General Election
By Keith Boykin, in politics
Wednesday, September 17 2003, 10:26AM
Just when you thought politics couldn't get any more unpredictable, General Wesley Clark today jumps into the crowded presidential field in hopes of winning the Democratic nomination. Look out Howard Dean and George Bush. If everything we've heard about Clark is true, he may be the next president.
I've been fighting off critics of Howard Dean all year who argue that the liberal Vermont governor cannot win the election. They admit that Dean could win the Democratic primaries, which tend to draw out the most committed and liberal voters, but they think he would stumble in the general election race against Bush.
I disagree. I think they misunderstand the depth of anti-Bush sentiments and downplay the importance of motivating the party's base. Unlike the so-called centrist Democrats, I think Joe Lieberman will be an easier candidate than Dean for Bush to beat because Democrats won't turn out in large numbers for Bush lite. Why vote for a Bush imitation when you can have the real thing?
Howard Dean's appeal is his courage. When most of the Democrats were afraid to criticize the president before the Iraq war, Dean spoke out forcefully against it. When the mainstream candidates would not challenge the Bush tax cuts, Dean called for repealing them.
Dean is not as liberal as some centrist Democrats fear he is, but he does have some potential liabilities for a general election. He has no foreign policy experience, he signed the nation's first gay civil unions law, he's from a small northeastern state, and he's short.
I'm not concerned about the foreign policy experience. Most presidents don't have that experience when they're elected. In six of the last 7 elections, we've elected former governors to the White House. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the second George Bush had no foreign policy experience either when they were first elected. But I'm still waiting to see if Howard Dean catches on.
General Wesley Clark
Enter Wesley Clark. The 58-year-old former NATO Supreme Commander today becomes the 10th candidate in the Democratic primary process. No doubt, General Clark has his own liabilities, but we won't know all of them until the campaign gets underway.
The obvious liability that the reporters will mention is that he has no political experience. It won't be easy for a political neophyte to win the White House, but he would not be the first general elected to the presidency. Critics feared General Dwight Eisenhower would not do well in politics either, but he went on to win two consecutive presidential elections.
In modern politics, I don't think it really matters how much political experience you have if you're smart enough to hire good advisers who can help you negotiate your way through the campaign process. I have no doubt Clark will do this.
I'm more concerned about the issues than the experience. But that's another feather in Clark's cap. From what I gather, he's pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-affirmative action and a critic of the Iraq war. He's not a flat out progressive, by no means, but then to be honest, neither is Howard Dean. Dean's big applause line on the campaign trail is that he represents the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."
I've grown fond of Howard Dean in the past few months, but General Wesley Clark has one important advantage over the Vermont governor. He's perceived to be electable.
Moderate and conservative voters will have less trouble hearing an anti-Bush message coming from a respected military hero than from a short governor from the northeast. Trust me on that one. I worked for Mike Dukakis in 1988. Dean and Clark could say exactly the same thing, but Clark's message won't alienate moderate voters as much. That's just who we are.
And liberal voters who want to defeat Bush may desert Howard Dean now that Clark is in the race. "Wesley Clark has been an inspiring, effective leader and a voice of reason on the national scene for quite some time," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman said yesterday. Even the gays may be ready to jump ship.
Clark will also have to overcome the liability of a late start. Howard Dean has already won the fundraising contest, and he expects to announce at the end of the month that he's raised a record amount of money for his campaign. Money talks, so it will be hard for Clark to compete, but he will soon be raking in the dollars as well.
And one more thing. Clark looks presidential. I hate to say it, but it's true. If his campaign doesn't implode and he can spit and chew gum at the same time, he will be the frontrunner by February and the president by next November. Now it's his race to lose.
Comments conceal
Robert
September 17 2003, 11:31AM
good assessment...join my group...you have very good analysis on the political climate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deanandclark/join
Guest
September 17 2003, 11:44AM
A certain amount of equivalent coverage is essential at this stage.
Dozens of people have asked why there has not been equivalence of coverage before the winnowing of the candidates begins in the caucuses and primary elections.
Some listeners of say National Public Radio say that NPR has become a Kucinich-free zone. That is not entirely correct. But along with Rep. Kucinich, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton are also infrequently mentioned on NPR.
