Lately, many conservatives have been "endorsing" Howard Dean as the ideal choice for the Democratic ticket. Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, and Hugh Hewitt have all expressed their belief that a Dean nomination will all but ensure that George Bush is reelected.
While I hate to disagree with my respected superiors, I think that anyone who thinks that Howard Dean is a Republican's dream candidate needs to do the math: Gore voters + Nader supporters = a Democrat in the White House.
If Dean wins the nomination he will be able to garner the votes from both the Gore Democrats and the Naderite Greens. He is one of the few candidates in the race who appeal to both sides of his party. Since one of the primary laws in war and politics is "divide in conquer", we should do all we can to keep these groups from finding common ground. Of course just because Dean could garner the support of both camps doesn't mean he can beat Bush in the general election. But, then again, why take the chance? Why not go with a "safer" option? Why endorse Howard Dean when we have Wesley Clark?
A thesis could be written (and may yet if he wins the nomination) on the reasons why Clark is unelectable. But I'll just give you five:
#1 He's not liberal enough -- Forget all this nonsense about Democratic candidates moving to the "center." Like "middle class", the term is too vague and undefined to be truly useful. The Democrat's idea of the "center" is far different from the way it would be defined by the Republicans. The political center is a relative concept and while Republicans may try to cast Dean as a crazed leftist, all he has to do is point to Kucinich and Braun and say that is what a liberal looks like and claim the moniker of moderate for himself.
Clark, bless his heart, is trying to move left but is having difficulty making the transition. You don't rise to the rank of general in the Army by espousing views that would appeal to Barbara Streisand; this is all new territory for him. He may have liberal sympathies but he's not going to rally the left wing voters as Nader did in 2000 and Dean is doing now.
#2 The military won't support him -- Liberals may swoon over a candidate in uniform but the military is not impressed. The greatest achievement of Clark's career , his command of NATO during the Bosnian war, is also his Achilles' Heel. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton claims that Clark was pulled out of Europe because of "integrity and character issues." If Clark wins the nomination the details of this claim will almost assuredly be brought up during the campaign.
Slate also mentioned Clark's image problems within the military while reviewing his book "Waging War":
But at the same time, his methods led him into a propagandistic press strategy that was transparent to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the war. And they hurt him in U.S. military circles, where he was considered a showboating egotist and a devious political operator.
Defense Secretary William Cohen told Clark, through Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, "Get your f***king face off the TV." Shelton didn't trust him. Nor did Gen. Eric Shinseki, subsequently Army chief. And once the Kosovo operation was finished, Cohen--with no objection from President Clinton--ended Clark's tour of duty early. In essence, sacked him.
Last month, the European edition of the U.S. military magazine Stars and Stripes carried an article asking how Clark came to receive a Kosovo Campaign Medal since you had to have either 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days in the Balkans to get one--and Clark had spent the war at NATO headquarters in Belgium. The implication was that he'd connived for it. And you'll notice the coolness with which this book has been received in top U.S. military circles.
#3 The Clintons support him -- Clark is such a Clinton puppet that you can almost see the strings. This is so transparent that many people in politics simply assumed that the general was simply a placeholder until Hillary threw her hat into the ring. When this didn't happen, many pundits were rather surprised and confused about the Clintons' motives. So why do the Clintons prefer Clark to Dean? Because they know Clark will lose.
Hillary will eventually make a run for the nomination and she believes (probably correctly) that she is a shoe-in. But she is smart enough not to run against a sitting President. The safer bet would be to wait until 2008 when there is no longer an incumbent to run against. If a Democrat wins in ‘04 then Hillary is on the sidelines until at least 2012. She's patient. But not that patient.
Clark is a sort of "trial balloon" candidate. The Clintons' will surround him with their advisors and use him as a mouthpiece in order to gauge the public's reception of Hillary's positions. Like a good military man, Clark is simply collecting intel for the eventual Clinton campaign. If they don't think he is a strong enough candidate to upset their plans then Republicans would do well to pay attention. The Clinton's obviously know something we Republicans don't.
