|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
January 26, 2004Clark's DifficultyIn a comment on a previous post, Brian stated My sense is that Clark is losing steam fast because he completely lacks charisma and is not connecting with people at all.That is not the problem. Having met Clark, and observed the campaign closely, I can testify that many people find him quite charismatic. So why is Clark sliding? This article in the NY Times nails it. General Clark was preparing a campaign against Howard Dean and appeared to be running to the former Vermont governor's left on issues like the war and abortion. He appeared with Michael Moore, the liberal activist and filmmaker, and George McGovern, the party's failed antiwar nominee of 1972, while Dr. Dean was endorsed by more establishment politicians.As to why Clark, who appears to be a centrist, has shifted so far to the left, don't blame me. Back in December, on the Clark Community blogs, I made a post entitled Clark Cannot Out-Dean Dean. As you can see from the comments, my perspective was not well-received. My guess is that the shift to the left was an effort to prove he was a "real Democrat" despite being new to the party. I always felt that there was a market niche to the right of Dean in the campaign, and I hoped that Clark would fill it. It seems now that Kerry occupies that space. Can Clark straighten things out? Yes, if he comes out ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire. If not, he'll have no momentum going to the South, and will be counted out. Posted by rickheller at January 26, 2004 05:28 PMComments
I hadn't thought about the way Clark was positioning himself ideologically. Very interesting -- and nice that you offered that perspective back when it might have mattered. I have a general take on Clark that may be different from yours. I view him as a guy with enormous talent and accomplishments, but with underdeveloped political skills. He seems like someone who could become a formidable candidate, but can't quite get there his first time out. He's kind of inconsistent in terms of presenting his message -- sometimes connecting with an audience, sometimes not, and making periodic gaffes. Posted by: William Swann at January 26, 2004 07:34 PMI think Clark comes off as a condescending little twit. His tax idea was bold, but it is clear he thinks he is a cut above most human beings. The guy is clearly very ambitous, and I don't think that Democrats really ever bought that he was one of them. Posted by: Mathew Pruitt at January 27, 2004 09:19 AMIt may seem that he was condescending in saying that he was a general while Kerry was only a Lt.. That's been totally misinterpreted. Clark's point is that he has experience as an executive officer, which Kerry lacks. It's not a trump card, but it is a significant point in his favor. Clark was in no way demeaning junior officers. He was a junior officer himself in Vietnam when he got shot. Posted by: rickheller at January 27, 2004 09:48 AMWell, first of all, show me anyone that's running for President who's not ambitious? And secondly, what's wrong with ambition? That word is too often used (in business, as well as in politics) to denigrate people who have achievements. I think it's valid as a put-down description for someone who sucks up to the boss for their success instead of making their own achievements. But if the desire for self-achievement motives one to actually do the things that create accomplishments that bring it, that seems like a positive thing to me. Every time Elliott Spitzer busts another corporate crook, I hear the Wall Street Journal editorial page moaning about him being "ambitious." Seems to me that what they're really complaining about is an Attorney General who is actually interested in enforcing the law. I want to see more "ambition" like this. And, if his success means he gains the respect that would allow him to run for governor or something like that, it would seem to me that that opportunity was actually earned. Posted by: Ducktape at January 29, 2004 02:56 PMTo thine own self be true. Politicians seem to have trouble understanding this simple lesson. Unless you are a genius like Bill Clinton, the people will see through your attempts to re-invent yourself into something you are not. Just ask Al Gore and Bob Dole. Clark is a rooking at this and it shows. He might very well be a good president but he should have from the beginning taken a realistic platform consistent with some Democratic principals and his own. As was suggested, he could have staked out a moderate Democratic agenda that was believable and then hoped that the electibility factor would work in his favor over Dean. Posted by: Tallan at January 30, 2004 09:10 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|