At first I thought this Clark thing was supported by just a few people who could not see past one issue. However, it now appears that many people have fallen for this tactic and are ignoring everything else.

Now let me first say Clark is a good speaker. Unfortunately that's about all the good I see in him.

Here are the problems I see with Clark -

1. How can you even consider someone for the democratic candidate for the POTUS who's position on all the issues is not even known?

I have gone to 3 prominent Wesley Clark web sites dedicated to Clark in 04. "Wesleyclark.us" "draftclark.com" and "draftwesleyclark.com" I thought surely they would have a run down of the issues detailing exactly how Clark feels about all the issues.

Guess what? They did not. They addressed only a handful of issues (mostly being national securty/foreign) - and you know what? One site had issues that had not even been filled in yet! No doubt waiting for the day (if it ever comes) when Clark will actually let you know entirely what he stands for. In fact, some issues (such as gay rights) were not even listed at all on two of the sites, and the one that did skipped around the issue deceptively.

I say deceptively because it is a single sentence "Clark respects the current policy regarding gays in the military" WOW! That really answers the gay rights issue. Am I supposed to just assume he supports them now? Well it's a good thing I saw Clark on Crossfire yesterday and know that he does NOT see gays as equals.

We should just put "Anonymous person one" on the ballot and be done with it. Just as much guess work to do.

2. Going off what I touched on in point one - He's a single issue candidate.

The only reason Clark would be a "good" one issue candidate - national security. (Which is a HUGE maybe in it's self)

There are various false assumptions being made that -

A. He has high ranking miliary experience that Bush certainly does not have.

B. "General" Clark sounds better than "Private" Kerry or no military experience Kucinich.

C. He's ex-military that served under Clinton at some point and thus MUST be good. (kind of like Powell I suppose)

D. Because of A & B he will be seen as a huge national security candidate and will destroy Bush in ways no other candidate can.

As far as A & B Bush has NOTHING on any of the 9 candidate so far. I can see the campaign commercial now "Dennis Kucinich didn't serve in the military while I was deserting after I was already in the Texas guard. Vote Bush for President"

Furthermore - does Bush even have anything on national security either? 9/11 happened on his watch. No Osama. No Saddam. Massive blunder in Iraq with dead soldiers and civilians galore. The list goes on.

Let's say though that this gimmick works. Clark is seen as the best national security candidate by all.

Fine. Too bad he has nothing on any of the other candidates as far as issues go. Nor political experience. I do hope most democrats are not naive enough to think the whole election is going to come down to national security.

3. No politcal experience.

People were crying about Dean not having foreign relation experience and how he would be slaughtered because of it. Now those same people support running Clark who has never ran a campaign, NEVER held elected office before.

THINK about this people! Clark better have the best damn campaign staff, speech writers, and stroke of luck ever seen if he is going to run and win the presidency of the United States against an incumbent having never held elected office before!

Rove is probably having wet dreams over this.

4. He won't even declare his damn party

This suggests to me he is an oppurtunist. I would not be at all surprised if we saw him running with the republicans should he get the chance.

Again, the fact that the democratic party is seriously considering running someone for the POTUS this close to election time who will not even declare his party boggles the mind.

So here we are with a one issue, no political experience, maybe not even a democrat, who supposedly is far superior to all of the 9 real democratic candidates. Wonderful.

*edit: Suggesting to considering, grammer issue

Sharpton-Kucinich in 04. An Independent Voice Not an Echo

That's a place I would want to live. How hard is it for a state to secede these days?

on edit: forgot to say that I agree with the point being made in the original post.

It says something about our chances (not to be negative) when some are flailing about trying to get a candidate to run when his positions, or even his party are unclear. God knows I love Gore, too, but he's not running.

If Bush is guaranteed a landslide?

was being f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s.

It's call argument ad absurdum.

n/t

I think you summmed it up nicely.

Your message is extremely uninformed, and, ironically, naive. First of all, CLARK HASN'T ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY YET. Once he does so, just like *every* other candidate in the race, THAT will be the time in which he lays out his detailed stances on the issues. Obviously, we know he's a Democrat. He's pro-choice, anti-war, anti-Bush tax cut, pro-environment, etc. etc.

Second of all, let's talk about experience. This man presided over military units larger than some states. It was very similar to a governor-like post, except in addition to regulating education, health care, and housing, it also included military matters. His majors at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar were in Economics and Politics.
He is a certified investment banker. He is the head of a business consulting firm. He is the chairman of the board of Wavecrest technologies, which is coming closer than any other company in the world to developing automobiles running on an electric, hydrogen-fueled motor. This is a BRILLIANT man, and being on Capitol Hill isn't the only way to gain knowledge and understanding of domestic issues. If that were true, none of us would have the right to be here today, arguing them. He obviously knows as much or more about them as the declared candidates. Howard Dean's "100 Years in the Future" plan comes months after a virtually identical, if not more articulate and persuasive, statement was made by Clark on the same topic.

Third, you may think that Bush's lack of military experience and foreign blunders make him weak on National Security, but it's time you wake up and live in the real world. I don't care that you think that, and neither do Republicans, and neither do the majority of the American people. The fact is, regardless of how truthfully weak Bush is on National Security, Rove & Co. will run on it, and the American people will be very susceptible to their claims. They are now, and they will be in '04. People trust Republicans over Democrats on something like a 75%-20% scale when it comes to National Security. If we were to get a Howard Dean type on the ticket, it would be game over. If we put Clark on the ticket, it negates Rove's entire argument. And yes, Clark DOES have exponentially more experience on National Security than most of the candidates. This is a 4-Star General and decorated Vietnam veteran who has been in service for 34 years. He was the Supreme Allied Commander of forces in Europe. He's helped revolutionize our military, making it more intelligent and more accountable. He was one of the prime creators of the Dayton Peace Accords. He commanded the first war in U.S. history without a single American casualty. So you're contempt for the assertions made about his national security credibility is bizaare and unfounded.

Trying to move people away from Clark is the absolute worst thing any Democrat could do at this point. Especially when it's based on the reasons you tried to lay out. Knowledge is more important than how many years you've spent in a suit and tie. Clark is a smart, progressive, and inspiring candidate. And once he nixes President Bush's supposed national security advantage in the eyes of the American people (and then some), all Bush will have to fall back on is the economy. As soon as that happens, our chances of beating Bush in '04 are assured. Or we can try to force him out of the race, and rest all our hopes on a short, angry, northeastern liberal and watch our hopes swiftly wash away. But I'd rather have Clark, who is both a better and more electable candidate.

"CLARK HASN'T ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY YET"

Never said he did. The fact is he has lots of people such as your self who want him to do so, and, should that happen, will support him over all others.

"THAT will be the time in which he lays out his detailed stances on the issues"

This is one of the problems with running a candidate with NO politcal experience. Please don't lie and claim he is acting in the same manner every other candidate has. Every other candidate has political experience, and thus has had positions known LONG before they were an official candidate. This is not too much to ask of Clark, who has already taken his sweet time. He should have declared months ago.

"Obviously, we know he's a Democrat"

Then why the hell won't he say so?

"anti-war"

Why are you being deceptive again? He said just yesterday he would have supported Iraq had more international support been available.

You go on to list other issues. This is blatant deception on your part when only lines before hand you say he has not expressed his position on all the issues. We already know from my first post a handful of issues have been made available. Don't try to have it both ways by listing those handful of issues again. The fact is he has not made his position on all the issues clear.

"Second of all, let's talk about experience."

Yes, let's do so. I NEVER said Clark did not have military experience which is what you are being blindly led to believe is oh so important.

You tell me to get with reality. Tell me - do you REALLY believe a person who has NEVER campaigned, never held *elected* office, and has really never been a politician is going to all of a sudden jump in the race for President of the United States against an incumbent and win in 18 months? The guy has been appointed to practically everything in his life. Please get real.

