The only one who can win?

[chaska]

From the yahoo group:

Today I was consulting with a congressional candidate. After about an
hour, as our meeting was finishing, we started discussing the
presidential campaign. I said my favorite candidate had yet to
announce, but I am hopeful he will soon.

The candidate said, "Oh, I bet we're supporting the same person."

I said, "General Clark."

He said, "Yes, I think he's the only one who can win."

[59millionmorons]

1. I agree

Clarks my guy.

[hang a left]

3. although he is not my first

choice, Kerry probably could too

[w4rma]

2. Has Clark ever had to stand up against a partisan political attack?

Would he know how to handle it?

[chaska]

10. yahoo again

He will attack, and he can do it, there is no doubt about it. Have
you read David Halberstam's book? There is a passage in there where
Clark is described by one of his friends from Westpoint as the
ultimate warrior, fearless and selfless in battle. When the time has
come, he will attack... . It's just a different kind of battle.

[Orangepeel]

4. Well, that's two...

I realize that General Clark has many fans. But I don't understand why "a congressional candidate" thinking so particularly rates a post.

On the first Wednesday of next month, I'll find you 60,000 people who think that Howard Dean is the only one who can win.

:shrug:

[chaska]

5. more from the yahoo group. this is very interesting

I'd like to thank you for the long article you wrote in
http://www.arkansasnews.com/278187195132781.bsp about the respective
chances of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. I agree, and have believed since
the cold days of this winter, that these two men represented the serious
contenders for the Presidency. People talk about Senators, they vote for
Governors and Generals. Your article shows a very perceptive view on the
dynamics of Dean versus Clark, and the meaning in the race - far better, if
I may say so, than many national outlets have managed over the past few
months.

The irony of this race is that while Howard Dean has sold himself as
"liberal", his positions are to the right of any candidate in the
Democratic field except for Lieberman. He was honest to oppose Iraq, but he
is not a peace candidate. He talks about his support for gay civil unions,
but has said he won't follow through on that as President. He is pro-gun,
and promises balanced budgets. His health care plan is very limited and
even more restrained than what he passed in Vermont.

Clark, who appeals to Republicans and Moderates, is, in fact, a more
coherent liberal than any other candidate in the race. His views on choice,
the economy, jobs, social services and equal opportunity are to the left of
any major contender for the nomination.

The reason Dean comes across as "liberal" and Clark as "moderate" can be
seen in Micheal Kelly's article "The Rebirth of Liberalism". The reason
liberalism has deteriorated in the public mind, is that it came to be
identified, both internally and externally, with forcing people to do
things. The reason that so many conservatives are disgusted with the
current Executive is that he seems to believe in forcing through budgets,
laws and regulations. Dean's personality is one of forcing things through,
born out by his record in Vermont. Clark's personality is one of gatherin
consensus, setting objectives, and then building policy on the need of all
parties to reach a victory.

Hence Dean, while he is moderate in his policy goals, is immoderate in his
way of reaching them. This does not play well in many places. It plays well
among people so angered and frustrated by the current political environment
that they have come to believe that the only way to get things set straight
is to beat the hell out of the other guy and take what you want - listen to
the Dean campaign rhetoric - beat, take, power. His best appearances are
him talking to a cheering mob.

Hence Clark, while he is broad in his policy goals, seems prudent and
centrist, beause he is intent, not on establishing a tyranny of a
plurality, but on a new majority coalition. He likes to say that we lost
Vietnam, not because our troops weren't brave, or our equipment inferior -
but because we had a total war army fighting a limited war. The army had no
way of stepping up that did not risk total war with the Soviets - it was
too blunt an instrument to build a nation in South Vietnam which could
withstand pressure from a determined movement in the North towards
communism. Similarly, we still have a total war government. One which needs
to create a cabinet department in response to one terrorist attack, which
has total war methods of dealing with economic problems, rather than more
precise means. Just as the military had to reinvent itself, in equipment,
doctrine and training, in response to changing conditions, so too is it
time to set aside the 1960's model of government. Not by not doing what
needs to be done, but by defining objectives, building consensus and moving
forward with true national unity.

[kentuck]

6. He's a good man but...

I don't think he's the only one that can win...

[chaska]

7. they just keep comin'

Boy, not many things make me mad but reading what happened on that college campus sure does. Frankly, I do not like the attitude of the Dean group a lot of the time. I don’t like to talk negative about other campaign groups but they have no reason or basis to deface Clark or try to silence another person’s political point of view that way.

Frankly, it’s anti-democratic. I swear if I experience more of the Clark bashing from the Deanies, they have lost my support if Clark chooses not to run.

I thought we were all on the same team.

[chaska]

8. The above message from the yahoo group, not chaska. n/t

[JustJoe]

9. So you post a post by somebody else

from a yahoo group in which the poster says
he doesnt want to talk negative about "other
campaign groups" but goes on to talk negative
about "Deanies." Do you agree with the poster?
I mean, do you also not like to talk negative
about other campaign groups, like, for instance,
"Deanies"?