Morning Edition is committed to interviewing all nine Democratic candidates. All Things Considered is airing "stump speeches" from each as well.
Here's how NPR’s coverage looks from August 1 through September 5:
# of stories
Morning Edition interviews
ATC stump speeches
Kerry
22
7 minutes 44 secs.
3 minutes 53 secs.
Sharpton
6
7 minutes 37 secs.
Not yet interviewed
Lieberman
14
7 minutes 45 secs.
3 minutes 19 secs.
Graham
10
7 minutes 46 secs.
3 minutes 33 secs.
Moseley-Braun
6
7 minutes 38 secs.
3 minutes 25 secs.
Gephardt
20
7 minutes 13 secs.
2 minutes 47 secs.
Edwards
11
7 minutes 46 secs.
Not yet interviewed
Kucinich
10
7 minutes 28 secs.
3 minutes 49 secs.
Dean
32
7 minutes 47 secs.
3 minutes 23 secs.
What other media outlets should we depend on to give fair and balanced outlooks and views of the current political situation? In otherwords whose words do we believe??
Kola Boof
September 17 2003, 12:36PM
I'm glad you're hyping Dean, Keith, because that's who I'm voting for...Howard Dean.
Although...I do take note of Wesley Clark's "good looks"...which is often what sways a large number of female voters, ie. Clinton's sexy charismatic hold on the office.
I think it's good idea for Dean to take Clark as his running mate after the prelims are over. They would make an unbeatable team. The Democrats really and truly need "charisma" and "aggression" right now. They're too wimpy.
I still say that blacks should reject all the national parties and form one single solid voting block....for which the parties have to GIVE a check off list of items in order to attain those votes. That would make the black vote concentrated and powerful and would FORCE more blacks to become caught up in passionate inner-circle debate about which platform they should support. Thus bringing more voters and teaching the system to the children.
Has anyone noticed that black children remain the LEAST taught about "anything"--history, politics, etc. in this country.
I cannot mention enough...the hate we seem to have for anything that represents US.
This more than any other issue...is the thing that destroys us. And because our men are getting plenty of "stank-stank" and are glamorized for being COOL.....nobody wants to talk about the children.
Along with getting Dean in office...we need to see about constructing a NEW black leadership, because there is NONE now.
Black America needs a foot up its behind--and neither Sharpton nor Braun are tough enough or brave enough for the job.
Guest
September 17 2003, 1:56PM
Or Kola, have enough money to do it! Exactly right black america needs a severe wake up call but one good kick ass moment won't do it. And the other major thing thats always been absent is the missing education that just doesn't seem to be on anyones lips minds or even worth pursuing in a genuine way. Sure everyones in need of it but what are we doing about it? Absolutely no one. This same sickening situation seems to keep going on and I really don't think whomever gets in the white house is not going to make one moment of difference in anyone's life. When do 'we' stand up and change things and change them for good?
It's funny we all know the problem and can tell it both backwards and upside down but no one does anything about it...hmmm...
AS
September 17 2003, 2:31PM
... and Clark was a Rhodes Scholar like Clinton.
Cederico
September 17 2003, 6:03PM
Dean is still the man to beat. He is not about to stand by and let Clark steal his thunder and nor should he.
Clark looks good on paper and I am considering voting for him but has to prove himself on the stump and flesh out his position on domestic issues. Plus he has got to do the serious grunt work that the other candidates have done for months even years....getting down in the trenches and working for every vote. So I'm not jumping on his bandwagon just yet....he has to prove himself and I could care less if Clinton and Hilary are supposedly behind him. We aren't told by out party leaders who to vote for....we tell them.
ronn
September 18 2003, 12:59AM
I'm voting for the Democratic nominee. So far, it looks like Dean. Clark probably waited too long, was too coy and most likely won't truly consider a VP slot with Dean. Depending on what happens in the first few contests outside of New England, we'll see either Dean/Clark, or (*fingers crossed against this scenario!*) Clark/Edwards. That last pair would be powerful: two Southern men, the head with strong military credentials, the VP candidate with plenty of political experience and contacts, and a great opportunity for future presidential runs.
Not matter what, I am hoping to kick George Bush's out of the White House next year.