"It was very similar to a governor-like post"

So naive. A military commander giving orders is sooo very different than a politician in a democracy. I feel bad for you that you can't see just how different.

" Rove & Co. will run on it, and the American people will be very susceptible to their claims. "

Thanks for making the case why Clark will loose. We need a candidate who will constantly attack and bring the battle home to Rove & Pals, and fear not the truth. Not some guy who can't even declare a party.

"it negates Rove's entire argument"

Wrong. You are making the flawed assumption that because this guy was a high ranking military commander he will do well with DOMESTIC national security concerns as a CIVILIAN dealing with POLITICS in a DEMOCRACY. Maybe if this was a military dictatorship his military experience would mean a damn thing - but when you go from General to President of the United States it is an entirely different ball game.

I say stick with the military Clark where you will be better suited for the job.

The republicans are not fools. Any guy off the street can see the ploy you are trying to play and Rove will have a field day with it. "Oh look the democrats are conceeding they are weak on national security and now are trying to run a general to convince us that he would make us more safe than our great leader Bush! Hahaha" You're not exactly running a covert operation here.

This game is over before you start.

"Every other candidate has political experience, and thus has had positions known LONG before they were an official candidate."

Misleading. We know their basic positions, just as we know Clark's basic positions, and we know what they've voted on in the past. But that's not what this election is about. Candidates are talking about what they WILL do, not what they did. Things like Gephardt's health care plan, Edward's rural plan, Lieberman's manufacturing jobs plan, that's what the issues are in this race, and Clark will bring his own plans to the table when he runs as well.

"Obviously, we know he's a Democrat"

"Then why the hell won't he say so?"

Strategy. He's bringing people from every party together. That's what's necessary to win. You do want to win, don't you? Anyone paying attention to his views knows that he's not only a Democrat, he's more liberal than some of the candidates.

"Why are you being deceptive again? He said just yesterday he would have supported Iraq had more international support been available."

You misunderstood him. He has said before, time and time again, that our reasons for going to war were false, and there was no immenence to the threat. He has said he thought we could have squeezed Saddam into submission through the UN, not through war, and that that's the angle he would have taken. In his last Crossfire appearance before this one, he told Tucker Carlson that he thought the toughest job Republicans were going to have was trying to justify why we went into this war. He wasn't talking about an international invasion, he was talking about interantional pressure.

"You go on to list other issues. This is blatant deception on your part when only lines before hand you say he has not expressed his position on all the issues."

Huh? I said he hadn't expressed his position on all the issues, yes. And I certainly didn't mention all the issues. So...what are you talking about?

"A military commander giving orders is sooo very different than a politician in a democracy."

You're right. He doesn't give orders like a senator or a representative. He balances the budget from the top, regulates education and health care, etc., and, while others below him have their say as well, he has the strongest authority. Sound like another position? Ah, yes, the position we're talking about him running for- president.

"I NEVER said Clark did not have military experience which is what you are being blindly led to believe is oh so important."

Funny, you ignored the entire first paragraph, which talked about his experience in areas other than the military, and was quite extensive. Why don't you address that?

"'Rove & Co. will run on it, and the American people will be very susceptible to their claims.'"

"Thanks for making the case why Clark will loose. We need a candidate who will constantly attack and bring the battle home to Rove & Pals, and fear not the truth. Not some guy who can't even declare a party."

You don't understand what I'm saying. The American people will be susceptible to it if we DON'T have someone like Clark up there. If we do, they won't be. And Clark is absolutely the best equipped to bring the battle to Bush. He has the most credibility and the highest intelligence to do so. And I'm thankful that he's smart and strategic enough not to declare a party until the opportune time, rather than giving into the shouts from Democrats. We need a candidate who has the strength and credibility to beat Bush, not some tiny, loud and unlikeable liberal from the northeast.

"'It negates Rove's entire argument"

"Wrong. You are making the flawed assumption that because this guy was a high ranking military commander he will do well with DOMESTIC national security concerns as a CIVILIAN dealing with POLITICS in a DEMOCRACY."

I'm not talking about domestic issues. We have the advantage on the domestic front, and regardless of the Democratic candidate, that will not be our problem. Rove's argument has nothing to do with domesitc concerns, it has to do with national security, and Clark DOES completely negate that entire argument.

"The republicans are not fools. Any guy off the street can see the ploy you are trying to play and Rove will have a field day with it. "Oh look the democrats are conceeding they are weak on national security and now are trying to run a general to convince us..."

I would rather them say "The Democrats are responding to their perceived weakness on national security by nominating a general" than "the Democrats are responding to their perceived weakness on national security by ignoring it completely and nominating someone with no national security experience whatsoever."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

call me a fool and a dimwit, too. Oh yeah, and stupid too.

National Security is not a fictious talking point. Like it or not it is a real issue for many people.

MzPip
:dem:

That hardly makes it so. A well-conducted propaganda campaign can make ANYTHING a "real issue for many people."

Did you see Bill Moyers last night? Have you ever read what Chomsky has written about how the Cold War really worked? All of this stuff has its origins in the deliberate hyping or outright invention of largely-fictional external threats. The military-industrial complex is as big as it us, NOT to "protect us" from real danger. Rather, it's because there is a ton of money in it -- and the appearance of external threats is created by interested parties, simply to justify the enormous expenditures.

"National Security" is indeed a fiction, when the US has 10 times the defense budget of the rest of the world combined, & stockpiles of every conceivable weapon sufficient to last 10 doomsdays. Who is going to attack the US? We don't need any more attention to imaginary & over-hyped external "threats" - we need people courageous enough to say that, "Look, these threats doen't really exist: they've been deliberately exaggerated for decades."

"Like it or not it is a real issue for many people" --
"That hardly makes it so."

It does, in a democracy, at least until someone can convince the many otherwise. Or convince enough people to outvote the people who aren't convinced.

I don't want to debate the goodness of Chomsky with you--although I will say that he contributes much more to the debate than many on the right--but, for better or worse, most Americans don't read him and I'd say the plurality who do think his position has major difficulties. Or, worse, they may agree with him on many of the facts but don't find his solutions compelling because they are unable to hook up with other deeply held commitments.

"'National Security' is indeed a fiction, when the US has 10 times the defense budget of the rest of the world combined, & stockpiles of every conceivable weapon sufficient to last 10 doomsdays. Who is going to attack the US?"

Well, certainly no state is going to attack the U.S., which why the BushCo/Rummy way of thinking it completely moronic. But Sept. 11 did happen, and it wasn't 100% "blowback." And even if it *was*, Americans would rather not die to pay for the sins of their fathers. As a progressive living in American, for the sake of my own security and that of the average American, I'd rather make friends with other states--especially liberal democratic ones--try to get them to defuse and stop anti-American terrorists, and not get killed by whatever fanatics that past American stupidity.

As long as many people think national security is a problem, it's unlikely that you'll change the current policy direction simply by saying "well, you've all been completely, fooled; it really isn't a problem at all." People don't like being told their idiots. You're much more likely to win democratic assent (and you sound reasonable, from an epistemological POV) if you say "you've been deceived to some extent--as you intuit, there's a problem, but neither it nor the solution have been presented to you honestly. Here's an alternative."

In my opinion, that's why any credible Dem candidate has to provide a constructive alternative national security solution and be able to articulate it clearly and convincingly and that's exactly what Clark can do.

is nicer. I hereby hire you as my speechwriter.

Ahem. ** clears throat **

"My Fellow Americans,

You've been deceived to some extent--as you intuit, there's a (Security) problem, but neither it nor the solution have been presented to you honestly. Here's an alternative.... (** polite applause **)

The military-industrial complex is huge, not really because the external threats facing our country are huge, but because the money flows involved are huge. It has been necessary to overhype the threats, so as to gain the desired funding for weapons systems that are not really necessary, may often not really work, & are horribly cost-ineffective.

