Reply #82: I agree the RNC will make untrue accusations against ANYone. [View All]

[Sparkly]

It's all they have.

And their usual MO is not only to attack their opponents' (perceived or real) weaknesses and play up their candidate's (perceived or real) strengths; it is moreover to turn it around, finding exactly where their opponent is strong and their own candidate is weak, and attacking their opponent on his/her true strengths, while accusing him/her of their OWN candidates' weaknesses.

Setting aside what Democrats did to each other during the primaries, let's take a look at what the RNC did. They (by "they" I mean the RNC AND its compliant media) went after Dean, who had a lot of visibility, claiming they really wanted to run against him. They marginalized Kerry and totally blacked-out Clark. They embraced another candidate as the one they considered "really formidable."

Thinking of their MO, let's say they ran George Allen, or John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani. Think of their weaknesses and strengths. Just to be simplistic about it, Allen is a stupid phony, but "cowboy likeable"; McCain is "damaged," but a "free-thinking hero"; and Giuliani is "liberal" with personal "moral" problems, but a "hero" on 9/11. (Not saying those are true positives, but perhaps perceived ones, chosen to make the point.)

Allen against a one-term sentator or governor w/o military experience: attack the obvious (one-term, insufficient fp creds if governor; more elite than regular Felix; liberal, of course); then the turn-around-attack -- unintelligent/uninformed, phony, wishy-washy on "security," maybe even racist (reverse-racist?) to shield Allen's own racism.

McCain against the same kind of candidate: attacking on the obvious (again, insufficient creds, also not having McCain's experience of war, talking without walking, not being "free-thinking," liberal of course); and the turn-around -- unstable, said to have fits of temper, something about the wife, other past experiences that make them unsuitable.

Giuliani against them: the obvious (same inexperience, not understanding urban issues including for security, not having experienced 9/11 as he did, and being more liberal than he is); turn-around -- personal "moral" flaws, *extremely* liberal, hypocritical, untruthful, rigid, etc.

Yes, against any of our candidates, they will find some crew of people to get out there and say, "I know XYZ, I worked with XYZ, and XYZ is SATAN!!!" That's a given.

Yes, they'll claim "Liberal! Leftist Extremist!" and "Hypocritical! Liar!" and "Morally Flawed!" That's what they do, because THEY are extremist, hypocritical liars with moral flaws.

That's to be expected.

Also to be expected: we will have ammunition to fire back, showing up THEIR flaws. And hopefully, we'll use that effectively.

The differences among our choices for candidates are:
- What ammunition there is for them (our candidate's real strengths/weaknesses);
- What equipment the personal characteristics of our candidates have both for shielding attacks and firing back;
- What our candidate can bring to the party when it comes to the art and science of warfare.

Yes, warfare.

And to me, General Clark has the shields, the ammo, and the knowledge to "kick the shit out of them" (in his own words).

Sure, they'll get some people to get up and say how and why they hate him (they'll do that to anybody). They'll claim he's a "hypocritical liar" and "morally flawed" and whatever else their candidate is. But there are so MANY brushes of the collective zeitgeist around Democrats with which they can NOT paint him.

A coward; an appeaser; unpatriotic; a hippie; a pot-smoker; an elitist; a traitor; a man above the people; a weakling; a politician; a politician with a record of (fill in the blank for whatever they'll distort).

EVERYthing they can try to dredge up from his record will have to do with THE MILITARY. And right now, more than I can ever remember, "The Military" is golden.

Make no mistake -- his military career is NOT the reason I support him. I support him because he's an honest, intellectual liberal. (In fact, I started with a lefty cautious reticence about him, until I saw what a completely brilliant and liberal person he is.)

And part of what he knows, as an intellectual liberal of incredible integrity and knowledge, is how to wage war. What he's been learning is the art and science of "retail politics," and he's learned quickly. Among the many, many things I believe he knows well (his knowledge is vast and deep) is every level and philosophy of warfare -- eastern and western, ancient and modern. He's shown me that he sees every trick in their book, and has come right back at them -- with others trailing behind. If he could LEAD a 2008 campaign on that, rather than relying solely on "campaign advisors," our party could go a long way.

(I've also thought he could do that even if he weren't the candidate, but it's all a Gestalt, I think. Just as he can't give foreign policy advice for people like BushCo to implement -- because they aren't HIM, and thus can't DO it -- I'm not sure he can propose the same strategy if he isn't the one leading it.)

He can set them back on their heels, destroy their 30+ year machinery, and most of all, UNITE the country around progressive ideals. I know of NO one else who embodies the past and present as he does, whose biography alone refutes all the lies and stereotypes and strawmen billions of dollars and countless thinktanks have erected about Democrats, nor whose combination of intellect, experience, animal instinct and courage can take on the GOP machine -- all in a peace-loving, rational, clear-headed way -- and DEFEAT it in a way that will make it hard for it to ever rise again.

General Clark is one of a kind -- the kind that comes once in a generation. He is exacty what the RNC does NOT want to run against, and the media complies, rarely speaking of him. They'll deal with him only when and if they must.

In my view -- THEY MUST! I will do work my ass off, if he wants to run again, to make sure they MUST!!