The Tale of the Tape: Opinions on Dean vs Clark

Having viewed most of the opinion threads and latest dirt threads on both Dean and Clark, I think we can begin to see some trends about support for Dean on DU and Clark on DU; however, I don't know how much of these trends carries over into the general voting population.

In terms of the most common source of animus out here on Dean vs. Clark, there is only one clear-cut bone of contention: The martial dimension.

Many of Clark's strongest critics here on DU direct much of their criticism against Clark toward his military background. The usual questions include two main categories: Can a career military leader handle civilian politics and what credentials does a career military leader have to govern in a civilian environment.

Many of Dean's strongest critics here on DU in the Clark camp direct much of their criticism against Dean toward his lack of a national security experience. How much of this is in response to Dean supporters' criticism of Clark and how much of it is initial feeling I am not certain.

Since history offers us at least some examples by which to examine the two questions about Clark and to discuss whether or not Dean's lack of experience is such a big issue, and having looked into all this a little on my own, I'd like to offer the following opinion:

It all boils down to preferences and what is important to each of us. Why? Because given what history offers us we could answer these questions in either positive or negative dimensions given our candidate of choice since there are both positive and negative aspects of all these historic examples that we either emphasize or minimize based on our preferences.

I support Wes Clark.

Unless he tears off his shirt one day and reveals a Super Republican tatoo on his chest, I will continue to support him. I believe that most people who support Dean feel the same way about their candidate.

Both of our camps would probably be better off if we spent more of our energy trying to convince those who are undecided of the relative merits of our candidates versus hardening our respective views (and those of others) towards our opposite numbers by tearing into one another.

But I have to ask myself the question. Who can get us out of Iraq and this mess? I honestly think that Clark can, more than Dean can. But whoever gets the nomination gets my vote. In my most private dream of dreams, I wish that they could work together on the same ticket. I don't know if that could work out, but I still dream.

Of course I would have my preference about ordering on the ticket, but I believe either outcome would be a good ticket.

It really is a shame that we have several great candidates who all decided to pile in the car at the same time for the '04 election. I also like Dean, Braun, Edwards, and Kucinich quite a lot. I certainly hope that we will see some of the same people again in future election cycles.

My problems with Clark are limited to two things. One is that I have no real idea what he stands for. His voting history is hardly inspiring. Added to that is the fact his occupation necessitated him taking orders from others so we have no way of knowing what he would have done. He is a brilliant man with a great resume. But no real record of advocacy or political experience.

The second problem is that running campaigns, while not brainsurgery isn't basketweaving either. Remember for a while Perot was in first place in 92. Then he flamed out. Clark's campaign has hardly been inspiring in this regard. Bush is not the villiage idiot we all think he is. We can't have some amature taking him on.

That said if he wins the primaries I will support him.

I look towards a lot of threads to learn new background on candidates, although at times it hard to with the tone of the posts. I will support the person who gets the nomination as well...but, at the same time be fearful of their motive.

Your points are great examples of the simple difference in our faith in our respective candidates. I am willing to give Clark the benefit of the doubt in absence of concrete voting records. You have more doubts about those issues which is completely and justifiably understandable.

Same with the campaign. As a Clark supporter and a volunteer I too have concerns about the campaign. Our regional and state campaign seems to be quite a bit more stable than the national campaign. Since my efforts are limited to Texas, I do not see nor feel very set-upon by whatever turmoil there may be in other places.

I certainly agree with you about the Bush campaign; I do believe Bush is a drooling moron, but just because he needs a bib and can't spell 'Uzbekistan' properly doesn't mean he can't be as dangerous as a pit of rattlesnakes. The dumb dangerous ones are often a helluva lot more dangerous than the intelligent ones; the dumb ones don't want to dick around with telling you how they are going to get you and how foolish you were to fall for their plan, etc., etc.; they just get you.

We have faith in our respective candidates and damnit that's the way it ought to be!

"Added to that is the fact his occupation necessitated him taking orders from others so we have no way of knowing what he would have done. He is a brilliant man with a great resume. But no real record of advocacy or political experience."

Actually, there are accounts of what he has done and stood for, sometimes in direct defiance of his superiors. If you really want to research this, I recommend 2 books.

Samantha Power "A Problem from Hell"
David Halberstam "War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals"

There are several direct accounts of what motivated Clark, what he stands for, how he handles crises. And it's pretty balanced, but gives you a definite idea of the choices he made and why.