In a word, there is & has been for decades a staggering waste in this entire section of the economy. Our response to this shall be to CUT DOWN on waste, eliminate unnecessary weapons systems, introduce serious & stringent cost controls, & dedicate ourselves henceforth to an openness about policy that will NEVER AGAIN allow external threats to be hyped or exaggerated politically.

My friends, we could soon save HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of hard-earned taxpayer funds, in this fashion. We could redirect those funds towards improvement of US infrastructure, affordable housing, universal health care (like Canada or other civilized nations have), educational improvements, & other projects that make ALL of our lives better, rather than funneling it all to GOP cronies who are in cahootz with Pentagon & Congressional insiders. THAT is what we are going to do, in my administration..." (** stunned silence, followed by thunderous applause **)

Is THAT the message General Clark will be bringing to the discussion? Somehow, I don't think so.

"Is THAT the message General Clark will be bringing to the discussion?"

Recall that Clark was an ally of the Clinton Administration and its shrinking of the armed forces and that he supports the transformation of the U.S. military into a lighter military, more suited to anti-terrorism, humanitarian, constabulary, and peacekeeping missions than to the next big tank battle in Eastern Europe.

His recipe for fighting the "war" on terror is as follows:

"As the president himself has warned, the struggle against terror requires far more than exclusively military actions. Indeed, as time goes on, the most important aspect of the war may be in law enforcement and judicial activities. Much of the terrorist network draws support and resources from within countries friendly or allied with us. Terrorists residing in Western Europe planned the September 11 attack, and the greatest concentration of their "sleeper cells" outside the Middle East is probably in Europe. Yet this is a threat that the American military can do little to combat. What we really need is closer alignment of our police and judicial activities with our friends and allies: greater cooperation in joint police investigations, sharing of evidence, harmonious evidentiary standards and procedures, as well as common definitions of crimes associated with terrorism. Through greater legal, judicial, and police coordination, we need to make the international environment more seamless for us than it is for the international terrorists we seek."

No, it's not quite anarchistic like Chomsky, but it does provide the platform for an effective critique of the current direction.

Also, remember which president *originally* warned about "military-industrial complex"...

"Trying to move people away from Clark is the absolute worst thing any Democrat could do at this point."

Hear, hear. Every sane person in America agrees with the Dem position but we can't win in part because we destroy ourselves.

The arguments made by some of the Dean supporters on this board are way too charged emotionally. We need to stop being hysterical and start being rational.

If we have a brain in our heads, we are all going to choose our candidate based on: who is the most progessive, can beat Bush and can withstand the neocon machine which will crank up with fervor if we do defeat Bush because it will spend the entire Demo presidency (and any obscene amount of money needed) trying to effectuate a coup to get back in power.

Dean is not electable. The right wing nuts will eat him alive.

Clark has never fundraised in his life.
Kucinich is a poor fundraiser.
Kerry has to go to DLC big corporations for his funds
Dean out raised both of them in Q2 and is the only candidate *gaining* support.


Dean Raises $7.5 Million in Second Quarter
In the second quarter ending yesterday, 59,000 Americans donated an average of $112 to help boost Governor Howard Dean to the top of the second quarter fundraisers with a total of $7.5 million raised.

Unlike the small, exclusive multi-million dollar fundraisers held in major cities by President Bush over the last week, the Dean campaign saw its numbers surge based on small donations over the Internet—with nearly $3 million raised online in the last week alone. In the second quarter, 45,030 people donated online a total of 51,474 times. The average donation online was $74.14.

“When we said last week during the governor’s announcement that ‘You have the power,’ we had no idea just how much power our supporters had,” said Campaign Manager Joe Trippi. “They are people participating directly in their democracy, and doing whatever they can to help us take our country back—giving $20, $30, or $50. This is People-Powered Howard.”

Second quarter fundraising by the numbers:

Total raised in second quarter: $7,500,000 Total donors (2003 to date): 70,000
Average contribution: $112

First time donors in second quarter: 48,000

Levels of Internet Giving:
Less than $50: 18,422
$50 -- 99: 11,579
$100 -- $249: 11,436
$250 -- $499: 2,379
$500 -- $1,000: 368
$1,000 and up: 129
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000584.html

those of us who have not made up our minds are not giving anyone any money yet. We have some time.

You also have to remember my generation brought you the McCarthy and McGovern disasters. We can't get jazzed about doing THAT again.

(If Bush really does discover WMD, and I don't think he will, but if he does? Dean is gone.)

....but he said that there were already WMD that could be used vertually in "minutes"; there was no mention of "finding the WMD
some day." According to the Bush gang, Saddam Hussein was already armed and ready to go. We found out that the Bush Administration is just simply full of crap. Even if they find WMD, that will not make Bush an honest guy. I'm a Dean supporter, which is my right; and he stands for nearly everything that I believe in, but that does not mean that I'm anti-Clark. If Clark declares himself as a democrat, and gets the nomination, I will vote for him. This country loves the military, and for that reason, Clark would be a good war president, but,there are so many other issues besides international issues.

...in the very same manner that the democrats are being asked to support Bushies judicial nominations. If the man wants to run for office, he should have a clear history of statements, decisions and opinion from which we can derive his positions on issues that matter to us.

I'm keeping an open mind. I'd suggest we all do the same. <wink>

So much anger -why?
I will repeat this again - Clark is a Democrat and will run as a Democrat.
The Clark websites listed in this first post were started by people who want to draft him; he's not affiliated with them in any way and hasn't given them statements. They've done this on their own. IF you give a damn at all - go to www.wesleyclark.blogspot.com, www.leadershipforamerica.org, read the article in Esquire, read his books. Your research is lacking.
I admit it - I want someone who will beat chimpy - I'm not stuck on one candidate. That's why I will consider Clark as the Democratic candidate. In order for that to happen though, he has to announce. When he actually starts speaking about the issues this conversation can continue but until then, your argument is not credible.

that I had not processed. This board tends to go way to heavy on St. Clark.....The fact he has not declared his party or actually decided to run are the 2 lead points..It's a mute issue until these points have been addressed by Clark.

Clark has good credentials but no real actual political experience beyond the much under rated military rank hiearchy gauntlet.

I say wait until the man makes his position known.

What anger?

I am concerned that Bush is defeated in 04.

"Read his books" "read the article in Esquire"

I'm sure most americans are going to do that.

If he declares his candidacy all of this isn't going to magically change over nite. Americans aren't going to go "read his books". This close to election IF he is even slightly seriously considering running he should have made his positions known.

I suppose I wont stay long: since it has been my personal policy to NOT lambaste Democratic candidates, even if I do not support those candidates ....

I would agree: ... Clark's info is limited to his biography, which, although it provides a gleaming picture of a successful and gifting intellectual, as well as a citizen who was willing to PERSONALLY sacrifice his own life for his fellow citizens, .... Other than that: Clark's websites have little to say about domestic policies ....

Only bits and pieces have filtered through his discussions with media outlets ...... He IS Pro-Choice, Pro-Environment, and he CERTAINLY declared his disdain for Bush's little PNAC-inspired hatefest ....

He is AGAINST the GOP Tax formula ... ALL for the rich and NONE for the poor ... He is for strengthening Medicare and Social Security, and would have NEVER supported Bush and the GOP's RAPE of the US National Trust .....

You know ? .... there ISNT much to go with ... granted: ..... but what HAS been reported, has been SOLIDLY progressive ..... These 'facts', coupled with the facts that Clark himself is a man of unequalled success as a student of the world: .. a true renaissance man .... a man of excellent learning ...

Clark, by what IS known of him .... is almost unparalleled : as a man of letters, as a man of with an extensive knowledge of diplomatic and military matters, and as a man of unusual sophistication, with the sensitivity to recognize the needs of others less fortunate .....

The MORE I hear of Wesley Clark .... the MORE I like him ....

On your behalf: ... I will continue to look for his bad side .... Ill let you know when I see one ......


