Clark has military bona fides. Everyone knows that... booooring. But I think it's far and away the most important part of the POTUS nomination in 2005/2008. I've heard Rebublicans say they respect him... even support him,
despite the fact that he's a "liberal." In fact, they said they don't really care about that... as long as he can run a smarter War on Terrorism. I think Clark is right when he says that the POTUS vote is at this point in time a
"gut check vote on National Security." I know it's boring and old news. It's boring to always get dragged back to such a simple point. But I think that's where we're at in America.
Many think that electing a Military man sends the wrong message to the world at large. I don't think that will be a problem once people get to know Clark. And foreigners are a lot more sophisticated politically than Americans. They can understand what electing Clark is about... ending the War quickly and making up for the mistakes we've made. I believe European leaders would trip over themselves to rub our bellies if we elect Clark.
The fact that he's a liberal or a "leftist" seems to matter less than the fact that Americans just seem to like him and respect him. And I believe it's key to give the word "liberal" the kind of legitimacy that being in the Military seems to lend. Clark could really go a long way toward saving us and reversing the GOP strategy of the last 30 years. Finally... we could dispell all the rubbish about "liberals" not caring about National Security. Finally people would understand we're just smarter and not sold out to the Military-Industrial Complex.
I think GWB got elected on a "gut feeling." I think he ran his administration on a "gut feeling." Neither are good. But that's how Americans vote. I think Americans are a lot less interested in labels like conservative or liberal or moderate because they don't trust politicians at this point... not a bit.
They appreciate "political outsiders" a whole hell of a lot right now. Probly will even moreso as they're learning that Bush was a fake.
I think looks and age are important in 2005. Our target demo isn't what it was in 1960. That's why the nervous-biddy Security Grammas who voted for Bush did so because of a "gut feeling" but also because of a feeling located a little lower, anatomically speaking... if you catch my meaning. How much credit is Roberts getting because of his distinguished looks?
And Nascar Dads think he's OK because he's not a Ken Doll like Edwards. We need to be looking for distinguished gentlemen, not models. People like Hagel and Clark hit the bullseye.
It's marketing folks... that's how you create the "gut feeling" that politically ignorant Americans vote on.
The DLC is irrelevant old news strategy that no longer works in my view. Kos explained why in his post today very clearly.
This is why it seems like absolutely the wrong strategy to fall back on Corporatist money and the DLC mushmouth moderate stance.
It doesn't stand for anything and people are tired of it.
So here are the other candidates and why they aren't nearly as good a nominee as Clark in my opinion.
Hillary: She's a sold out DLC Corporatist. She's too shrill and her speaking voice is absurd (she uses a fake yelling voice too much and I've heard a lot of people say it's a big turn-off). She represents a step backwards to the glory days that never were... and she signifies that the Dems don't have anything New to offer. Too many people like my Mom think she's too cynical. And far too many people are sick and tired of political dynasties.
Biden: What a joke. Corporatist. Boring. Establishment. Old guard. A looooong voting record.
Edwards: Absurd Pretty boy Ken doll who looks/sounds like a politician. Doesn't fit the target Demo: older Americans. Maybe in 1960, but not in 2005. Old news.... loser.
Kerry: If you can't beat GWB, how you gonna beat Chuck Hagel? Old News. Too many people bought the dirt, and now it can't be changed back. Loser. Sad to say... I thought he was one of the best liberal wolves in moderate sheep's clothing in awhile.
Schweitzer: Looks like Louie Anderson. Not well known enough yet. Not a good POTUS nominee but he'd make a very good veep nominee in my opinion. Good Middleast knowledge... great attitude toward small business and against corporate farming.
Dean: Interesting question. I'm convinced that if he ever got a fair hearing... his conservative/moderate views would win over a lot of folks. And he's anti-corporate donations/abuses; so in my opinion he'd do the most important work as POTUS. I think a lot of people after some exposure would get on board. Whether he can beat back the Dem establishment is less likely. A good veep nominee if his ego can eat it up.
Warner: Looks and sounds gay. I know many will hate that I wrote that. I know it's bigoted. But I also argue that these are sadly the kinds of things we need to strategize about in America in 2005. Many of you may think otherwise or think we can ignore such things... I don't think Americans are mature enough. Plus I think he's unnecessarily conservative. I don't buy the "moderate" argument. I think it's more important that we stand for something.
Feingold: Another good nominee. Not as strong as Clark though. No grey hairs... and again, I think the 2005 target demo is OLD. A good veep nominee.
Bayh: I lived in Indiana for 14 years and I've got one thing to say: BAAAAARRRRFFF!!! Bayh is an unnecessarily conservative candidate. DLC sellout. 3rd Way Splitter Coward.
Richardson: Pleeez.... that pudding-bag has good international experience but he's not going to inspire anyone. And his reputation in New Mexico is a little shaky... all that would come out in the election.
Obama: Not a POTUS candidate. But he can run as one and then take the veep nomination. I don't think coming out early will hurt him. He's young but is far more distinguished in the way he carries himself than Edwards... far more. He's got it; whatever it is. And quite frnakly, I think our collective guilt over Iraq poses the perfect time for Americans to vote for an African American candidate. I fear the fallout of a Rice veep nomination... and like with Warner, while I hate to play games with such issues, I think in the end... that's politics. I think Dems would be smart to start floating Obama's name.
So, all the nasty things I said don't negate the fact that I think there's room for all these guys and the folks they represent in the Dem party. I believe in big tents. That's why I support Clark and am not hung up on Dean or Kucinich. I see Clark as the smartest choice... the one that appeals to MODERATES. That's all...
