Clark strikes a Southern chord

October 11, 2005

I noticed that Wesley Clark was in Alabama yesterday, speaking at a local party rally and a state Dems’ fundraiser. According to a news report of the event, Clark was very well received, but more importantly, I think he used language that can resonate in the region.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former and possible future presidential candidate, delivered a fiery charge to Alabama Democrats here Monday, telling them to convince voters in this conservative Southern state to reject “incompetent” GOP leadership and embrace a party of “genuine” patriotism and family values.

“This is our flag,” Clark said, as he stroked an American flag in the atrium of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame downtown. “We fought for it. Some of us bled for it — and nobody is going to take it away from us.”

Clark asked veterans in the audience to raise their hands. When a significant number of hands went up, Clark asked, “Why aren’t we the party of patriotism?” He also asked for a show of hands for those who go to church. When nearly every hand went up, Clark asked, “Would you say this is a party of faith?”

“It comes down to a common morality,” Clark said. “We believe in helping people. We believe in lifting people up. What does the other side believe in? They want to tell you that morality is only about sex, so they talk about gays. They talk about abortion. And they tell us, ‘Greed is good.'”

Amid growing applause, he continued, “They stand for bettering individuals at the expense of everybody else. In the Democratic Party, we stand for the common good. Those are values Americans and Alabamians can understand.”

Granted, this was a crowd of loyal Dems. Nevertheless, it was Alabama.

If recent history is any guide, it’s going to be a while before national Dems can compete well in the South, but I’m wondering if maybe, just maybe, Republican support is slipping a bit in conservative Southern states.

Using data from SurveyUSA, I looked at Bush’s approval rating in what I call “the South” (the old Confederacy plus Oklahoma and Kentucky). Of those 13, all of which the president won in 2000 and 2004, Bush’s approval rating was above 50% in only four (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma). Given the region’s voting trends, his support should be stronger.

To be sure, it’s only one poll, and Bush can crumble before his party does, but it’s enough to make me wonder whether the Dems, with the right candidate with the right message, could compete again in the South.

I always thought Howard Dean had an excellent pitch when he campaigned in 2003 in the region: “The South has been voting Republican for about 10 years. How’s that been working out for you?”

It may have been a Vermonter asking the question, but he’d routinely see some nodding heads. Any chance a different candidate might be able to break through here?

How’s this look:

“Clark/Obama in ’06”

To me, it looks like a dream come true. 🙂

  • Amen Curmudgeon,

    As a walking talking oxymoron (a liberal living in the deep south, Alabama to be precise) There is a small window opening up for the right person to
    run the ball. Clark could potentially fit that bill, it could be someone else. The Democrats MUST begin to make it clear in terms that everyone can understand, that the rethugs idea of morality is not the ONLY one. Clark’s speech is a great step in the right direction……..and hell yeah…..Clark/Obama in 08 I’m all about it…..

  • I think that the point we really should be looking at is not who said what, but what was said:

    ” In the Democratic Party, we stand for the common good. Those are values Americans and Alabamians can understand.”

    Taking back faith and morality, taking back patriotism, calling hatred what it is with unflinching, steady, down-to-earth language. I don’t know if this is Clark, Dean (who’s said he’s changing the message) or a combination of the two, but this, this message is the elevator-ride theme that Dems need.

    2008 starts now and this is the line to use.

  • Yam:

    Clark said the same things in the same way throughout the 2004 primaries. Nothing new for him in terms of message. I do think it’s being heard better now than then.

  • “(Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma)”

    In the only one of those four states in which he ran, Oklahoma, Clark won. I always wonder about the other three and what might have happened had those primaries come earlier in the race.

  • Doris:

    Good to hear. I think that between Clark’s sensible words and Dean’s reorg and new message machine, the ground can be laid for a sweeping 2006 and 2008.

    Now if we can only rid ourselves of the Marshall Wittmans and the Joe Lieberman/Joe Bidens and the rest of the DLC Republican-Lite junk and take it to the Republicans like we know we can.

  • Yam,
    Please don’t forget to add Hillary to that list of DLC lites…I’ve always liked Clark…Doris is right…he had the same message in 2004…Dean’s been touting a good strong message as well the past few weeks…We REALLY need someone without a senate record of voting for the resolution that opend the gates for Bush’s war…that means no Edward, Kerry, Clinton, Biden……….Clark is a good start.