Trek ? .... I must admit: ... I havent recognized your name much until now ..... You have been behind the other 'Flame Clark' threads as well .... it is your right to discuss any subject matter you wish, of course, but one MIGHT wonder: ....

WHY spend so much time denigrating a candidate when one COULD spend that time supporting ANOTHER candidate ? ....

You are 'going negative' with fellow democrats ..... why ? ....

Why NOT just support you OWN candidate and let the chips fall where they may next spring ? .....

He hasn't declared and hasn't even SAID whether he's a Democrat.

almost moved me to tears. I could never have expressed the qualities of Clark that we Clark-supporters have latched onto the way you have. Thank you so much.

<<Clark, by what IS known of him .... is almost unparalleled : as a man of letters, as a man of with an extensive knowledge of diplomatic and military matters, and as a man of unusual sophistication, with the sensitivity to recognize the needs of others less fortunate .....>>

Truly wonderful. <sniff>

"Let's say though that this gimmick works. Clark is seen as the best national security candidate by all. "

The "NATIONAL SECURITY CANDIDATE".....jesus, as far as I can tell, if Clark runs as a dem, then that tells me that the dems are simply reacting in fear -- with a mindset that what BUSH has offered actually has credibility. That America is AT WAR! We must have a strong WAR candidate. And it just isn't true. If Clark runs as a dem and gets a lot of popular support, the only way I can rationalize it is that there are a lot of people who just BUY into the idea that the repukes ACTUALLY have legitimate power. But they don't. a FEW repukes have hijacked this country just like Atta did.

And we need to dispel the MYTH of repuke power and get down to business of repairing our reputation in the international arena and focusing on our domestic problems. Only a dem can do that.......and it ain't a guy named Clark. I am sure he could care less about ANY of the other issues outside of national security.

and, IMO, the reason he won't declare a party is simply because he is taking BIDS and negotiating policy with the monied of each party. When he gets the BEST deal with either the repubs or the dems, I am SURE he will then come out with his platform. They will let him know. And then he will let us know.

DagMarK, if you're argument is that we should just try to convince the American people that Democrats are strong on national security after all, and not worry about actually having a candidate that backs that statement up, then I don't think you'll win much support. It's time to face facts: we're not gonna win the argument unless we walk the walk. And the current walk of the Democratic part isn't good enough, not by a long shot. The polls make this painfully obvious. The economy is wrapped up for Dems in '04, it's national security that will be our potential downfall. And our dramatic, ideological musings about making Americans "see the light" about Bush's history on national secuity are nice, but they're simply not going to work. We have to run on our own merit, not by criticising Bush. If we don't, we'll find ourselves in February of '04, looking forward to another 4 years of Bush, still desperately trying to be heard about how awful his foreign policy is and how "unafraid" we are of his advantage on national security.

And Clark is NOT taking bids from both parties. What kind of nonsense is that? The Republicans are, obviously, behind President Bush, and are not looking for another candidate. Clark has not spoken at any Republican events. He has openly said that they won't have him. The resent a military man with the audacity to be a Democrat.

may be out in 04.

"behind President Bush"

They sure are. Guess who would be a great VP to replace Chaney on the Bush ticket?

If you're trying to paint Clark as a Republican, good luck. No one will believe you, because he's so obviously not. How on earth could anyone actually try to suggest that Bush would want a liberal as his running mate. Clark would be the WORST VP choice in the history of America for Bush. He was opposed to his war, opposed to his tax cuts, opposed to his health care policy, opposed to his environmental policy, and he's pro-choice. Give it a rest.

of Iraq the "greatest strategic blunder in this nation's history". Of course he's a Republican.

You really need to post a </sarcasm> tag. ;-) :evilgrin:

by not choosing a party.

Did anyone think Powell after serving under Clinton would associate him self with the criminal acts of the Bush regime? It happened. And it could happen again.

Clark could help cover the Bush mistakes exactly because he may have conflicting views from Bush. "Look everyone! I have a new running mate and everything is going to be turned 180 from here on out. Good times are ahead!"

Some people are happy to compromise principles at the thought of being VP of the United States.

It could easily be the new Bush scam. Instead of "Compassion" and "Leave no child behind" it will be some BS about redirection and the resolution of the nations problems.

I am too young to remember.

under Clinton, but this was the continuation of the elder Bush's appointment. He hardly had much regard for Clinton and was said to have argued with Albright a lot. He may have been an influential contributor to the U.S.'s reticence to do intervene in Bosnia and Rwanda, which resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths.

He also turned down Clinton's offer to be Secy of State, I think. I'm not saying Powell was disloyal or dishonorable, but it was pretty clear that he didn't agree with Clinton, and that he was a Republican. Everyone was pretty sure that if he had responded to the call to run for prez, he'd run as a moderate Repub. So I have no idea why it would surprise you that "after serving under Clinton would associate him self with the criminal acts of the Bush regime." I think that it didn't surprise a lot of people that Powell said yes to Bush II. It didn't surprise me at all. It surprises maybe a handful of people that he's still around.

Reason 1 thru 10

They see he could beat Bush.

And anything is better than Bush.

He would negate the entire wall of flag wrapped militaristic patriotic poseur fueled scorn branding Democrats as "soft" (meaning essentially queer)

Did I say he could win, easily, and that is obvious. On that basis I could support him. Anything is better than Bush.

1. I'm confident I know Clark's position on the following issues:

i) Fiscal policy: moderate Keynesianism with an emphasis on criticizing Bush's plan for its fiscal irresponsibility. That means he'd allow a moderate deficit for stimulus and to provide adequate social welfare services. Repeal of the Bush tax cuts to the upper brackets, maintain some of the cuts for the middle and lower classes. Not so different from Kerry, or to some degree Dean.

ii) Abortion: pro-choice. Standard Dem.

iii) Environment: anti-ANWR drilling. Endorses a very long-term view and the promotion of alternative energy sources. Endorses Kyoto.

iv) Gays in the military: Clark clearly said on CNN that he does NOT support "Don't ask, don't tell." However, what he also doesn't support is a solution that is imposed from the outside of the military. This is sensible--it's like the difference between judges who strike down a law as unconstitutional and then rewrite the entire law themselves and judges who strike down the law as unconstitutional, but tell the legislature to go back and try to rewrite the law again. The latter solution is often better for compliance. I think your statement that he doesn't respect gays as equals is just plain wrong.

v) Trade. Fair/open trade. I.E. Free trade with non-punitive global labor and environment standards.

2. Foreign policy: I think you may underestimate how strong he is. To us on the left, we *know* Bush foreign policy is awful. But just saying so isn't enough for swing voters and hawkish Dems, nevermind moderate Republicans. Take my moderate Repub roommate for example (please! heh). He says thinks Bush is a liar and didn't believe anything he said on the war. But when I asked him "so are you going to vote for the Dems in 04?" he said, "well, I'll vote for the Dems as soon as they can offer something on foreign policy. Right now they're not offering anything, which is even worse than Bush." The deal is, Clark offers *something*, concrete and in a big way. His critique of Bush's foreign policy has been consistent, realistic, and grounded from the beginning. He has criticized the war in a manner that cannot be easily attacked as soft on defense or naive. He hasn't shifted his positions radically because, most importantly, he's been to a great degree right.

More importantly, beyond just beating Bush (even if that seems like more than enough right now), I think Clark's the candidate who will be most likely to pull the nation back into its multilateral commitments in the face of a GOP congress, because he has enough credibility to endorse a form of muscular multilateralism that will be difficult for the other candidates to do, even Graham. Compare this with Clinton, as superior as he was to Bush, who just didn't have this kind of leverage at all, and who now readily admits that his Admin got seriously bullied by the GOP congress and opposition on these sorts of issues, which is why he couldn't respond to Rwanda effectively or push harder on the ICC or Kyoto.