The Pentagon and military certainly appear to be monolithic and top-down, but after reading these 2 books, I came away impressed with how Clark not only navigated those intense egos in the Pentagon but how he didn't sacrifice his ideals in the process.

Buying books is the sole luxury I have permitted myself of late but I only can do one a pay check if I am lucky. I am currently on Krugman's book. A must read BTW.

Did you see that photo of him in Newsweek a coupla weeks ago? He was in a speedo. Had a 5 1/2 pack abs. Nice lookin for an old dude. He swims 1 hour a day. I know I've said it b4 and i'm sayin it again. I think he's very attractive. After shrub and dick we need a good lookin man or 2 in the white house to represent our country.

but there is much I like about Dean. Wish it could be more congenial.
I don't support Clark because he is the anti-Dean as some say who want to make out like Clark is a DLC insider. He is a third way candidate, but differs from the DLC in many ways. I hope the push polling against Clark going on in NH ends.

Some of our - okay, mine - main bones of contention isn't his military background, but his background as a Wall Street general. ie, I don't see him working to separate corporate interests from democratic (small D) interests.

is there any other dimension that Bush can operate in? How is Bush best confronted, is it on his foreign policy or his domestic policy? I would say his foreign policy, because it is upon that foundation upon which he built his house. Clark is the trump card. If Dean and Clark were to unify it would be like He-Man (Clark) and Battle-Cat (Dean) when He-Man raises his sword and yells "I have the Powerrrrr!" Erm, sorry, had to throw in an 80's reference.

..a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket is a sure bet, and I feel that it'll come down to one of these two (although I don't know if either candidate has warm feelings toward the other at this point).

And either one will be a sure winner.
That's why I'd love to see the attacks by both sides cut to a minimum, so that not only do both candidates stay at the top of the Dem field, but so that both can remain in good standing with each other--making it possible for them to team up as the winning ticket in '04.

Seriously, how can Clark/Dean (or, although I'm less in support of it, Dean/Clark) possibly lose against The Chimp? Wiggumly speaking, that would be un-possible!

Of our presidents have been generals...or 11 out of 42.

Although a general has not been elected for sometime, there is a historical record. Of those who win, all ran as Cincinnatus, sword gets put away and the plow comes out. Any who have run with their sword on don't win.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

though I'll gladly support the reverse.

If not then Kerry, although that would be a hard vote. I want a winner and I know that the real election issue will be "are Americans willing to pass the baton mid-way through the terror war?"......So since I am a believer that the trump card is "The war on Terror".....I will vote for a Military leader to get us out of the mess that the Non-military misleader put us in!

We have experienced 2 years of nightmares, terror alerts, and billions in war spending. the economy has been down since Bush took office and yet his numbers never go down beyond 50%.....why is that? Because he keeps masses of Americans in Fear!

Sure the Rove mantra is Fear and consumerism.....

However, Fear wins out everytime!

I cannot vote for someone with no military experience who's big plan is to raise taxes on the middle classes to balance the budget. Someone who will not be able to touch the great big defense budget without being pulvarized.....just can't do it. So I have looked at Dean.....and my gut and research says no!

As a VP....maybe.

He does not have a visible record that someone like Dean has. I don't know how he really handled situations in Kosovo, Waco, what his involvements with Homeland Defence firm Acxiom have been, what his relationship with Henry Kissinger has been, what his functions with the National Endowment for Democracy have been.

These are just some of areas that I know about, and I'm not going out to look for stuff, I'd just like to know the answers.

Dean was in the news every day for 10 years as governor, and many years before that as a physician. You see him around the community, he's involved. He's a family man. He hikes and plays sports, kind of a normal guy.

I don't know much about Clark. Does he have a life, a family? He may have a good resume for the military, but I'm an anti-war civilian and I don't want another Eisenhauer for president. I don't want to live in an era like the 1950's with a military president. We have Bush for 4 years, that's enough. I want to move in a direction that is 180° away from the direction we are going (PNAC, e.g.), not settle for a watered down version of Bush, maybe you can call it PNAC lite or DLC, I don't know.

The period we are entering now is one of economic and social decay that may be considered the decline of America. We need to work on that and not pursue the militaristic world domination course that Bush has taken us on. I won't trust the future course to someone who has voted for Reagan and supported Bush as recently as a year or two ago.

Instead we need someone experienced with and sensitive to the social and economic problems at hand (Dean).

Clark may be good in the cabinet, as a defense secretary.