Another article that explains why I think John Kerry is not the right candidate for the Democrats this year.

Peter Stein is a member of the Ithaca Town Board and a Professor of physics at Cornell University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Wesley Clark?

An Ithaca political veteran's views on why Wesley Clark, and not presumptive candidate John Kerry or one-time frontrunner Howard Dean, deserves your vote in the March Democratic primary.
by Peter Stein

14850 Magazine > February 2004 Issue > Why Wesley Clark?
When New York Democrats go to the polls to cast their votes for their party's presidential nominee, they will probably decide in March whether George Bush will win in November. The 2004 presidential election is arguably the most important political race in our nation since the end of World War II.

Party voters in any primary election, whether it be the mayoralty of Ithaca or the presidency of the United states, must balance two questions; which candidate do they prefer, and which candidate is more electable. When the stakes are high and the differences between the parties are very great, the balance must tilt decisively towards electability. Responsible Democratic primary voters must remember that electability depends more on how favorably Republican and independent, rather than Democratic voters will respond to their candidate.

In making their decision, Democratic voters should keep in mind the following facts: In the 13 presidential elections since World War II (excluding the 2000 election, where the actual winner is still a matter of debate),

• The incumbent won six of the nine races in which a president sought a second term.
  
• Democrats who were generally perceived as liberal won 3 presidential elections, and lost 6. Democrats perceived as middle-of-the-road won 4 elections and lost 1.
  
• Democratic candidates from southern states won 4 times and lost once; those from mid-western and eastern states won once and lost 6 times. (The 1948 Truman victory is not included, since Missouri is both southern and mid-western.)
  
• No Democrat ever won the presidency without winning at least 5 southern states.
  
• Polls consistently show that the American people have more confidence in Republicans to manage our national security
  
• Since 1948, the fraction of voters declaring themselves Democratic has declined from about 50% to about 30%. The Republican fraction has stayed constant at about 30%.
  

These historical data portend a grim 2004 race for Democrats. To win, the Democratic candidate will need everything going for him (alas, there are no longer any "her" possibilities this year). The ideal candidate will have southern roots, have strong national security credentials, and will not begenerally perceived as a "standard democratic liberal". He will have to draw votes from outside of the basic Democratic base, and must win back those Democrats who are concerned with the dangers of a post 9/11 world.

Of all the possible candidates, I believe that Wesley Clark comes closest to the ideal Democratic standard-bearer. His weaknesses in the primary become strengths in the general election.

One of those weaknesses for many Democratic voters, particularly in New York, is that he is not perceived as a "standard democratic liberal". Those voters should look beyond perceptions, and examine Clark's beliefs and programs. He strongly supports choice, affirmative action and first amendment freedoms. He has promised that he will restore all of Bush's environmental cuts on his first day of office. He will build strong and lasting world-wide alliances to defeat terrorism. On the domestic front, Clark will ask Congress to eliminate income tax for all families with incomes below $50,000 and compensate by adding a 5% surtax on incomes more than $1,000,000, provide health insurance for all under the age of 21 and expand coverage for poor and middle-income families.

Wesley Clark can win, and by fulfilling his program, will reduce the divisiveness that separates Democrats and Republicans. Americans need a president who, like Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy, can be respected and admired by Americans across the political spectrum. He will make an ideal leader to bring our party and our nation into this new century.

Tonight, I read and re-read my cover letter, then emailed it to a potential employer. Then, as I closed the document file, I saw that I'd omitted a period. Oops. Gotta be more careful.

This was a good weekend, but I know that the next two weeks will be overwhelming. I'm out of town next weekend for a friend's wedding, and when I return from that trip I will have a half dozen papers/proposals/problem sets due. So between now and Thursday morning, I have to complete all my work for the next week and a half. Ugh.

I had about two dozen people over to my apartment on Saturday night for a potluck dinner and a party. And as usual, I went a little crazy on the food. My contributions included...
-- caribbean jerk chicken with couscous and fried shallots (one of my regulars)
-- pepper-encrusted seared yellowfin tuna with mango salsa (a good appetizer but $$$)
-- braised leeks with beurre blanc (the former were good, the latter still needs some work)
-- and poached pears with creme fraische and a Grand Marnier-brown sugar cream sauce (new recipe. yummmmm.)

I decided not to make homemade gnocchi, twice-baked potatoes, or a tarte tatin because I was running out of time. Oh well. I think the weekend's events satiated my desire to cook, though, at least for a while. And that's good, because cooking can be crazy expensive, at least it usually is with the right ingredients...

I had coffee with one of my friends from Hopkins today. It's nice that I've finally established some solid friendships among my classmates in the MHS-Policy program. I'm friendly with most of them and know quite a few of them very well, but I feel like I only recently passed the friendship threshold with a few of them. We still have 4 months, though, so hopefully this process will continue with the others. I realized tonight that I submitted my application for the program one year ago last week. Wow. Life has changed so much for the better since that time...

