What's a harder job? SACEUR or Gov. of Vermont?

I keep hearing people here claim that Clark's biggest drawback is his lack of experience in politics.

I will posit that being the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe for NATO is a MORE political job than Governor of Vermont (or any other small, homogenous state). He dealt with 19 different countries, responsible for negotiating NATO contracts with them and managing the allied troops. It's not elected, but it SURE is political! Also, gaining the support

When the most important task in cleaning up after Bush will be to restore our lost standing in the world, that kind of experience will be invaluable.

On Domestic issues, most importantly the economy, I think Clark has pretty much agreed with Dean.

Further, I think his executive leadership experience puts him ahead of any legislator in the race.

And with this post, I officially come out of the closet as a solid Clark supporter. I have said in the past that I thought he could win, but now I'm saying he's my guy.

some people are speculating that he WILL.

I honestly don't see why somebody needs to announce for President two years before the election. In fact, I think it's one of the factors that turns people OFF to politics - the eternal election cycle we've created. I'd prefery NOBODY declare anything more than 12 months before.

Clark has plenty of time, believe me.

we HAVE to start two years ahead just for the money to run.

announced on October 3rd, 1991.

New Hampshire primary of 1992 was held on February 18th.

The 2004 New Hampshire primary is sheduled for January 27th.

About three weeks early.

So?

on edit:

Why don't you please just make your point rather than ask questions that are easily answered by using google?

why not just make your point?

the actual election because they need a lot of time to raise the money necessary to run. While they may not be official until quite late in the game, such as Clinton's 10/3/91 annoucement, I highly doubt that he did not start fundraising until then. A presidential canidate needs about a million a month or more to run. (I forget the exact number) And with Bush and his 200 million machine...There is no choice about it, any serious contender needs all the help he can get, and that means starting an annoying two years before.

The dream died in 1968. We believed then, and I believe now, that Bobby would have consolidated the gains of the New Frontier and the Great Society. The principles of the civil rights movement, women's rights, etc. would have become as deeply ingrained and embedded in our national psyche as the anti-government movement later became. Democrats cut and run then, and have been on the defensive, more or less, ever since.

How do we retrieve the dream we thought died with Bobby and make it live again? For those of us supporting Wes Clark it is already happening. And it will happen for all Americans if you will join with us in electing Wes Clark the next President of the United States.

Show me ONE thing Clark has said that gives him anything remotely resembling an RFK aura?

A remark like that will just about ensure I won't be looking further Clark than I already have. What a crock.

I'd say welcome to DU, as is my norm, but I'm beginning to think Karl Rove has cranked up one of the slickest -- not to mention most appalling -- dirty trick campaigns he's come up with yet. The plan is complete with "hot button" words and phrases so posters "sound" like Dems and liberals.

Honest, that's the only thing I can conclude from a post like this.

Eloriel

Cool it Eloriel. You're being WAY too suspicious and giving Rove more credit than he deserves. He is NOT omnicient, he is NOT as devious as you suggest, and I doubt he has an army of minions that are focusing on here right now simply because we are only 30k people out of 250+ million. That is what is called a drop in the bucket, even if only half of that million votes.

one person says something that for some reason bothers you (it seemed relatively harmless to me -- am I a Rovian stooge?), and you blame Clark?????????????? Or is it Rove you're blaming???????? Is Clark somehow 'in on it' with Rove??????????? What on earth is this post about?


Reason Dems get their asses kicked #138.

as much as I like and admire Eloriel, the idea that a single comment on a message board is a rovian plot is beyond the pale.

Eloriel; I know you're smart enough to make decisions based on facts and arguments, and NOT reject a candidate because somebody cared him to a hero of yours.

BTW... RFK is a big hero of mine, too. And I love Clark.

Even a Kucinich fan was comparing Kucinich to Robert Kennedy. If this is Rove's dirty tricks, we'll certainly win.

What exactly is an "RFK aura" anyway? What kind of speech do you have to read to get the "RFK aura"?

For one thing, the repukes were not totally evil.

Bill Clinton started very early. His official announcement was in October, 1991.

is when you REALLY announce (don't confuse the symbolic announcement, which they just do to get some extra free press) with de facto announcment (which is the FEC filing of your campaign committee details).