3. SACEUR is political experience. Pulling yourself up through the military hierarchy for 20 years is political experience. Clark wasn't perfect--his getting dumped as SACEUR a few months early after winning a war without suffering a single combat casualty was definitely a political defeat and I think he's learned from that. SACEUR also, BTW, provides Clark with more executive experience than anyone in the field besides Dean.

And I'd have to agree with those who say that no one can have enough resume to be POTUS, not even the VP.

Or do you mean no campaign experience? Well, I'd say having that *touch*, that "je ne sais quoi" can make up for this in spades. And his Draft movement shows he has touch. Good advisors are also critical. Dubya ran for, what, gov of Texas once? Also having good advisors is very important, but we can't know about that until he actually chooses them. Touch and advisors, as we learned from Clinton, are so key for campaigning--the Big Dog certainly didn't win on resume.

In any case, I think if you ask conservative commentators or Rove, they are *not* salivating over Wes Clark running. In fact, I'd bet that they're damned scared. They know that unless the economy seriously picks up, they'll have to run on foreign policy quite hard. And even if the economy does recover (I'm going to assume moderately), they'd rather have someone they can label a northern radical liberal. That's not an easy label to stick to Clark, even if he runs on a very progressive platform.

4. "He won't even declare his damn party. This suggests to me he is an opportunist."

I have a serious question for you and everyone else who levels the critique: do you want a progressive president? Do you want to beat Bush?

If your answers are yes and yes, then why the heck do you object to Clark's tactics of trying to squeeze out every independent and moderate Republican voter that he possibly can? This is opportunism only insofar as it means maximizing votes in a fully legitimate manner.

Clark is a progressive and he will declare as a Democrat. His son has said so. He has only been in contact with Democrats--including Clinton. He has only previously participated in politics (or considered doing so) as a Dem. I will lay massive odds against him declaring as anything else, if you want to bet on it. There's probably tens of thousands of Draft Clarkers who'd also take you up on that as well.

He considers himself an independent, which is true--he hasn't previously been involved in partisan politics. It's his schtick and his comparative advantage. And it's no more nor less legitimate or opportunistic than any other exercise in political marketing and self-labelling--whether it's "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" or "I'm concerned about the far-left taking over" or whatever--which is necessary to promote one's ideals in a mass democracy. But his ideals are closest to those of the Democratic Party.

I hope that's enough for now...

i-iii are everything you would expect from someone running on the dem ticket should he do so.

As for iv
"However, what he also doesn't support is a solution that is imposed from the outside of the military."

He is running to be commander in chief. IF he is going to be commander and chief HE will have to personally get involved in this issue. There is no "Uh well I'll let the military internally decide". It doesn't work that way. This country is not run by the military. It is directed by civilians who make the calls. If he TRULY considered gays as equals he would have said "yes, I support gays in the military" Not this pansy "uh well they can decide" answer.

As far as domestic issues i-iv is all you can provide. Not surprising.

"Pulling yourself up through the military hierarchy for 20 years is political experience"

I will not even humor this argument. You know as well as I military "politics" and civilian american politics are two very different animals. By this logic just about everyone has "political" experience of some kind. Oh you're a manager of a store? You must have "political" experience getting promoted from cashier.

"his Draft movement shows he has touch"

Arnold has a draft movement too.

"He considers himself an independent, which is true--he hasn't previously been involved in partisan politics."

And yet some people see him as a serious candidate for president of the united states.

I will not debate the foreign issues with you, as I never said he would not be able to deal with foreign matters. That could work out well for him.

God help him though when he runs domestically for president of the united states with no prior political experience.

"i-iii are everything you would expect from someone running on the dem ticket should he do so."

And your problem is? Clearly, that undercuts at least one of your major points against him. If we progs/Dems already know what we stand for, then the most important thing is to get someone who *both* stands for these positions solidly AND can convince a majority of Americans (or their Electoral College equivalent) to vote for it. And you've already admitted that he's a good speaker.

"IF he is going to be commander and chief HE will have to personally get involved in this issue. There is no "Uh well I'll let the military internally decide". It doesn't work that way. This country is not run by the military."

But the military is run by the military, at least on the level of implementation. As I said, this is a difference of style, just as it is in judicial ruling, and in this case, pushing hard for internal change is better than trying to impose the solution and timeline externally. Go read the Rand report on the other NATO countries who integrated gays into their militaries--it certainly worked, but in most cases, the civilian gov't didn't just drop the policy on the military. Clark is very careful (I'll agree with you on this one--too careful sometimes) about criticizing internal military calls until he literally has as much info as possible. Considering the kind of rash civilian oversight we've had of the military lately, this wouldn't be a bad change.

"As far as domestic issues i-iv is all you can provide."

Actually, I listed 5 issues. No offense, my friend, but I'm not going to do all of your work for you.

E: "He considers himself an independent, which is true--he hasn't previously been involved in partisan politics."

T: "And yet some people see him as a serious candidate for president of the united states."

The nature of the position of POTUS (very strong executive branch with an entirely appointed cabinet; loose ) means that a lack of direct experience in partisan politics isn't at all the kind of liability you think it is. The genius of the American system is that all 3 branches are highly distinct from one another--the legislative and the exec definitely interact, but there is little that could prepare you for that, especially when you consider the issue of scale. Again, I point to his executive experience as SACEUR, which, with all due respect, has much, much more in common with running a small state than it does with running a business.

"Arnold has a draft movement too."

Please. Does Arnold have the 3rd most political MeetUp participants overall (just behind Kerry)? If he (I mean Clark)doesn't do it for you, fair enough. But there's a lot of Dems and Independents for whom he seems to be a good candidate, and you're better off trying to take them seriously. Prima facie, Clark as a candidate is at least in the top half of the declared candidates in terms of electability. Issues may be a different matter, but I feel my politics place me close to the Wellstone part of Democratic Party and I like what I see...and neither the tone nor the substance of your arguments are doing much to make me substitute anyone else...

<<SACEUR also, BTW, provides Clark with more executive experience than anyone in the field besides Dean.>>

You did mean Graham, didn't you?

Darn, I keep forgetting about Graham...just like everyone else. :eyes:

Seriously, Graham's a really good guy, but he really seems to have trouble generating energy and attention, even with the Sept. 11 report...maybe he'll get better, though...

Because the issue of "National Security" with Americans re: Rethugs is all psychological. Clark takes this Ace away from the * Cabal.

I agree with you that he's not qualified to be Prez.

I tend to put Clark at the bottom of the three candidates I support for president (behind Kerry and Graham). However, I think that he is such a talented debator and would make a terrific VP. I think that whomever is the nominee (and I really think it should be Kerry), they should consider Clark.

People were crying about Dean not having foreign relation experience and how he would be slaughtered because of it. Now those same people support running Clark who has never ran a campaign, NEVER held elected office before.

in a democracy, being head of state is not the same as being head of an army. generals don't have to listen to dissent, but a politician does. generals are basically given a blank check to accomplish their mission (just look at the pentagon budget), whereas politicians have to deal with hard fiscal realities. generals don't have to deal with the press the way politicians do. generals don't have to win the votes of masses of people.

in short, the skills that it takes to be a good politician are different from the skills required to be a good general. Clark has never run for office, nor has he campaigned for anyone else. Clark is no more qualified to be president than Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.

This is another uninformed argument. Clark had to deal with dissent ad nauseum during the Kosovo campaign. There were a huge amount of countries with their own agendas, and their own assumptions, and they all had to compromise and agree on virtually every decision that was made during the war. And Clark met witht he press over and over again, until he looked completely exhausted. I can almost guarantee you that, before either Howard Dean or Wesley Clark entertained running for president, Clark had spent a helluva lot more time with the press than Dean. I think the NATO Supreme Allied Commander would have more experience witht he press than the governor of Vermont.