My posters also arrived this weekend, albeit not in time for the party. But now I'll finally have at least a few things on the walls. :-) While searching for the posters, I decided that I really liked Kandinsky, but the posters of his that I ordered turned out to be unavailable. Keep in mind, deciding that I like an artist is a big deal for me, at least compared to my impressive background knowledge of art -- since it's essentially nothing. I also really liked the Van Gogh museum, but everyone likes Van Gogh. Although for all I know, perhaps everyone likes Kandinsky.

My favorite piece that I ordered was a black & white photo of a fork and platter entitled "La Fourchette, 1928" by Andre Kertesz.

Plans for tomorrow? Get up, work, lunch, work, class, dinner, date, work, sleep.

Current mood: A little unsettled, although not sure why.
Current song: Michael Nyman, "The Promise" (from "The Piano" soundtrack)

Insomnia haunts me. Each of the last three nights, I've tried to fall asleep for at least three hours with no success.

I'm tempted to get up and start working, but I know that won't really help me get to sleep...

Any suggestions?

Me: "Hello, I'm here to get information on a student loan."

Office Manger, Bank of America: "Hello. I would be happy to give you some information, but we don't take care of loans here at the banking centers."

Me: "You don't have any loans?"

Bank: "We have loans, but not here. Don't you get loans through your school?"

Me: "Yes, the financial aid office will disburse the loan payment to my account, but I need to borrow the money from a bank. Your website says you have a variety of student loans, and that I should visit a banking center for more information. This is a banking center, correct?"

Bank: "Yes, this is a banking center."

Me: "But you can't help me with a loan? I'm just looking for a small private or TERI loan, or at least that's what the Bank of America website says would be the best loans for me. I already have the regular Stafford federal loans."

Bank: "Hmmmm. I don't know what those are. Maybe the best thing for you would be an unsecured loan, or maybe just to get a charge card and put your expenses on there."

Me: "The problem with that option is that I would still lack the money to pay off those credit card bills. And I don't think it would be a good idea to assume a lot of short-term high-interest debt if I can get a long-term, low-rate student loan. I'm not an expert, though...does that make any sense to you?"

Bank: "Hmmmmmm. Let me give you a phone number you can call about loans....."

An interesting weekend. A date, a trip to see a friend in PA, a lot of sleep, and an unfortunately small amount of work accomplished. And a whole lot coming up this week.

Although I feel like I'm finally back in a normal routine, I still feel conflicted about a variety of issues. Dating, the election, my classes, the job search, etc. I have plenty of issues on my mind that _feel_ more important than classes, but that will change soon. Fear and necessity are both excellent motivators.

I feel like I'm losing my ability to communicate empathy. In the last few days, I've talked with a few friends who have been in really tough situations -- mostly relationship issues, but a few with career concerns -- and suddently I'm hesitant to ask about their problems. I certainly still have the impulse to ask, but something in the last few years has made me hold back from asking those direct, probing questions. Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm not an RA anymore, and it's not my job to ask those questions. But it's more than that. Maybe since I don't live around these people or see them on a regular basis, I can't judge their emotions as well, so I hold off on my questions so I don't anger anybody. Without these basic questions, though, I feel like I can't do a thing to empathize with these people. Argh. Or, I think, maybe it just seems like I don't care since I don't follow up with any questions. That's not good either. Ugh.

I hate seeing people in pain and not being able to do anything about it. Maybe that's another reason why I want to be a doctor.

Perhaps my concerns above just reflect a certain dissatisfaction with my current friendships and/or social life. I know tons of students at Hopkins. With only a few exceptions, though, I feel that I only barely know these people. And that's not a normal place for me to be. Don't get me wrong; I don't feel the need to have a tight emotional bond with all of my classmates, but it would just be nice to feel like I'm getting to know them as more than just the people I see in class.
I could just have unrealistic expectations. After all, I 've only been in Baltimore for 6 months, but it certainly seems that I'm not getting to know my classmates as quickly as they're getting to know each other.

The campaign also has something to do with this. The volunteers were so busy in Manchester that it was hard to remember everyone's names, but we were so unified by our common purpose that it felt like we bonded exceptionally quickly up there.

Hmmmmm. I guess I could say I feel lonely. That word carries connotations of relationships, though, and although I'm looking for a realtionship, "lonely" doens't fully describe what I'm feeling. Maybe isolated is a better term, I suppose?
Now the challenge is to spend more time with people this term and still excel academically. Cheers to that!

On a closing note, make sure you see "Love Actually" when it is released for rental. Such a good movie.

Current Mood: Didn't I just write about this? I guess I feel isolated and a little lonely.
Current Song: Dido, "Here With Me" and Portishead, "Roads"

This is disgusting. CBS is refusing to air an ad by Moveon.org that criticizes the Bush administration during today's Super Bowl.

As the Boston Globe wrote in a January 29th editorial, "Too bad the fine new MoveOn.org TV ad attacking the deficit created by President Bush won't be seen on the CBS broadcast of the Super Bowl this Sunday. It belongs there -- as does the opposing view. What better place for a contest of ideologies than in this annual extravaganza of excess that is as much about selling commercial images as it is about the guts and grit of football. CBS would provide a much needed public service at the start of this presidential year by selling some Super Bowl air time to opposing political advocates who, with spots as clever as any for a razor or a computer, might jolt blase voters into caring."

Several members of the House of Representatives agreed and signed a letter to CBS.

Ugh. CBS will show ads by the Bush White House, beer companies, and tobacco companies...yet refuse to air an ad by Moveon or PETA? I don't necessarily agree with PETA, but I think they should be able to spend a ridiculous amount ($1.5 million?) on an ad and have it aired just like everyone else

The text of an email I sent to friends today:

I admire what Dean has done for the party. As an early adopter who was willing to speak his mind, he energized a huge segment of the party and broke the ice a year ago when it was still politically questionable to attack Bush.

But he’s not electable. Why? The statements and energy that gave rise to Dean’s army of supporters is the reason why many independents (and centrist Republicans) won’t even consider him. And, yes, we’ll probably benefit from greater-than-usual turnout of registered Democrats in the general election because of (a) the high degree of national partisanship, (b) Dean’s effectiveness at fanning the flames of the far-left, and (c) the large number of primary candidates. Turnout in both Iowa and New Hampshire was far, far above the 2000 mark. But I think Dean would just collapse in the general election, winning only a small share of states, and certainly none in the south.

And I don’t think the election is entirely about the far-left. I think it’s about winning the middle. I don’t expect to convert any of you to Clark’s side, but I honestly believe that he is the only Democrat who can win in the general election. But before I say that, I’ll focus on who I believe the big three will be in a few months – Kerry, Edwards, and Clark. As Michael Moore said, “The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.”

So we have to get those 15 states. That is essential. I have two major points:

1. North versus South. Kerry has a ton of momentum now, but I don’t see him winning – at least in those 15 states. To borrow from a letter I received from one of my campaign buddies: “No northern democrat has won the presidency in forty-four years. And that was before the civil rights movement, when the south voted democrat consistently. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton: all southern democrats who won southern states and the White House. Even southerner Al Gore won the popular vote. For forty years, this has been the shape of the electorate. Every northern democrat who ran for president lost. No matter what they said, or how they said it, they lost. If we want a democrat in the White House next January, we need a candidate who can win southern votes, and the last four decades have shown without exception that the only way to win southern votes is to put a southerner on the top of the ticket.”

I’d love your feedback on this point.

2. Core election issues. It’s not surprising that the core election issues are going to be national security and jobs. Again, I’d appreciate hearing any contrasting opinions. That being said, I think we need a candidate with a strong national defense background. That leaves us with Clark and Kerry. If you think Edwards looks young and inexperienced now, just wait until he tries to argue with Bush on military force.

Again, feedback would be great.

And I want your opinions on Clark’s tax proposals. I could describe it mysef, but I’m sick of typing, so I’d prefer to just cut-and-paste one from Moore:

“Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been “positioning himself slightly to Dean’s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.”

Plus, Clark and Sharpton have been using the same line about rich Americans ($200,000 and up, in Clark’s case) doing “their patriotic duty” by returning the Bush tax cuts. It got a standing ovation from the crowds each of the five times I heard it.

As far as pres/VP matches are concerned, I think we’re still far too early to predict any of that. I know that Bill Richardson is pretty high on the democratic radar – especially because of his experience as Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and his stellar approval ratings from Latino voters. But do I see Edwards deciding to become a VP? I really doubt it.

And I’ll conclude with a little anecdote about my experiences with the different campaigns and then another quote from Michael Moore. Yes, I am being lazy. Plus, my room is about 17 degrees and if I type any longer, my fingers are going to freeze. So I’ll wrap it up quickly.

I’ve been to “meetups” for a few candidates, and I’ve spoken to plenty of folks from Clark, Dean, and Kerry campaigns. What struck me most was the makeup of those groups – Dean’s folks were mostly college kids who with a ton of energy, Kerry’s were mostly New Englanders, while Clark’s group had folks from New York, Louisiana, and Arizona. And, perhaps most importantly, about 10% of the group was disenfranchised Republicans who hated Bush. But they also hated Dean, and thought that Kerry was an aristocrat. So they picked Clark. Those are the voters I think we need.

Moore writes, “This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen. There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three.”