If you haven't filed with the SEC by now, you're way behind Clinton's 91 pace, and everyone's pace this year.

to a timeline. People keep asserting something and I'm just trying to determine the real facts.

but he started campaigning in the middle of August 1991. Like how Dean started campaigning in December 2002 but didn't officially announce his candidacy in June 2003 in Burlington.

so Dean will likely start campaigning two weeks later than Clinton did. Is that really a big deal?

First of all, I'm going to stop saying "early" when referring to when Howard Dean (and Bill Clinton) started their de facto campaigns. I'm going to say "on time," because that's the reality. (Versus "late.")

Starting on time gives the candidate far more experience honing his or her message, meeting with voters, developing themes, solidifying issues, burnishing resumes (such as recently passed and proposed legislation), and establishing key fundraising and political relationships. (In Dean's case particularly let's also add Internet-driven grassroots infrastructure. That took time.) If you start late you don't have those opportunities, you're immediately under the media microscope, and you have to be just about perfect right away. That's tough! There's no question that the months of campaigning have improved all the Democratic contenders. (Anyone watching the debates unfold over time can see that.)

If Clark were to enter this September, it's fair to point out that he'll have little or no practice time. And that's a handicap. Not necessarily an insurmountable one, but it is worth pointing out.

refer to Clinton "starting early".

But the only date I can find is his announcement on October 3rd. Does anybody have a timeline of his actual campaign activites prior to that?

I'm not doubting it... I just can't find one. I also thought there were limits to the things one could do as far as fundraising, etc., before announcing.

You can raise money with an "exploratory committee" prior to the announcement. And, in some cases, you can raise money ostensibly for another office and roll it into your presidential campaign. (Some of the Democrats did that this year.)

The official announcement doesn't mean a whole lot, actually, and may be totally separate from the official filing (to qualify for federal matching funds). And some candidates, thus far on the Republican side, don't even bother with matching funds. There are also certain filing deadlines to appear on the ballots in primary and caucus states, but those are late enough that most well-known candidates can qualify.

The governor of Vermont is about equal to the mayor of Memphis from my limited perspective, and someone will be along to correct me.

But there IS a political component which Clark hasn't experience with that Dean does--the stump speeches, the constant traveling, the campaign intricacies, etc. That can be difficult if you're not used to it and aren't surrounded by the right people.

Um, but Clark does seem to have better experience with television. Because apparently, they don't have television interviews in Vermont.

Ohhhhhhhhhh boy. I couldn't resist, I couldn't. I kid because I love!:)

Everyone knows they don't get television up in Vermont!

Also, unlike Vermont, Europe had electricity before the last decade.

(Totally joking...I really hope this doesn't start up some analogous "I'm leaving $@^@&%@& DU because of the Vermont-bashing" threads)

:eyes:

Totally joking. One day I'll start a thread about how many people really get angry here--whether people think of DU as a mudfight, or a coffeshop/lounge...

just kidding. Vermont is small, and politics are generally nicer here than in most places. The only truly nasty races I can recall were 1998 and 2000 and those were humdingers. (Gov race)

The funniest election ever in VT, took place in 1998 when a wealthy flatlander moved up from Mass and decided buy himself the republican nomination for the Senate, and run against Pat Leahy. John O'brien, a film maker from Tunbridge decided to get his friend Fred Tuttle, an old dairy farmer to run against the interloper, Jack McMullen. Fred won! So there we all were, madly pasting "Spread Fred" bumper stickers on our birkenstocks- oops,I mean volvos. In the end, Fred endorsed Pat, who went on to his fifth term in the Senate, where like Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords, he represents not only Vermonters, but all Americans, fighting the good fight against the right wing cabal now in power. The name of O'brien's film is "Man with a Plan".
I highly recommend it. Movie rental shops that carry independant films may well have it.

Vermont does boast some of the best politicians in DC. Hey, what other state's delegation voted unanimously against bushco's war? (OK, OK, there's only 3 people in the whole delegation.)

And it's not just Dean and our guys in Congress, and it's not just the present. It was Vermont's Senator Aiken who famously said about Vietnam that "We should just declare victory and get the hell out."

Vermont; we may be small, but we're feisty.

Don't you have Bernie Sanders, too?