And regarding Dean's lack of foreign policy experience as opposed to Clark's lack of domestic experience, they aren't comparable, because Clark's lack of experience in that regard isn't nearly as disproportionately small as Dean's lack of experience in foreign affairs. Clark, while not wearing a suit and tie for the past decade, has a wealth of domestic knowledge and experience. He just hasn't been a politician. Dean, on the other hand, has a grand total of ZERO experience in foreign affairs. And Democrats inherently have the advantage domestically. So someone with no experience in foreign affairs is going to hurt more than someone who hasn't directly dealt with domestic policy on Capitol Hill.

BIG sticking point for me...along with the fact that he HASN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED WHETHER HE WOULD RUN. How people can overlook these two points is astounding to me.

Just an issue of strategy. He's trying to bring in people from all parties before he announces, and he wouldn't be able to do that if he appeared partisan. I think he'll announce around Labor Day, and that's when he'll confirm that he's a Democrat.

when you consider which war it was that Clark won. Namely, Kosovo

Clark victoriously oversaw the first NATO-led war in history. That means that he faced dissent at both the broader strategic and narrower tactical levels. He literally had to get the approval of all 17 other NATO nations for EVERY target that coalition forces hit.

No other American general has had to run a war that presented such a complex political and diplomatic challenge. The closest that you could come to this would be WWII, and there, you could lean on military and existential exigency in a way you couldn't with Kosovo.

And as for dealing with the press, you'll notice that he was on TV almost every day during the Kosovo conflict. His military superiors in fact got upset at him because they thought he was too open and gave too many press conferences and interviews.

"the skills that it takes to be a good politician are different from the skills required to be a good general. Clark has never run for office, nor has he campaigned for anyone else."

You're right and I think Clark would agree with the above. But those who support Clark believe that he ALSO has the skills that would make him a good politician.

And you're also right that "Clark is no more qualified to be president than Ralph Nader or Ross Perot," but not exactly for the reason you think. In a democracy, no one is *qualified* to be president, because presidents are elected, not hired.

We think that Clark stands for the right principles, that his background demonstrates that he'd be a reliable, accountable, and informed president, and that he could win the next election against Bush. What more do you need?

NOT FOR PRESIDENT - a person like this might make a good Sec. of Def.

I don't see as much of a problem with Clark for VP on the democratic ticket. Running him as president though would be a great way to give Bush another 4 years.

Running Clark in '04 is the ONLY way to PREVENT another 4 years of Bush. What an odd thing to say. Anyone who says otherwise has no political insight.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyone in their right mind would see how obvious this point is. Why is it absurd for me to think I have the right to say one thing, and not absurd for you to think you have the right to say otherwise? It isn't pompous to say he has a great chance of winning. Almost everyone agrees on that. Most of the argument aren't whether he could win, it's whether he should win. You're the first person I've ever heard try to dispute whether he could win. It just seems like a really bizaare argument, I can't imagine what it would be based on.

-Running Clark in '04 is the ONLY way to PREVENT another 4 years of Bush.

-Anyone who says otherwise has no political insight.

-Anyone in their right mind would see how obvious this point is.

Do you notice something about these declarations? You are stating what can at best be your own personal opinion, but you are not only stating it as though it were God's Own Truth delivered from On High, you are informing anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion that they are "not in their right mind." Doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? - It's your way, or the highway.

Bush himself talks like that: "You're either with us, or against us."

People who offer their personal opinions in such overbearing & declarative fashion are just trying to bully their way to victory. They are not trying to support their position with solid argument & reason; they are simply trying to get their way.

Are no less overbearing than your own. I was under the impression that when you say something, it's inherent that they're your own opinions, not God on High's. If I was wrong, let me make it clear now: They're my opinions, no one else's.

personal attacks, Rich.

Peace.

...but it's certainly not nonsense. Many people are now of the opinion, and I'm one of them, that the only way that Bush will be unseated will be to select someone other than one of the present nine to be the Democratic candidate. I'm hopeful that that someone will be Gen. Wesley Clark.

national security. Smirk's stewardship over the economy has been so inept, no candidate including Clark could possibly be worse in the public mind. Also, everybody knows that the president relys on expert advisors when it comes to economic issues. Surely a VP like Graham can provide domestic policy gravitas to a Clark ticket.

Oops! I forgot. You don't like Graham either. :eyes:

NOVAK: General, you have said that you don't like the tax cuts. Would you increase taxes above the Bush level for everybody in America, every couple in America that makes over $100,000 a year?

CLARK: Well, I'd have to look at the exact -- where we are in the economy at that point. Then we'd start at the top and work down, until we can get enough revenues to make it a sensible, responsible fiscal position.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/01/cf.00.html

Also, I wish people would stop criticizing him for not declaring he is a Democrat "yet" (as he said) on Crossfire. I am sure he has his reasons, and I am sure they are sound.

"Also, I wish people would stop criticizing him for not declaring he is a Democrat "yet" (as he said) on Crossfire. I am sure he has his reasons, and I am sure they are sound."

It's clearly to maximize his share of independents and GOPers for the general election and to innoculate himself from the standard SCLM labels that they're just ready to stick on all Democrats--and to allow his critiques of BushCo's awful foreign policy to go through without getting stuck with the "partisan" label.

It really is hard to see why Dems would oppose Clark maximizing his electability in the general elections and minimizing the amount of damage that the right wing spin machine can do to him? He already knows he should have much of the base locked up. This is a completely legitimate and intelligent strategy.

OK--one possible answer: because you support someone else and you think it's "dirty pool" to do this. Well, I'd have to say that as far as primary tactics go, it's pretty benign. It's not nearly as bad as going negative against other candidates in your own party. Notice that Clark has *only* spoken in positive terms about the declared Dem candidates. Buchanan invited him to attack Gov. Dean and he only had praise for him. When Hannity tried to bash the Dem candidates for "politicizing" uraniumgate, Clark went after Hannity, hard (unlike, ahem, a certain ex-VP candidate...).

...and you shouldn't even ask us to stop criticizing a 'non candidate' who seems afraid to say the word DEMOCRAT.

"Why would Democrats even *think* about running Clark?"

Why.........because he would

win

, that's why. And probably have some nice long "coat tails" too. Remember winning the White House is one thing, but to truely turn around the BushCo forces, Dems need to win the House and the Senate also.

Yet, they want to lecture us about being loyal dems. Whatta load.

Clark's advantages in my mind are:

1. Cross-over appeal to all demographics including white men.

2. A victory over Bush that is so sweeping that it will be theft-proof. With Dean or Kerry it would be a nail-biting repeat of 2000 at its best. NO THANK YOU!

3. Coattails that could deliver us a majority in at least one of the congressional houses.

I don't see the three advantages that we sorely need to get back control of our country with any of the other candidates. That is why I pray daily that Clark will enter the race.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9604/01/index.shtml

(TIME; April 5, 1948) . . . last week a kind of panic swept through the Democratic ranks. Suddenly Democrats everywhere began to realize that Harry Truman looked like a sure loser in November. The Southern revolt was beginning to look like a rebellion. Even the most liberal of Southern Democrats could no longer buck the bitterness engendered in the South by the President's civil-rights program.

<snip>

From all directions, a Democratic clamor went up for Ike. Nobody knew exactly what Eisenhower's views were on civil-rights, on labor problems, on Palestine. Nobody much cared. Those who now backed him thought that Ike, if he wanted to, could win the presidency in a breeze - for either party. To the disintegrated Democrats, it looked as if he might provide the leadership and the magic touch which Franklin Roosevelt had once given the party.

Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., with a hand from his brother Elliott, gave the Eisenhower band wagon a family push. Said young Franklin: "The most serious concern of the people of the U.S. is to elect as President.... a man who will not only have a united party behind him, but also will be capable of securing the unity of our country...The American people have a right to call the general back into active public service."

<snip>

Meantime, Harry Truman calmly announced that he was in the race to stay. What's more, he said, he expected to win in November.