#4 He's prone to making stupid comments -- In a recent interview, Clark said that, "until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother's decision on whether to have an abortion." Obviously the general has never actually read Roe v. Wade. He also went on to say that he wouldn't impose a "litmus test" on federal judges and then went on to add, "I'm not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life." (Perhaps, he doesn't know what "litmus test" means.)
Dean has said a lot of dumb stuff but he gets most of the attention. Shine the spotlight on Clark and he outdo Dean. I guarantee it.
#5 Clark doesn't really want to win -- This premise is too difficult to prove in a single post so I'll come back to it later. I'll simply point out the obvious: running for President is not necessarily about winning. If it were, then Sharpton, Braun, and Kucinich would have dropped out long ago. Each candidate gains something from the experience, though, and my guess is that Clark gets enough name recognition to make him a viable option on the Hillary ticket in '08.
Update: Eric from Nuts and Dolts presents a solid case explaining why I'm wrong about Nader voters being a factor.
1
(1)-He's liberal enough to be nominated. He's running as a standard-issue liberal, singing from the standard liberal songbook.
(2)-Soldiers lean to the right, anyways. He might get a bit more of the military vote as opposed to a standard Democrat
(3)-The Clintons still have a following. Clark isn't tied into the scandals of the 90s, having been out of the political loop at the time. He can run as a Clintonesque left-of-center "pragmatist" (even as his platform looks more like a standard liberal) without the ethical baggage.
(4)-Only if the media calls him on it. Half of the field suffers from terminal foot-in-mouth disease.
(5)-TBD. I'll be interesed in your take here.
posted on 01.12.2004 7:16 AM2
***(1)-He's liberal enough to be nominated. He's running as a standard-issue liberal, singing from the standard liberal songbook.***
You still have the die-hard lefty's, though, who won't vote for anyone who has worked for the "military-industrial complex." He may attract your suburban liberal but you aren't going to find campus radicals marching in the streets for him.
***(2)-Soldiers lean to the right, anyways. He might get a bit more of the military vote as opposed to a standard Democrat.***
Possibly, but from I've seen so far I don't think so. Clark almost always favors deferring to our allies and the military hates that. That plus his character flaws (huge ego, for example) will turn off military voters. Believe me, we are the last to be impressed by someone simply because they wear general's stars.
***(3)-The Clintons still have a following. Clark isn't tied into the scandals of the 90s, having been out of the political loop at the time. He can run as a Clintonesque left-of-center "pragmatist" (even as his platform looks more like a standard liberal) without the ethical baggage.***
Your absolutely right about this which is why Bush wouldn't win in a landslide against Clark. Still, since Clark has absolutely no experience in political office he is going to have to have a lot of help. This gives the Republicans the argument that Clark is simply controlledd by the Clintons. Even Clinton fans will be a bit bothered by that their nominee can't stand on his own.
***(4)-Only if the media calls him on it. Half of the field suffers from terminal foot-in-mouth disease.***
Very true. But this will be the first year when the blogosphere has an impact on an election. Even if the media ignores a candidates gaffes we have bloggers ready to jump on the case. When you have half a million ombudsman looking over your shoulder it makes it more difficult to let a candidate slide.
posted on 01.12.2004 7:57 AM3
I still think Dean would be the easier candidate to beat.
So much of politics is driven by vague impressions and perceptions, and on that score, at least for now, Dean is the weaker. I think if you polled the general electorate right now, most would view Dean as more left than Clark.
As to the math...Gore's voters plus Nader's...I think that is flawed. Bush will undoubtedly pull away some of those who voted for Gore last time around...I already know several who fall into that category. Bush will have far more centrist appeal and overall credibility this time around, which will help him win some of the swing voters that went for Gore in the last election.
Plus, Nader is showing every sign of running anyway. I think he will get his 15 minutes of fame again and his usual small core of votes no matter who is nominated.
posted on 01.12.2004 10:39 AM4
The Gore + Nader votes = victory is truly flawed.
If for no other reason than the scores of folks I have heard since 9/11 saying they voted for Gore, but are now sure glad Bush won and will vote for him in 2004. These typically are the independents, but many are also registered Democrats.
You simply can't take votes one year and move them to the new candidate four years later. Remember, Clinton improved his numbers at reelection by about 6 points or so.
posted on 01.12.2004 12:03 PM5
Soldiers lean to the right, anyways.
If the current administration keeps cutting their benefits and sending them away on wars of questionable justification, that might not stay that way.
I'm not ready to hand the presidency to Bush in 2004, either. Remember that in 2000, he was involved in a statistical tie with a guy (Gore) who has the approximate personality of a paper plate, and who was openly despised by the media. And if not for Nader, Bush would have gotten stomped.
The other x-factor here is the libertarian contingent. Bush has almost certainly lost their vote (as a group) with his repeated trampling of civil liberties. Libertarians aren't big fans of Ashcroft or USA Patriot, so those voters, who may otherwise have voted Bush, might stay home or vote for a siphon candidate (much like Gore's Nader).
And unless the economic recovery starts generating some actual jobs, Bush could be in trouble on that front, as well.
All that said, the GOP does know how to play hardball, openly attacking the patriotism of anyone who dares to disagree with them. One wrong move by ANY Democratic candidate might be all it would take to do them in -- unless, of course, the DNC actually sprouts some balls and starts fighting back. I'm not holding my breath, but this is where Clark has an edge. He has handled himself quite well in the face of an obviously hostile Fox News interviewer, and I expect he could shift the terms of the debate.
posted on 01.13.2004 9:26 PM6
***If the current administration keeps cutting their benefits and sending them away on wars of questionable justification, that might not stay that way.***
I haven’t seen any cuts in benefits. What are you referring to?
***Remember that in 2000, he was involved in a statistical tie with a guy (Gore) who has the approximate personality of a paper plate, and who was openly despised by the media. And if not for Nader, Bush would have gotten stomped.***
You have to remember that the election was Gore’s to lose. He was the vice-president during a long economic expansion against a governor who war relatively untested. Bush has a solid record to run on this time around.
***The other x-factor here is the libertarian contingent. Bush has almost certainly lost their vote (as a group) with his repeated trampling of civil liberties. Libertarians aren't big fans of Ashcroft or USA Patriot, so those voters, who may otherwise have voted Bush, might stay home or vote for a siphon candidate (much like Gore's Nader).***
They’ll be good libertarians and vote their pocketbooks like they always do.
***And unless the economic recovery starts generating some actual jobs, Bush could be in trouble on that front, as well.***
The people for whom the jobs would be created aren’t going to vote Republican anyway. I don’t see that as being a major factor.
***I'm not holding my breath, but this is where Clark has an edge. He has handled himself quite well in the face of an obviously hostile Fox News interviewer, and I expect he could shift the terms of the debate.***
I’m praying that Clark gets the nomination. Dean is a savvy politician and would do well in the general election. Clark, on the other hand, is an egotist and would break down under the pressure.
posted on 01.13.2004 9:36 PM7
Joe:
You have to remember that the election was Gore’s to lose. He was the vice-president during a long economic expansion against a governor who war relatively untested.This brings us back to another point, however: you dock Clark for his association with the Clintons. But the conventional wisdom is that part of why Gore "lost" the election in 2000 is that he distanced himself too much from the Clintons.
Digression: How would I resolve the 2000 election fiasco. Constitutional amendment. In any state where nobody gets a true majority of the popular vote, or where the results are two close to call, you have a run-off election between the top two votegetters. No excessive lawyering, no court interference (state or federal). Just a valid election that actually represents the electorate. In 2000, roughly half of the population voted against Bush, and the other half voted against Gore (not many people voted for either of those knuckleheads...)
posted on 01.13.2004 10:27 PM