Remember the "Green Mountain Boys," Ethan Allen, and all that? If it weren't for Vermont's rebels we might be spending pounds sterling and singing "God Save the Queen" to this very day. :-)

well I sorta like the tune to God Save the Queen better than the Star Bangled Banner.....

but I give props to Vermont... I've been there. It's beautiful. I like it.

some fabulous real estate deals. If I had to relocate, I'd seriously look there.

Julie

Being a governor Dean has had contact with the Federal Gov't and is qualified. I like Dean. He had the guts to stand virtually alone and state he was against the war in Iraq. However I like Clark better. All of the Democratic candidates can address the economic issues besetting the US. I feel only Clark ( possibly Kerry ) can take the national security/fear issue away from the pResident and that's why I think Clark is our best bet.

did Dean have to do? As far as stumping goes and giving speeches, I'm sure that if Al Sharpton can do it, Wesley K. Clark can.

I was thinking of NOW....you're right. As governor he traveled to...um, the eastern side of Vermont....to...er...the northern portion...

And, he went to Iowa a lot. That much is true.

here in AZ three times I know of (probably more)

I'm not worried about Dean's traveling skills and most of all I'm glad he's not some military person!

explain how a military background is a negative?

I see it as a positive for the following reasons:

1) Electability. National Security and Foreign Affairs are going to be HUGE issues in the next election. His experience is valuable.

2) Military does not equal militaristic. In fact, Clark is NOT militaristic at all, and we've already seen that our "civilian" presidents can get us into wars all by themselves. In fact, I think Clark would be LESS likely to get us into war.

3) The military is a HUGE portion of the national budget, and as the world's only superpower, is vitally important. What's wrong with somebody who understands it well?

Finally.... if it was the stated position of the Democratic party that the military are not welcome, we would be out of office permanently, at every level of government.

That really is like trying to get to Europe in a row boat. :-)

seriously, NH is like another world. A world filled with angry hateful people (if you are a Vermonter). If Gov Dean ventured over the border into...say...Concord for the day, he will have face an army of Yankees more deadly than anything Hitler or bin Forgotten could have thrown at him. New Hamshirites are the sworn enemies of the Vermonter---it has to do with the states looking like flipped mirror image outlines of each other or old maple syrup treaties. I forget which, but, I digress...

Being Governor of Vermont, with New York's resentment that you got away from their clutches with the start of the Revolution and New Hampshire plotting your demise to the east and, even that two ton horror show Massachusetts literally massing on your southern border is not a job for a child or someone who is insane (or, anyone from Maine or Rhode Island). Well, compared to that ordeal, being the commander of SAC Europe is a piece of sweet apple pie...


:evilgrin:
regards,
from an RI native who was formerly NH "summer people!"

Nam not to mention other places.


I'm sure he can handle the Manchester Holiday Inn.

And they each have to deal with different things. Governor of Vermont has to deal with a legislature and is directly accountable to the people, but doesn't have to deal with foreign or diplomatic policy (much--I guess Quebec and Ontario a bit). SACEUR doesn't have to deal with a potentially hostile legislature or political parties, but has many, many different countries to deal with. SACEUR also has to answer to the Joint Chiefs and the Secy of Defense.

Both of them have to balance budgets and take care of a large number of people's well-being.

Both are chief executive jobs, and so both are excellent experience for the White House. (Bob Graham also has "Governor" on his resume.) I would argue that Dean's experience is much closer to the mark, though. Supreme Allied Commanders get to issue orders, and people actually obey them (or get court marshalled). Dean's job was a little more like herding chickens, working with the state legislature, quasi-autonomous state agencies, etc. And, in that respect, it's more similar to the White House job.

But there's no question that we've had some good generals serve well as presidents, and I'm not one who discounts Clark's experience. But I certainly don't discount Dean's either.

delivers orders to troops, not to member nations. He NEGOTIATES with member nations, just like a Governor negotiates with a legislature.

scale war might break out if the gov messes up. ;)

which is why Clark had the much tougher job.

Let's not get too carried away here. Elections are unique events in a potential nominee's range of experiences. Bill Clinton certainly learned a lot from his campaigns for Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas, for example. That experience certainly can help, and it's reassuring that Dean (and many other Democrats) have had ample campaign experience.

requires fewer votes than being mayor of a medium size US city or even to the City Council of a major city like NY.