Wesley Clark has not announced for President. The only remarks he has made addressing this question is that with people urging him to run, he feels compelled to consider it. And perhaps it pleased him that they thought he would be a good candidate. My cousin Wesley has some ego ... hell, we all do, and he is no doubt flattered by the movement to draft him for CIC. In addition, he has serious problems with what the gops have wrought in our nation ... the insecurity, the use of fear for political gain, the manipulation of the nation's economics to benefit a select few and the total waste these assholes have made of the fiscal legacy left by Bill Clinton.

Will Wesley run? I do not know. There is not even scuttlebutt about it in the family re: a decision. I know that Wesley has never ran away from a challenge but at the same time, Wesley enjoys his life and recognizes that if he made this run, successful or not, his life would change greatly and not all for the good. I think he is personally torn because of these personal and familial concerns.

Some of you are upset because he has never declared party affiliation. There are several points to keep in mind regarding that. First, as a very serious military commander, he left his politics at home and never supported either party but served both in his capacity as an Army officer. While some of the more rabid military officers may not wince at revealing right wing political leanings, they do not prosper in the Army as a result. Left wing officers would prosper even less and Wesley's career was important to him. Second, as soon as he declares a political party, his role as a neutral observer/ citizen will be gone and he will be another partisan. That is well and good if he runs. He will have to become a partisan (although he would never become partisan enough to suit some of the denizens of this board). If he chooses not to run, adopting a partisan label would harm his carefully nurtured credibility.

I do not think that Wesley is being manipulative with a Hamlet routine. I think he is carefully considering it from all directions ... pragmatically --could he win or make a difference; would the quality of life for him and his family deteriorate as a result and if so, is the piss-poor state of the nation sufficient to justify sacrificing that quality of life; how does he really feel about the issues ... many things most of us never think about are things he would not only have to have a position on, but a position that is both practical and that serves his personal principles.

Wesley's family are not Republicans. His values and mine are very similar because we came from the same family, the same area, the same time. But how does he feel about free trade? Who knows? I don't even know how I feel about it and have never been inclined to investigate the facts sufficiently to have a position. I think that is the position Wesley is in, of having to consider things that he really had not had occasion to entertain before. Not all of us ... hell, hardly ANY of us have positions on everything. Some subjects make each of us yawn and Wesley is no different from us. So there is some contemplation of uncontemplated subjects on-going.

Last, the one thing that Wesley brings to the table that the other candidates do not is the very thing that some here condemn him for. He does not have decades of ideology to defend. When one possesses strong ideology, one is compelled to defend it even when the facts don't bear it out. That is why so many politicans either have to maintain ludicrous positions OR be accused of flipflopping.

Wesley's approach, I believe, will be to try to find solutions to problems that are based on efficacy rather than ideology, that efficacy judged through the lens of what will offer the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens.

I wish to God we had a President now who made decisions based on that criteria.

to declare affiliation that hadn't occurred to me. Eases my mind a good bit, thanks.

You guys are family? And you managed not to blister a certain poster who would occasionally tear through here impugning the "progressivism" of anyone who would support the "warmonger"? Hat's off to you PB, that's some serious grace under fire.

Thanks to you both!

Bush has some Democrats crapping in their pants on defense, and some Democrats believe the Republicans will play nice if a candidate has a 'general' title.

Pro's for Clark:

--Nice Smile
--Reasonable on known issues
--foreign policy experience
--okay with interviews

Con's for Clark:

--fundraising ability: unknown
--oratory ability: unknown
--campaign talent: unknown
--ability to mobilize and organize support: unknown
--total political experiencce: Zero

So far, besides his foreign policy experience, Clark is an empty suit. He could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am interested and would like to see what he can do politically. However, giving him support is extremely premature. It is as if his foreign policy experience makes him a political colossus, as if he could say "I'm a general" (kinda like Edwards' "I'm a regular guy") and *presto*, he wins. Politics doesn't work that way.

the role of the primary process is exactly to provide answers to 4 of the 5 "Cons" you listed.

I should note that from the perspective of a major national campaign, Dean seemed to have the first 4 of the 5 cons you listed below. No one knew whether Dean's talent for any of those areas would hold up on the national stage. Everyone dismissed him early on as an unknown ex-governor from a tiny state.

Now, I think that even Dean's detractors have to agree that he has, if not fantastic, then very competitive skillz in those logistic/mass market areas and that if he won the nom, he'd at least give Bush a solid fight.

The same goes for Clark. After he declares, the primaries will provide us with sufficient time and an environment suitable to determining whether the traits and skills that Cleark has shown in other areas of public life can translate into a competitive candidate. But that doesn't mean that giving him support is "premature"--if everyone had used the same logic with respect to Dean, then he would never be where he is now. There had to be some people willing to back Dean, at least for a few months, when he wasn't a "proven" thing on the national stage.

Similarly, there are some people who do think that Clark's traits and skill will translate into a strong political competitor at the national level and we're betting with our time, effort, and money. His foreign policy experience doesn't automatically make him into a political colossus; it just gives him a big potential edge. We're hoping that he'll be able to successfully bring this edge to bear against Bush by combining it with a strong ability for campaigning and articulating the issues, which we think he has, based on his history and what we've seen of him in public life.

But the proof will be in the pudding, if and when he runs.

I'll be interested in having a civil discussion about Clark at that time. Until that time I will continue to challenge what I consider to be the unbelievable notion that someone who hasn't even SAID whether he is a Democrat is deserving of the Democratic nomination for President.

I see nothing in there that changes my opinion about this. I see excuses for WHY he wouldn't declare his political affiliation that cover his bases if he decides to continue being a political dilettante.

the most operative phrase in my post is the very first. Wesley is being ASKED to run for President by a pretty substantial number of people and he is considering it. Drafting is a process rich in history.

Unless he decides to run, he owes none of us any explaination of anything. The people that are trying to draft him are, IMO, relying on what I mentioned toward the end of my screed. It is the very lack of ideology that I personally find appealing.

Also, IMO, ideology is ALWAYS fact averse and ALWAYS contemptuous of solutions outside of its own scope.

offer your comments. Maybe you should wait to see if he runs before you opine one way or the other.

Because I am getting a little tired of seeing Westley Clark threads that deal with a guy who has NOT declared his affiliation and has NOT said he will be running and yet when Gore dropped out, all of the people who were trying to talk about drafting Gore were confined to ONE FUCKING THREAD PER DAY IN THIS FORUM!
If you want to push a candidate here (one that isn't even running and hasn't even declared a political affiliation to boot) then you can expect to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and attacks that EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE GETS ON THIS BOARD!

Thank you. :)

A team that can win

at this point, I think that a Graham/Clark ticket might be extremely effective. Graham has the years of political experience, proven electability, and domestic gravitas needed to fix Bush's mess. And Graham brings a steady courage to the race as well as absolutely no impulsive statements or actions. With Clark, I think they would be formidable.

My assessment of Wesley at the top of the ticket right now is that he would be quite risky. Not as a President. He might be the very best person for the actual job in the race but what causes me concern, as a citizen, a Democrat, and as a pragmatic political realist, is whether or not he has the political instincts to overcome his deficit in electoral experience. It is not something that I would care to gamble about. That is why, I suppose, that the primary process is so important. If he decides to run and can run the minefield of primaries and caucus(es or i?? :shrug: ) and win the nomination, then his political instinct would be proven to be quite good. If he does that and loses, as long as he didn't implode as a candidate and managed to run gracefully as well, he would be, IMO, a 2:1 favorite for VP over everyone except Graham if Graham does not win the nomination and I think in that, Graham would be favored 5/3, primarily because of Florida and his reputation for seriousness.

For one thing, his specific positions aren't known, but that's not a bad thing. He doesn't need a platform or any specific ideas until he's running, in some form, on the ticket. If he's careful with what he says now, nothing can come back to haunt him in the future.

