I wish that this would have happened sooner, so that Wes could have spoken at the annual Harkin Steak Fry that took place last weekend.
That's right, I was in Iowa last weekend. Eating steak. With Bill Clinton. And some other guys(and gal) that happen to be running for president, too. Well, I got to see Howard Dean in person for once, which was good because I had some issues to get over.
I like the guy. I like his platform. I love his internet campaign. And, naturally, I share many of his views. And in his speeches, he seems to have that spark that could really ignite voters into action.
But then I watched him 'debate'. Now, if we were judging the debates based on comparison, I don't think Howard Dean was all that bad. But to my personal standards, he was awful. The debates themselves haven't been anything that you could really work with, I thought, but still. I needed to know for sure what I thought of the guy.
Of course none of the candidates said anything at the Steak Fry that I hadn't heard from them before; most of it word-for-word. But what I did learn, from both the audience's actions and from the pre-fry rally that we Dean supporters held down the road, was that Howard Dean really does have the kind of support of which his internet campaign has been lauding. That was definitely a reassuring experience.
But now Wes Clark has announced his candidacy, and I can see Dean supporters floating in his direction. The reasoning behind this is two-fold. Clark obviously has military experience, which is something Americans have high on their priority list at the moment. And anti-war dems may also go to him because that makes it more likely that we could defeat President Bush.
So I guess this thread is for all of us taking part in the Anybody-But-Bush-2004 campaign. What are your feelings about these two candidates? Will they end up hurting each other in the end? If you had to pick between them tomorrow, which would you choose?
Posted by Youth ap Orem (Member # 5582) on :
Sorry to disrupt, but i thought this post was about dean cain and clark kent, since he acted him in the tv show...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Clarke or Dean. How about the neither. They're both crazy.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Dean or Clark?
Neither. Kucinich all the way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
A general. Fascinating twist in my "party doesn't matter" theory of presidential elections (that is, governors almost always beat senators).
But I wanted to point up two amusing sentences:
quote: His attendance signaled to some that Clinton was much more involved in this campaign than appears apparent.
Appears Apparent?
quote: And Tuesday was not the second coming of a Clinton clone.
When was his first coming?
"When Clinton Lied, nobody died" Now admitting that Clinton lied is a strategy? Besides, several people did die when he kept doing his Wag the Dog attacks. Whatever.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Youth, I thought that too. Sounds like a future pres/vice ticket.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Clarke or Dean. How about the neither. They're both crazy.
Yeah, that neither is an extremely appealing candidate.
I am throwing my support behind Clark. He can win it, he has the presidential feel (which Dean, to be honest, doesn't), and yet he has core liberal values.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clark. Bush is ticking me off.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
See, here's the thing. The only reasons to go for Clark over Dean is that he is a general. As far as the issues, Clark and Dean are basically the same candidate.
Dean doesn have a well-run organization on the ground as we speak; Clark has the tacit blessing of the Clinton/Gore wing of the Democratic party (a mixed blessing, if you ask me).
And then there are the issues about Clark's attempts to start WWIII with the Russians in Kosovo, that will no doubt be raised in due time.
I'm leaning toward Dean right now, but we'll see how things go.
-Bok
Posted by Chade Fallstar (Member # 5581) on :
I'm grateful that Clark has entered this race. I've been hoping that he would for a few months now. I can't throw my support behind Dean because I just don't think he can win. Most of the other candidates never had a shot to begin with and shouldn't be there. But since Dean and Clark have much the same platform, I think Clark has the better chance of winning. He's got a late start but with a little money I have a feeling he can go a long ways.
For the moment, he's got my vote.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
In the little I've seen of Clark, I haven't seen much in terms of social issues, which is really what concerns me the most.
I like Dean. I'm not afraid of conservative fiscal management, and he's as liberal in social issues as one could pragmatically be. He's intelligent, and he's doing well so far in terms of name-brand and smart word-of-mouth tactics. I'm disappointed to hear he's not a good speaker. I feel that that was the ultimate downfall of Bill Bradley in '00 (who I canvassed for).
I really want to canvas in January, I live close enough to New Hampshire to go for their primary. I wish there weren't so many democratic candidates.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
NFL:
I hope you never ever complain about people insulting bush.
Concider me a luke-warm admirer of dean who has tenatitvely drifted over to Clark. I've seen Clark on CNN, he comes off as a friendly, knowledgeable and intellegent guy. From what was printed in the NYT, he at least meets my basic criteria as a presidential canidate. As of right now, runnign entirely off of personality, i'd say Clark.
However, i need to find out more about his politics. I waffle terribly on Dean's politics. So who knows. But things are much more interesting now Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've seen Clark on CNN, he comes off as a friendly, knowledgeable and intellegent guy.
To be honest, this is what draws me to Clark, as well. He is a very good, very knowledgeable speaker.
Just to prepare yourself, here are some things that are going to, and have been, thrown at Clark--
[ September 18, 2003, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not going to do a Dobie, because I am terrible at things like that, but such a pairing of names...
Dark or Clean?
Or...
Clean or Dark?
*sigh*
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I would say Clark, but I'm gonna say:
GEORGE BUSH ALL THE WAY
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Dean & Clark 2004!
I was really, really hoping Clark would join Dean's ticket. I think together they would be unbeatable.
And I think Dean is an excellent public speaker.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Edwards.
Dean will burn out just after the New Hampshire primaries and Clarke... well, let's just say he has a ton of skeletons in the closet that will rattle their way out before it is said and done.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
I've been supporting Dean, but not so much that there's no chance of swaying for another candidate.
I am uncertain right now about where Clark stands on many issues, and am anxious to hear him debate. I'm also slightly concerned about a statement he made on a Fox news show a few months back that he hadn't ruled out running as a Republican. I don't like wishy-washy politicians and have trouble getting behind someone who is not firm on their beliefs. It makes me a bit wary of him, but I suppose we'll see what comes out in the debates. I suppose that also suggests he'll be capable of winning the middle's votes, but obviously that brings along the concern of losing those voters further left.
Here's to hoping no strong left-wing third party candidate shows up.
All in all, if I had to choose tomorrow, I'm still with Dean.
[ September 19, 2003, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Jeni ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dean is, by most accounts, great, off camera. He can stump like few others.
He DOES have issues with TV and certain journalists. He acts much like a normally intelligent person would, when he perceives that something he said is being misconstrued.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have no interest in Clark, and honestly cannot understand why any other Democrat WOULD.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's a little dismissive Tom, and it compels me to ask, "Why?"
-Bok
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
'Splain yourself Tom
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Oh, and one thing that Clark does have going for him, is that he feasibly would be someone who could handle the messes - i mean "reconstructiones" - that the Bush administration has plunged the country into.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nothing about Clark's history suggests a man who's abnormally capable, talented, charismatic, or principled. He doesn't have any visionary or even particularly interesting ideas for the future, and hasn't ever clarified what he thinks the role of the federal government should be. He's a dress dummy in a general's uniform who half-heartedly calls himself a Democrat, and some people are anointing him because, thanks to the uniform, he's comparatively immune to the "anti-American" or "weak on defense" slander the Bush team will inevitably use against their opponent in the next election.
Heck, if I had to choose between Wesley Clark and Donald Rumsfeld as presidents, I'd go with Rumsfeld; at least the latter seems to have an articulated, internally-consistent philosophy.
The mere fact that Clark's being considered at all is an indication of how pathetic the Democratic field is at the moment. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So at this point you have disdain for all the candidates? None that tickle your fancy?
On a related note, here is a really comprehensive site that collects, and comments on, political stories, as related in the papers:
There's not a single guy in the race -- on either side -- who I can't better imagine as an alderman of some small city in New Jersey.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Tom, couldn't the same have been said for the last election? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I actually quite liked Bill Bradley. But basically yes.
[ September 19, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
For Kasie (from June):
quote:Top Ten Signs You're In Love With Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean
10. You've actually heard of him
9. Whenever he discusses plans to revitalize economy, you get goosebumps
8. Named your cats "Howard," "Dean" and "Six-Term Governor Howard Dean"
7. You'll only watch movies featuring Ron Howard or Harry Dean Stanton
6. When you hear a report on the radio about a highway accident, you murmur, "Please, god, don't let Howard Dean be involved"
5. Constantly complain rival candidate Dennis Kucinich isn't "Howardly" enough
4. Changed outfit four times before watching appearance on "Meet the Press" (my favorite)
3. You stand by him despite the fact his infidelities embarrassed you in front of the entire...oh wait, wrong Democrat
2. When he announced his candidacy, you didn't laugh your butt off
1. You're actually considering wasting a vote on him
[ September 19, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Well, from what i can gather from the New York Times, Tom, as much as Bush is going for Reagan redux (in terms of advisors), Clark seems to be attempting some thing similar by snagging former clintonites.
Again, i'm still very curious as to Clark's politics, but, he seems to at least have some political motion, unlike many of the otehr canidates.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)