  • I agree. The message is right on. Now we just need it repeated over and over and over without letting the Repugs try to hijack it (though I’m convinced they have already burned their hijacking bridge with their actions).

    Just curious, how did he get a roomful of Dems to show up in Alabama??? How many were imported?

  • If only we had a system that could weed out some candidates; some sort of primary election. And it should be set up so that the northeastern states pretty much get to pick who they think should run, and by the time it gets to the rest of the country they only get to vote for Mr. Foregone Conclusion or Mr. Nochance Inhell.

    Only by having a system like that in place and sticking with it for decades will we effectively find a candidate to represent the entire country on a consistent basis.

    I’m sure a system like that will ensure the Deans and Clarks will be able to triumph over the Clintons and Kerrys.

  • I supported General Clark in 2004, and would have voted for him had he survived the primaries. At the time, Clark was still awkwardly feeling his way through a high level of politics. He’s had time, now, to become smoother and more dynamic. Frankly, I think Clark is almost the only nationally-known Democrat who can provide real leadership — which is what I think is missing from the party.

    His message may be the same, but he may be sharpening it to the required sound-bites. And I agree that message may be more welcome than it was in 2004.

    Also, living in a red state (Georgia), I refuse to believe an intelligent, powerful — relevant — message is automatically lost on southeners, even coming from Democrats. I think a Clark/Edwards ticket could win nationwide in 2008 because I think Bush will have lowered our standard of living sufficiently by then.

    Personally, I’m absolutely sick of Republicans trashing my patriotism. When draft-dodger/deserter Bush was weaseling out of active duty, I’d been back from Vietnam for three years. I want a candidate who’ll go for the Rupublican throat — win or lose.

  • General Clark can campaign in any state in the union. Not every Democrat can do that, and it is very important. By skipping the south, we’ve handed the republicans huge numbers of electoral votes, but more importantly, we’ve allowed them to skip the issues that play to their base, but creep out the northern/western suburbs.

    Clark has said that it is not about the “who” and while I find much in what he says to agree with, in this case I think he is wrong. We do need a candidate that can be a fit across the US, we do need a candidate that is liberal but branded moderate by the MSM, and we do need a leader. A real leader.

  • I second, no third, no fourth, no…no thirteenth the support for Wes Clark. GO WES! We are the party of Patriots! We are the party of compentence!

    VOTE WES CLARK 2008!

  • I live in Texas and I worked on Clark’s campaign. His message is the same, but more refined and honed-in to the audience. He was the best candidate in the group, but the press did him in. He could have beaten bush and the WH knew it!

    Clark is statesman-like, intelligent, a decision maker, and certainly does not narrow the dialogue into black/white, evil/holy. He is nuanced and has a lot on the ball. Notwithstanding as a general I do not doubt he would take us to war IF need be, but whether as a last resort as he says it would be I do not know.

    Where we disagree is he thinks we need to stay in Iraq, but bring in international support. I disagree because we are the problem in Iraq not the solution.

  • Look…I’d consider supporting Wes Clark but the man does not have normal eye blinking patterns (sorry to be blinkist/superficial here)…can he see a specialist or just a public speaking coach and learn to blink, at least when he’s in public???..it’s very disconcerting – something robotic there – and I think a lot of people have the same gut reaction to it…

  • I think Clark is one of the quickest studies I’ve ever seen. He learned a lot from the 2004 campaign, particularly considering his campaign was only 5 months old (mid-sept thru mid-Feb) when it ended.

    I expect you may have noticed a more ‘honed’ message scaled to fit into our sound-byte campaign culture, His message is the right one and red-state Dems want to run WITH him, not away from him.

    P.S. He’s even overcome that blinking thing…. you’ll have to watch him on TeeVee next time. LOL!

  • Here’s something I found interesting that was posted to democraticunderground last Thursday:

    Anyway, my friend Warren was a campaign advisor for Clark in several southern states, and he was stationed in Tennessee. He is still in pretty constant contact with Wes, and he told me that Wes WILL run in 2008, that he began his campaign too late in 2004 to implement a good strategy to bring in southern states, but that he is working on that strategy and will use it in 2008.