And while Bush hasn't been the foreign policy dynamo that the Republicans like to believe, the public doesn't know any better. This is an issue where, like it or not, the Republicans are going to have an advantage. Clark has an illustrious military background. He's the only person who can truly make all of the comments about the Democrats being weak on military matters be meaningless. Kerry seems to be good on that stuff, but he's another senator. Clark's a military general. There's a huge difference, or so I would imagine, in the eyes of the public.

And how do you know he doesn't support gays? It's not a wise decision, as sad it is is, to come out gushing about gay rights. There are far too many assholes that will have a field day with that sort of thing. He's being safe.

I don't think he's necessarily an opportunist, but even if he is, why do you care so much? That seems to be part of the process. It's not like he's trying to hurt the Democrats by doing what he's doing.

And if he's not a Democrat, then he's done a hell of a job fooling people.

You are a "composed thinker," Composed Thinker. Very good points, and you got you're message across without sounding as angry as I did. Well said.

We ignore that fact at our electoral peril.

Our candidate has to establish his national security bonafides before we can talk about what Bush has done to our economy, our environment, and our civil rights.

Lying about the reasons for stirring up a powderkeg in Iraq made us much more secure. Cutting veterans benefits when we are dangerously short of troops made us much more secure. Threatening the sky marshall positions on flights made us much more secure. Not giving the states the funding they need for security made us much more secure...the list is endless.
My grandma could run against that.

Whether any of us like it or not, national security is going to be a very big issue in the next election, either because it is simply one of the things on peoples' minds or because Bonehead and Rove are going to make damned sure it stays at the forefront.

As time progresses, I am looking more and more favorably upon Bob Graham. He is very good on national security issues, is unafraid to speak the truth, is pragmatic in his solutions, and is such a solid reassuring figure that even non-stop gop demonization of him will only piss off average people.

If you combine Graham's strengths with those of Wesley Clark, you begin to see an erosion in gop strength in this area.

And we can win this issue overwhelmingly with the constant repetition of facts --Bush blew off warnings in the summer of 01 because his biggest concerns were tax cuts for his buddies and hogs-at-the-trough policies for his buddies in the oil bidness. Repeat also, Bush decided to war on Iraq within days of 9/11 despite there being no connection whatsoever. Repeat this as well: Bush is mismanaging our foreign policy, our military committments, and our national security. We are LESS safe now than in 01.

Repeat and repeat and repeat until it blasts through the fog of NASCAR, American Idol, and SHARK ATTACK or whatever they try to use as a distraction.

The RNC has already made it know that they will run on national security. If you take that away from bush, he has nothing left.

I don't enough about Clark to have an opinion on his candidacy. I've read, on this thread, varying opinions about him - some good, some not so good. But, it's sparked my curiosity.

Thanks for the thread and the questions. I'll be checking out the websites you provided.

BTW I consider myself to the left of most on this board and distrust the military more than most people. But, I'm willing to take a look at this guy's credentials and stances. It would be a long stretch to imagine him worse than some of the candidates now in the field.

Hey Bandera, you and me are coming from the same place. I think it's pretty obvious who I'm supporting. I hope you can find your way into our camp, and if not that's okay. A respectful, open mind goes a long way in my book.

Reading these posts attacking the person I support is frustrating. But, in a way, it's a good thing. As they say, 'any publicity is good publicity'. That people are talking about Clark shows that he has a lot of support, and that to those who attack him he represents a genuine threat. Those who don't have a reason to feel threatened don't attack. The only reason one would have to feel threatened is that this person could capture the nomination.

I feel pretty good about all this. :^)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

think, RichM, you might be painting with an overbroad brush rearding those of us who are much impressed. And I do not believe that coy is the accurate characterization of Clark's actions as much as a serrendipitous slur in passing. :shrug:

However, what I really, really want to address is when you wrote: "One could feel (as another poster pointed out) that choosing a general is in effect a legitimation of the false rightwing claim that national security is indeed the biggest problem we face."

I think that those individuals who believe that notion are missing the forest. Whether we like it or not, security WILL be a concern in the next cycle. It is much on the mind of many people and even if it wasn't, the pols in Bonehead's campaign will hammer it until it resonates.

Where many of us are missing the boat on this is that there is absolutely no reason to cede this issue to the gops, no matter who we run. We ignore it at our peril and IMO, we have the potential to snatch it right away from the gop. The key word in doing this is "competence."

There is no way that Bonehead and his crew of pirates can claim any competence in the area whatsoever. And no, we do not need Wesley to make this case but whoever the eventual nominee is, we need to seize this issue. John Kennedy effectively seized it from Nixon in 60 with the imaginary "missile gap" which John F. knew was nonsense but used it anyway.

In our case, seizing the issue from Bonehead will not entail anything imaginary. He has repeatedley blown it, over and over until one is left GASPING for breath at the scope of how poorly he runs things. Seriously, I am not sure this asshole could organize a trip to get beer and pizza for more people than 4.

Wesley Clark would be a great addition to the effort to dismantle the bizarro public perception that Bush does a good job in this area. Whether he should help make that case at the top of the ticket, in the 2nd spot or as a concerned and knowledgable citizen, remains to be seen.

But so far, Wesley has asked no one for shit and owes you no more than you owe him. People have come to him about this, not the other way. I remember distinctly when it started and that was how it played out. To assert that Clark somehow orchastrated it would be to assert without evidence and I really hope that the people here are better than that.

You either mislead or misunderstand. I never said anyone who doesn't support Clark has no political insight. I said that anyone who thinks nominating him would be a good way to lose the election has no political insight. And, that's absolutely true. You're continuing to be hypocritical, making rude assertions while at the same time accusing others of being "authoritarian." I don't like this kind of nonsense, especially among Democrats. But in the end, most people disagree with you, and fortunately it will be the majority that decides whether they want General Clark on the ticket.

I just hope he announces within the next month or so, so that he can lay out his plans, and all the hooey about him not announcing or not declaring a party will be put to rest. I really think that he will pick up steam faster and on a larger scale than most people are anticipating. In the interest of America, I hope I'm my predictions turn out to be correct. He'll be a wonderful candidate.

Post #31:

Running Clark in '04 is the ONLY way to PREVENT another 4 years of Bush.... Anyone who says otherwise has no political insight.

And now:

... I never said anyone who doesn't support Clark has no political insight. I said that anyone who thinks nominating him would be a good way to lose the election has no political insight.

You don't even quote yourself accurately! In #31, anyone who doesn't agree that Clark's the ONLY way to beat Bush, has "no political insight." But now, you have backtracked, & modified the original unjustifiable claim to make it sound more reasonable.

Anyone looking at these two claims would see there's a big difference between them.

Not really. I was responding to your message saying that nominating Clark was a good way to lose the election. The "only" part of the comment was exaggerated, I do think Gephardt and Kerry would have a chance, but not Dean. And please don't accuse me of misquoting myself, when you obviously misquoted me to begin with. That's a strange thing to do.

Clark was such a big defender of the military industrial complex, why did he oppose the war on Iraq??? Anybody?

"military-industrial-Congressional" complex, as we were reminded on the last "Now" w/Bill Moyers.

Got that right.


I also think Clark would help repair the military services, something almost never mentioned.

This malAdmin couldn't buy a chairman of the JCS, put an AF guy as Sec of the Army, saw Tommy Franks
break the "everybody's extended" rule to retire a month after his historic drive, Rummy and his ogres
dissed retiring Chair JCS badly, etc. And probably soon we'll see serious retention probs, absurd weapon
systems debacles, and so forth.

Funny! Cuz if he was, you'd say: "No difference!
Why would Dems want Clark? Because we don't have standing orders from Ralph, because he is qualified, because we want W out. I know your orders say Kuchinich - if he gets the nomination, he'll have my vote. But I'd be happier if Clark does .

Are we now resorting to this ridiculous argument...if you don't support my candidate you must be a green? :eyes: