![]() |
|
resurrectionsongOctober 28, 2003Wesley Clark in DeclineThe Democrat's very own pet general is finding that he might be ill-equipped to play with the other candidates. Smart as a whip, and visibly accomplished in his chosen profession (although, perhaps not as admired and respected within his peer group as some suggest), he was thought to be a cure-all for the Democrats. Here was a military man who opposed the war (even if he didn't--or did--well, it depends on the day) and supported a fairly liberal social and economic policy. He could be strong on military issues, so the Democrats wouldn't lose points to Republicans. Yet, he wouldn't be as hawkish as the Bush administration and would play nicer with the UN, France, and Germany (the only international institutions that are meaningful to liberals now that Tony Blair turned traitor to the Clinton revolution). What they didn't count on was how poorly he communicates his ideas. Or, for that matter, how rarely he seems to have complete ideas. This is not an issue with his political training: rising to such high levels within the US military, and within NATO, requires a great deal of political ability. No, this is a problem with Wesley Clark. He has yet to truly communicate his agenda--aside from a dissatisfaction with Bush's performance in Iraq and a willingness to repeal the tax cuts. Unfortunately for Clark, that's the same message that most of the Democrat candidates carry, and he has done little to distinguish himself from his competitors. In marketing, one of the key concept is differentiation--if you offer a product that is very similar to other products, how do you market yours in a way that emphasizes an important difference that consumers will find compelling. Thus far, Clark hasn't made any real effort at differentiation. He could possibly be considered the more likable Kerry. Or the more desirable Lieberman. Or the less angry Dean. But if people want Kerry, Dean, or Lieberman, they have no need for Clark. Unless he does something more impressive to woo people away from their chosen candidates, Wesley Clark looks to be in for a long, slow slide right out of the presidential candidacy. Posted by zombyboy at October 28, 2003 09:56 AM | TrackBackComments
I'm still sticking with my earlier prediction. There are two strategies that will not win the White House for the Dems: running extreme left and running anti-Bush. In order to win the Dems need to offer a clear and consistent platform that offers alternatives to Bush's platform and solutions to the problems that they perceive. So far, they have done neither. Clark's initial support was by people who simply saw him as a candidate who could "beat Bush" and not as a candidate that they actually wanted to support. Now that people are realizing that he is neither, his support is disappearing. Posted by: StumpJumper at October 28, 2003 12:43 PMI think Clark is coming to speak at DU on Friday (I'm 99% sure it's friday, anyway) if you want to see if he's managed to agree with himself on what his platform should be. Posted by: Julia at October 28, 2003 01:29 PMI'll need to check on that--that would be worth covering. I'll say this: I would expect it to be far more interesting and serious than the Michael Moore visit. Thanks for giving me the heads-up. Posted by: zombyboy at October 28, 2003 01:31 PMNo problem. I'm not sure it'll be more interesting. At least Moore is sensationalist and (at times) funny. Something about Clark tends to put me into a near catatonic state. Not sure why, though. Posted by: Julia at October 28, 2003 01:37 PMPost a comment
|
| All content ©2003 by the authors of ResurrectionSong.com except where noted. |