    We are on the Dem executive committee together in our county. I’ll see him soon, and I’ll ask him to precisely tell me about this “southern strategy” that Clark will implement.

    Edit to add: he said that, with this strategy, Florida nor Ohio will matter as it did in 2000-04. HE wants to pull in Arkansas, Tennessee, and a couple other southern state, which will give him the electorals he needs, if he can hang onto reliably Democratic states. Now, just how he plans to do that, I don’t know, but I’ll PM you after I talk to Warren again.

  • Hey you “party of faith” guys — just make sure to leave room in it for us religion-free people.

  • I think the Repugs have been fearing the successful execution of the ‘alternative morals’ message (i.e social justice) big-time. It’s time to take advantage with someone who can communicate it clearly. Maybe it won’t convince all the die-hards, but just wait until this administration’s policies really start wreaking havoc on people who consider themselves to be “middle class” and find themselves laid off with no health insurance for their family and no safety net in sight.

  • social democrat,

    Amen from a liberal Methodist. Dems need to stand for separation of church and state. After what we’ve been put through by the religious right and george’s use of them, I think the rest of us are ready to return to that!

    Separation of church and state should be a plank in the platform.

  • Social democrat,

    It seems the other way around to me. The religion-free people aren’t leaving room in the party for religious folks.

    Maybe you’re not doing it, but if too many liberals tell Christians that they’re in the wrong party, they’re going to start agreeing.

  • Clark can give our country everything it needs. I pray that he chooses to run again. We need someone with high intelligence who cares about all Americans, not just his own friends and those with lots of money.

  • Cotterperson,

    Not only do Dems need to stand for separation of church and state, but religious groups do too. They have the strongest Constitutional arguments for the Feds staying out of gay marriage, among other things.

    Several denominations are seriously considering sanctifying gay marriages. How can the Feds outlaw such a harmless religious practice, which (non-polygamous) marriage most surely is?

  • The Democratic Party’s weakness is that we lost every state in the Southern Region and it is weak on national security. Democrats need to nominate a candidate who is from the Southern region. that has strong national security credential. Democrats should also nominate a candidate who is not a member of the US Congress(Washington Outsider). The ideal Democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidential election is Wesley Clark. Clark is a former US Army General/NATO Allied Supreme Commander. As a former military general, he gives Democrats credibility on foriegn policy/national security issues. Clark is from the state of Arkansas- Southern State. Clark is not a current or former member of the US Congress./ He does not have a long congressional voting record Republicans can go after. Clark is also a former Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2004 so he has experience in running a Presidential Campaign. He can learn from previous mistakes. Clark, as a 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee will help the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee win all of the Kerry States plus NM and IA, the two states that went for Gore in 2000 but in 2004 went for Bush and AR(Clark’s Home State)= This will give Clark 270 ev. Clark can also flip (WV,OH,MO,and NV)= 311 Clark’s VP running mate should be Bill Richardson- A Hispanic Governor who has gubenatorial and congressional experience. Richardson also have strong foriegn policy/national security crediential( He is a former Energy Secretary/UN Ambassador under Bill Clinton(D). Richardson will help Clark win FL,CO,and AZ. = Clark/Richardson2008 Democratic Presidential Ticket will recieve 357 ev.

  • I can tell you who will not win the election in 2008….and that is Hillary Clinton!!! But, all I hear on t.v. is the talking heads and the republicans pushing the idea that “Hillary” is the only strong candidate that the dems have. Give me a Break!!! I live in Ohio…a very Republican area…and Wes Clark is very popular here…I even had a few relatives say that they would have voted for Kerry if he had chosen Wes Clark…because they felt John Edwards just did not have the experience to run a country if something happened to JFK!

  • The clown who carries around the non-bliking point is someone Clark humored by giving a speech where he repeatedly blinked , abnormally so.

    Clark not blinking is a sign of composure, or discipline. SOmething the Army prefers. Straight shooters.

    Watch another AWOL speecvh, the pathetic bliking smirk. Tell me it’s a sign he isn’t a robot for Billionaires…

    In fact that entire talking point is so useless you need to be called out. There’s no place at a legitimate discussion for your ilk.

    • Comments are closed.