I missed this Post Editorial this past weekend regarding General Clark, but I'm glad I found it. The more I read about him, the more I'm convinced that if the Dems don't come to their senses and rally around this guy, they're throwing the race away.
Let's face it: Kerry's a Massachusetts Liberal who can't win over middle America. I admire Dean's principles and his guts, but he's going to be too much of a firebrand, and that turns people off. Edwards has a good story, but he's been laying awfully low. Look, I've got my finger on the pulse of America, so listen up: people are worried sick about the economy, they're freaked about health care, they don't really like this aura of secrecy about the Bush administration, but they're willing to deal with Bush's disastrous policies on ALL of that because of National Seurity. Where other polling numbers show a healthy split, Bush and Co. have the National Security question tied up. And I don't know any dems who can beat that.
I think only General Clark can come in with the requisite credentials to lay that question to rest. As this op-ed notes:
And he doesn't scream "scary liberal" to our soccer moms and CPA dads:
I like him, man, I like him. I don't know who I can get behind if he doesn't run. It seems so late in the game, since we already have about 734 democratic candidates, but this article indicates that at this point 12 years ago, Clinton was barely on the radar screen.
We just need to find the guy, the one guy, who can beat Bush, and I think Wes is our man.
Let's face it: Kerry's a Massachusetts Liberal who can't win over middle America. I admire Dean's principles and his guts, but he's going to be too much of a firebrand, and that turns people off. Edwards has a good story, but he's been laying awfully low. Look, I've got my finger on the pulse of America, so listen up: people are worried sick about the economy, they're freaked about health care, they don't really like this aura of secrecy about the Bush administration, but they're willing to deal with Bush's disastrous policies on ALL of that because of National Seurity. Where other polling numbers show a healthy split, Bush and Co. have the National Security question tied up. And I don't know any dems who can beat that.
I think only General Clark can come in with the requisite credentials to lay that question to rest. As this op-ed notes:
When the press refers to him, his first name will always be "General." Without being the least bit exploitative, his ads will feature him with stars across his shoulders.
And he doesn't scream "scary liberal" to our soccer moms and CPA dads:
Clark's appeal is that he intelligently veers from traditional Democratic rhetoric to make the party's case. Take the gun issue. Instead of hemming and hawing about the Second Amendment, he says, "I have got 20-some-odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army -- we have them." In a flash, he could reverse the damage of 30 years of Republican culture warmongering.
I like him, man, I like him. I don't know who I can get behind if he doesn't run. It seems so late in the game, since we already have about 734 democratic candidates, but this article indicates that at this point 12 years ago, Clinton was barely on the radar screen.
We just need to find the guy, the one guy, who can beat Bush, and I think Wes is our man.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home