. His moves, though not all, are very well calculated. He will question authority, but still play within the set of agreed upon rules. In other words, he'll get done whatever he needs to get done, but always chooses to go through proper channels, realizing that there is always recourse.

Dean would throttle the system to death to get done what he needs to get done. (Which in some ways, I can respect. )

It's about timing and methods, not so much electability, as leadership ability.

Have you ever read up on Jung personality types?

Clark strikes me as an ENTP.

Dean strikes me as an ESTP.

To be honest, I like them both. I would support either one.

Is one more electable than the other? Yes, but the more electable fellow is also a better leader, in my opinion.

intoxicus

I remember when Al Gore was running, and he'd be in a debate or giving a speech.. I'd actually be covering my face sometimes out of embarassment. That's a horrible feeling for someone you love and support as a candidate.

This time around I was waffling quite a bit. I had written to and supported Kucinich's amazing speech and signed on to his newsletter, but once he started running I almost felt betrayed? Well, not betrayed exactly, but I wanted him to have given that speech because he felt it and for no other reason - somehow I think he knew he would run. I liked him as a man, not a president. I dropped out of the newsletter when it started asking for dough.

I was still waffling. Leiberman was definately out - no way was he getting MY wife's vote (I can't vote - I make her vote for me since she doesn't care.) Gephart was too limp and maleable, plus, he's a turtle - and his counter-speech to the Republicans pissed me off to no end, what a suckup. Daschle caved too (and his wife is a big-time airline lobbyist!) - glad he stayed home.

Braun and Sharpton brought up issues - but had as much chance of winning as Gary Coleman. Graham never even crossed my radar.

Then I was sitting in a barber shop and picked up an article about some dude named Howard Dean. It told about his positions, which were some delicious liberal fare, but also that he was very wealthy, and yet had holes in his socks (like me!). He invited a reporter over, and his house was a mess, but he didn't care - he was more into substance than appearance. So I started digging and found out more about Dean, and the more I found the more I liked. I knew the right/middle wingers(swingers) would never go for him, but at this stage I was trying to identify with a candidate - not look for electability. So I swung to the Dean camp. Not supporting him financially or working for him - just turning other people onto him that didn't know anything about him.

But the spark of anger showed. And the early attacks really threw me off. And his reddened face started to remind me of the broiler underneath. And it wasn't the left or right hate machine just drumming up how he was an angry man and me falling for it hook, line and sinker - there were times I could sense it. Plus, like on the first date when everything is great about her/him and there is no reason not to like them, but for some reason there just isn't that spark, you know? You try and like them, try and get those butterflies, but eh, whatevah. And anyway, universal health care in the charge of a doctor? Is that good or bad? Do the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals support him? - If they do, I'm outta here.

Then I read about Clark. I saw him on Bill Maher before he had even declared he was running. Maher: "Are you bothered by people tarring you with 'liberal' since that's a dirty word now-a-days?" "Of course not," Clark said, "this is a liberal democracy. We can't forget that." (paraphrased) Wow. He was good looking, well dressed, intelligent as hell, articulate, focused eyes, and he didn't seem nervous even on a comedy show which probably isn't really his forte.

I was already hooked on Clark by the time the TPM article came out, but that one really sold me too. What brilliant answers. What depth. I didn't think that a human being had been born yet that could replace Clinton's finesse, intelligence, and political strategy. But here was this man who had it all - and could possibly surpass it.

And I have to admit, you know how most people say "I support the troops." I actually didn't. I hated the military. I hated wars and generals and snot-nosed 18-year old gung-ho brats that just wanted to kill something and didn't know shit from shinola. I hated arrogant generals, spit-in-your-face dominance, rewarding a lack of empathy, rapists, looters, drunkards, ignorants, violence. I hated that people could take orders and not question them. I hated that there weren't enough women to counterbalance the testosterone overload. I hated war, I hated death. I hated evolution for being so fucking slow and leaving us baboons while technology advanced exponentially.

But there was Clark and he really was a hero. And he was sharp and well dressed. And he was advocating peace. And he was intelligent. And he HAD disobeyed orders to his credit when he felt he was doing the right thing. And he is wise. He makes me respect the armed forces and makes me almost envious of what a maturing experience it can be for one's growth.

And Clark is f*ing bulletproof. The wingers not only won't be able to get their slung shit to stick, they might even vote for the man. And he was a republican himself for a time - many think that's a bad thing. I think it is most admirable. Did you read David Brock's book? There is no greater convert than one who has lived on the other side - and no greater way to know thy enemy.

Anyhoo, I'm sold.

God, please don't fuck this up. No scandals, ok?
I know in your supreme sarcastic irony you are going to have the second coming happen before he has a chance to get sworn in, but try and do the right thing this time, please? We deserve it after your last joke.

-b

Especially considerin' how's nobody reads yer posts anyhoo..

I'm similarly impressed with Clark, but a bit worried about whether he can get the nomination. I guess that means I actually have to think about...(ahem, oh no!)...doing something. Which ain't gonna be easy for me, since I've never "done" politics. Since I tend to be a bit anti-social, or shy, or just a loner or whatever, that could be a problem, but I guess I need to come to terms with what's more important.

Contributions I'll do--I have to work on the rest of it...

(You read my post!)

I'm a shy one too.
But I signed up for the Clark meetup thingy for my area and am going to meet with them on November 03(?).

http://clark2004.meetup.com/

It's just hanging out at a pub - I can do that. If I get roped into doing more, well, it'll be good for me.

I was also a Dean supporter who "just didn't feel the spark", and I'm also wary of the military. But I really like Clark's positions on the issues, like his resume, and think he's both charming and media-savvy. Plus I don't think he'll totally alienate moderates and conservatives, and might be able to work with them fairly productively.

It's funny - the new Winger anti-Clark blitz is "he was stationed near Waco and might have had some hand it it." What's funny is that they think the whole country is as obsessed with Waco/Ruby Ridge as they are, and we're not. The only people who would be upset that Clark may have lent equipment to the FBI are other wingnuts who are still showing tapes of the siege and trying to put Janet Reno in jail.

(p.s. Oh, and I thought Edwards was too clean and I didn't like his religious pandering, but didn't know anything else about him. Saw him on Bill Maher and liked him, but was trying too hard.)

The media will *want* to play up Clark as a hero and all that because "it's a good story." Just like they were thrilled to get Schwartznegger(?) in so they could do thousands of Terminator parodies and - I just noticed in the grocery store there are books and magazines out about Arnold already. The media loves a good story.

I think the Repigs had it wrong about Bill Clinton. They always called him a 'snake charmer,' most likely because they almost caught themselves liking the guy and had to chalk it up to some devious superstition. But the reason they saw Bill's image as so 'slick and polished' was because most often, Bill was being himself and didn't have a script at all - or he did have one, that he wrote himself. Bill didn't have to be anything but Bill to be a great President.

I think Clark has that. He doesn't give you the sense that he is trying to be something he's not. He just is. And the confidence inherent in being who you are is that you can never get tripped up by a reporter, or an opponent, or a heckler. You never get 'caught out' of your role, because you aren't being an actor, ya know?