This article may be interesting for those of you who would classify Dean as being a left winger.
You may completely disagree, too, of course. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I really hope that Dean is the guy he seems to be. I am going to check out his positions a bit more, but I am thinking that it may be worth registering as a Democrat just to vote for Dean in the primary.
Clark strikes me as another Clinton- say whatever you think people want to hear.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I agree three thousand percent. Have you seen his website? Read over the 100 year "vision"?
When you read "About Wes Clark" you get a quick run down of his military career.
I've seen exactly zero reasons why that guy should be running for president, except perhaps that the Clintonintes running his campaign are really scared of Dean.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
A special bit from Clark's website...
They say "Wes is gaining momentum in New Hampshire and has moved up in the latest poll", linking you to this poll, which, while showing Clark in third place (with +/- 6 margin of error) had this to say:
"Wesley Clark's recent candidacy has not had much impact on the two leaders in New Hampshire, but has hurt the chances of the moderate Democrats in the field, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman."
Clark's website links you to a poll that says something a lot different from what they said the poll said. Said. Said.
That's a really funny word if you look at it for a while.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Dean does seem very centrist. I think what makes him seem liberal to some is the combination of coming from a highly liberal state and the aggressive way in which he pushes his views. It makes him seem extreme in contrast to the wishy-washy Clinonish canidates.
I think this primary is important for the Democratic Party because it will decide whether or not they wish to become a party of substance, having given up that role since 9/11. In the congressional elections last year they were not a party of substance. They were a party trying to appease the crowd, which seemed to favor Bush. As a result, they could not offer any real alternatives to Bush's policies and were doomed to do poorly. In this election, the candidates are trying to do better, but the only one that has done so is Dean (with the possible exception of some more extremist candidates like Kucinich and Sharpton.)
Wes Clark sounds good because he is somewhat liberal, but not too liberal, and because he has 'General' attached to his name. The problem is, this is just pandering to the crowd again - betting on him because they think he might appeal to the borderline voters more. Clark has so far, been unclear on actual substance, just as many of the candidates have.
I think that after 9/11, the public cares about substance much more than in the 2000 election. Many don't like Bush's policies but fail to see any alternatives being proposed. The Republicans have made themselves a party of substance by rallying around these policies. The Democrats need some sort of real alternative set of policies to rally around - not merely yelling 'Bush is dumb' and refusing to admit what they really think.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Grr. I followed the link with some hope, but no matter how common-sensically moderate I am, I can't find a common-sense moderate candidate that agrees with me!
I guess that's the problem with moderation. There's so much diversity of opinion, you can't make a party out of it. Only extremism gets whole crowds of people fired up at once.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)