On Edit:

I was mistaken. A NYC council district is smaller than I thought. A NYC Borough President, however, requires more votes (at least in 3 of the 5 boroughs) than Governor of Vt.

being chosen SACEUR is just a lottery......


Dork, please try to present a cogent argument. Your half-sentence posts don't really serve the discussion.

To be elected requires effort: you have to have a campaign, a certain amount of money, a coherent message, and convince enough voters to vote for you. Even with only 600,000 people in Vermont, one still has to make the same effort anyone else who is running for an elected office makes. You seem to give the impression that Dean's effort was kind of lame simply because he was not incharge of 40 million people or that it did not require the same things that Clark's tenure did. There that long enough for you?

You actually made a point. congratulations.

MY point was that rising to SACEUR also requires effort. A lot of it. And one has to gain support from a wide variety of people from a variety of nations and cultures. Arguably a harder task than appealing to a racially and culturally homogenous population of 180,00.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

That is more then the 18,000 you mentioned.

I'll send you on a google-trip this time.

How many votes did Dean get in his last election?

He got more than the other guy. Your line of reasoning is ridiculous.

and try to understand what we're discussing.

Before you get insulting, try to understand the topic.

The point is Dean got 180,000 votes in his last election. It's a very simple concept.

Jiminy Crikey, the speed with which people jump to offensiveness is really impressive today.

Dwyer got 110,947 votes
Pollina got 27,756(most of these votes would of gone to Dean because Pollina was a far left candidate in the race.)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.governor.html

Elections are unique. Climbing the military (corporate) ladder is quite another experience. I think it's only fair to point out that that experience is missing from Wesley Clark's resume. Doesn't mean he can't do it and do it well, but if you're going to argue resume, you have to be honest about it.

Let's also briefly mention the fact that Dean has unique experience among Democratic contenders as a medical doctor. There's certainly an argument to be made that that experience would serve him well as a problem solver, logical thinker, and as someone with good bedside manner, not to mention knowledge of healthcare policy issues. Those skills seem awfully useful to a POTUS.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument at all about the size of the electorate. Bill Clinton got that rap because Arkansas is also a small state -- poorer than Vermont per capita, but slightly larger. And we all know that argument didn't (and doesn't) hold much (any) water.

also has a very different demographic than Vermont.

And I'm not being "dishonest" about Clark's electoral history. I don't think I ever claimed he was popularly elected to anything.

I DID say, however, that he MUST have great political skills to have risen to the position he did.

I also feel that MANY voters will take his lack of electoral experience as a POSITIVE. He's not a politican. In case you haven't noticed, politicians rank pretty low on people's favorability scales.

As for Dean being a doctor... I have mixed feelings about it. Most doctors I've known have been arrogant and often a bit quick to jump to conclusions prematurely. I'm not saying Dean has these qualities, but I think many people perceive MD's as having them.

Remember.... because I support Clark doesn't mean I don't like Dean.

handling the general civilian population.

as I've pointed out here before...

Clark did NOT just handle military people. He "handled" both civilian and military people across the entire range of NATO states. He negotiated with many civilian leaders of many countries.

then dealing with an outraged citizen who wants something for THEMSELVES. At least a head of state MIGHT realize that what they want might be detrimental to both thier country and the surrounding region.

Arkansas had two advantages that Vermont doesn't provide:

A diverse population (as in, minorities and immigrants)

and

it was southern.

Obviously you support Dean either way, and that's cool, but I'm not a fan about the Arkansas/Vermont comparison, I don't think it's a good one.

Vermont has a large gay and lesbian population, a healthy chunk of French Canadians (many of whom speak French as their primary language), and a vastly divergent population in terms of education. (Vermont has lots of Ph.D.s living right alongside people who didn't complete high school.) Burlington is reasonably urban with some big city problems -- Little Rock wouldn't be a bad comparison -- but most of the state is quite rural. The state has a big tourist industry (with a steady stream of outsiders) but also a good mix of manufacturing, agriculture, and even high tech. (IBM is the state's largest private employer.) Ideologically the state ranges from the socialist enclave in Burlington all the way to the "redneck" gun-toting conservative Northeast Kingdom (the sparsely populated counties in northeastern Vermont). Vermont is actually more ideologically diverse than Arkansas. Weather is quite different north versus south and high versus low. It's got quite a variety of terrain: mountains, forests, fields, a big river, and a very big lake. Its neighbors are all quite different: New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Quebec. Rutland is kind of gritty, Montpelier is picturesque and quiet, Stowe is a bit glamorous, St. Johnsbury is rather conservative, and Bennington is college liberal.

You should visit sometime. :-)

it's a shame the current sham doesn't know anything about negotiating. If he did, our troops might not be alone in Iraq, and we might not be shouldering the total financial burden.

either Clark or Dean would be infinitely better than the little shrubinsky.

you'll see that there's plenty of negotiating among military officers too.

Especially as commander of NATO: any subordinate officer serving from a different nation can appeal to his (or her) own political leadership and have the orders of a higher-up "red carded." This happened to Clark in a very high-profile incident involving the Pristina Airport that I'm sure oppo research will very soon drag out to use against Clark--just mentioning it so that you'll be ready for it, my friends (although Clark's certainly ready for it himself--many of the reports on it come from the version he describes in his book).

that everyone compares their candidate to Dean first and foremost. It shows who the clear front runner is, and who everyone feels they must beat.

Which I will very willingly admit.

Many of us Clarkies are deeply connected with the Internet and have the utmost respect for Dr. Dean's effort here. I certainly think he's been running a marvelous campaign so far!

I'm not sure that early frontrunners have a history of winning the nomination.

here!

Not sure there are any lessons from history here either way. Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, and arguably Clinton were all considered frontrunners, for example, and went on to win their party's nomination. And I'm not sure Dean is the frontrunner quite yet, although he's certainly doing well.

I never said they didn't, or couldn't.

my point is just that they often don't, so because a lot of us consider Dean the frontrunner now, doesn't mean he's going to win. I was responding to the gloating tenor of the message.

just pointing out the obvious, gleefully!

then I apologize if I misread it wrong. Text is a tough medium in which to transmit tone.

on edit...

misread it wrong? Is there a right way to misread something?

Yeah, wasn't trying to gloat, just (gleefully :) ) pointing out the fact that someone's always being compared to Dean.

At this point, I'm liking what I'm heaing of Clark, but am reluctant at the prospect of 'drafting' someone. I'm not thrilled with any of the other candidates, although Edwards is my second choice if something unforseen happens to Dean's campaign. If/when Clark announces he's running, I'll spend a reasonable amount of energy looking into the man to see if he fits my preferences.

I'm with you, Dookus.

It's too early and too close to declare the frontrunner, and besides, I'm not sure I'd want my candidate to be the frontrunner at this point...

don't pay any attention to history comparisons! A lot of People are trying to label Dean and it just isn't working!

put on Dean in this thread is that of "front-runner".


I didn't disagree with that assessment, either. Hell, I like Dean.

I like Clark even better, mainly because I think he's the MOST qualified person to deal with the issues we face. He also a biography that Bush can't begin to compare to.

1st in class at West Point
Rhodes Scholar (Masters in Philosophy, Economics & Politics)
Decorated Vietnam War vet (including Purple Heart)
SACEUR

Both were socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

The big difference is Dean's anti-war stance gives him an interesting wrinkle.

in my life! Thanks for that! :kick:

Arkansas already has two Democrats serving in the U.S. Senate, but the GOP holds the governorship. If Clark doesn't run for the Democratic nomination (or doesn't win), do you think Democrats could persuade him to run for the Arkansas governorship in 2006 (after serving as a senior cabinet official in a Democratic administration)? And would he win?

And then after he hit term limits as governor went on to win a senate seat 3 times.

Bob Graham.

i like Graham. I hope we have a Clark/Graham ticket.

But Graham, for all his electoral experience, has raised less money than Lyndon Larouche.

so would Clark-Kerry, Clark-Edwards, and Clark-Dean

n't

would be harder and have more responsibility than any government job save president, secretary of defense, secretary of state, and joint chief

of that General who's in command of our forces in South Korea.

while the other did nothing of the sort.

So, what's the point of your question?

And it's being discussed.

And I should remind you that only in military dictatorships to the generals decide who to bomb.

Do you think Wesley Clark decided all on his own to go to Kosovo?

As I recall Nato, the UN and the US were somehow involved.

Do you really think such simplistic statements help your side?

Didn't Dean support Clinton's war in Yugoslavia? Dean has never been in the military right? Doesn't that make him a chickenhawk? Of course, as a good Democrat, Dean will only support wars fought by Democratic presidents, I guess?

Give me a break. Dean makes a few anti-war speeches against ONE WAR as he supports all the rest, and the "peace wing" swoons.

This is typical of the difference in class between the Dean supporters, and Dean himself and Clark. While Clark actually did all the dirty work, Dean cheerleads from the sidelines, and now Dean supporters are going to attack Clark for being in the military? Yeah, remember when the GOP attacked McCleland as "unpatriotic"? Dean people have a lot of nerve.

If, God forbid, Dean actually became president, I'd love to hear the excuses when he starts a war - can't wait to see all the so-called "peace activists" telling us why their war is so holy.

Didn't Dean support Clinton's war in Yugoslavia? Dean has never been in the military right?
I don't know, but I supported Clinton's war in Yugoslavia and I too like Dean have never been in the military. Correct me If I am wrong, Isn't Kucinich your candidate? What was his position on the Yugoslavia War.

Give me a break. Dean makes a few anti-war speeches against ONE WAR as he supports all the rest, and the "peace wing" swoons.
I don't agree with that assesement the GOP gives him, he has stated many times he is not a pacifist, it just stated he didn't see the evidence and the arguments Bush made to go to war.(Iraq is a threat, Iraq=Al-Qaeda, etc.)

This is typical of the difference in class between the Dean supporters, and Dean himself and Clark. While Clark actually did all the dirty work, Dean cheerleads from the sidelines, and now Dean supporters are going to attack Clark for being in the military?
I never seen a Dean supporter attacked him for being in the military, I have never attacked him for being in the military. You should attack 80% of registered Democrats who "cheerleaded" from the sideline while Clinton and NATO were sending troops to Kosovo.

If, God forbid, Dean actually became president, I'd love to hear the excuses when he starts a war - can't wait to see all the so-called "peace activists" telling us why their war is so holy.
Not all war is the same, many wars are fought based on different reasons. Like, how many of the candidates supported Desert Storm but not the Iraq War, or how Gephardt and Kerry supported this Iraq War(or voted in favor) but not the Desert Storm conflict. Why Americans supported WWII but not Vietnam. Now from what I am reading, it seems to me that you are attacking anti-Iraq war activists for protesting the Iraq War but not the Kosovo conflict, am I wrong?

For a Dean supporter to attack Clark for doing his duty fighting a war started by a Democratic president, and supported by NATO and the UN is really beyond the pale. I mean I've attacked Dean for his pro-NAFTA and pro-corporate policies, and Dean has attacked other candidates for their votes on war, but this is a bit much.

I've marched against every war in my lifetime, most of them under Clinton. I worked for two years as a professional "peace activist" in which I raised money to lobby Congress. We never had any illusions about the politicians we were trying to pressure.

Now I'm reading the basest most transparent tripe about Dean - we have supposed adults swooning like schoolgirls over his "aura" and "magentic personality" and other such crap. Upper middle class white liberals can certainly relate to Dean, but a lot of Democrats don't.

But to listen to Dean campaign staff come on here and pimp his newly found anti-war views is more than I can stomach. Dean has run the most deceptive and superficial campaign I have ever seen, excepting Bush's.

When I first heard of Dean, I looked quite favorably on him, until I realized he was a long time DLC Democrat that was a campaigner for NAFTA and corporate trade agreements. Now that he's running for president, I've read spin on DU that makes Republican propaganda look like child's play. The amount of spin and deception is crazy.

I don't want Dean to win the primary mostly because Bush will actually win an election against Dean. And to listen to Dean supporters criticize Clark for fighting a war while pimping their chickenhawk, millionaire, Yalie, pro-corporate pro-NAFTA DLC candidate is sickening, but goes a long way explaining why the Democrats are now the minority party.

I said it before - Dean is the Ralph Nader of rich white liberals. They are willing to throw away the general election for a candidate that makes speeches they like, just like the Greens did for Nader. No thanks.

Vermont's population is 600,000. The county where Madison Wi is located has about 500,000 and it's more urban. I wonder how many counties have larger populations and more intrinsic problems than the State of Vermont?

Not to Dean-bash, but he is wide open to attack as small-time. Arkansas is southern, has huge problems and Clinton has political skills Dean could only dream of. Dean does not act like someone who has successfully faced lots of political pressure when confronted by skilled national media.

Clark acts like he's belongs when he's under pressure.

(I would sincerely guess that the Dane County, Wisconsin County Executive could handle the national media better than Dean)

even though this is my thread, I'll jump in to defend Dean.

The point of the thread was NOT to attack Dean - it was to counter the charge that he somehow has more solid or relevant experience than Clark.

I think Dean's doing a pretty good job with the media, myself. A few goofups, perhaps, but everybody does. He's gone from nowhere to near-frontrunner and that's nothing to scoff at.

the Dane County Executive is extremely talented and never seems to have to say she's sorry. I would like to see Dean do something well on TV other than give a stump speech that riles up the already converted. My biggest impression of Dean under pressure is from Meet the Press. If there something recent to counter it I would appeciate a reference so I can worry less.

his message is resonating with a lot of people, and he's delivering it personally.

I'll agree that the Meet the Press episode didn't show him in a great light. Nor a very bad light, either. But he could've been better that day.

There was something about it that got people's attention in a very big way. They found it refreshing that someone running for Prez actually told the unvarnished truth and didn't either sound like he was avoiding the question or trying to finesse it, or pander to voters.

It was a seminal moment for the campaign. Us political junkies may have winced and cringed, but thousands of people discovered Dean that morning.

Eloriel

The problem was that he was obviously trying to avoid answering questions but couldn't think of a way to do it. So you got no straight answer and no skill. I would like to like Dean, but after such a long career in politics that performance was embarassing and unlikely to improve. Dean's support does not extend beyond Democratic and Green party activists so far as I can tell, and performances like that will not expand the base.

Does the Dean website have a transcript and a video feed of the show on its site? I'd like to see it again. Also, are there any other forums where he has been perhaps unfairly cross-examined as he was on Meet the Press?

I don't think there's any such thing as an "unfair cross examination" of somebody who aspires to be the most powerful man in the world.

All our favorite candidates have to be able to withstand the most withering questioning. Bill Clinton did it.

I'd suggest that he got his money from repubs who blew a gasket when they imagined what Bush was going to do to Dean in an election after Dean's MTP performance. It makes far more sense than the idea that pro-Clark people are somehow the agents of Rove...

And Gov. Dean did it. And he carries around all that scientific knowledge and analytical capabilities in his head. He also has had a long life in politics and it is my understanding that the Vermont landscape is littered with the political corpses of Republicans who tried and failed to take him on.

He has already blown away the Democratic field with his campaigning and fundrasing abilities.

Another thing about Gov. Dean is that Democrats can trust him not to make a major gaffe in front of cameras or elsewhere.

Gen. Clark has never had that withering spotlight of the American press shining down on him. Gen. Clark pretty much stayed in the public's background with some time on the cameras as a non-partisan getting thrown softballs.

I like Gen. Clark. I think he is a wonderful, patriotic and hard working man. I think he would be best as Secretary of Defense or State.

Gen. Clark has never had that withering spotlight of the American press shining down on him. Gen. Clark pretty much stayed in the public's background with some time on the cameras as a non-partisan getting thrown softballs.

Clark had to deal with the European media during the Kosovo campaign, including Serbian reporters, and they are far harsher than anything the American press will throw at anyone. If Clark can't win, why do Dean supporters spend so much time attacking him, and why are their attacks so incredibly weak and boorish?

He has already blown away the Democratic field with his campaigning and fundrasing abilities.

He hasn't "blown away" anybody. He's still behind Kerry and Edwards and only slightly ahead of Gebhardt. According to Opensecrets.com

Another thing about Gov. Dean is that Democrats can trust him not to make a major gaffe in front of cameras or elsewhere.

That makes little sense to me. It seems Dean has already had some less-than-stellar on-air performances. And remember... I LIKE the guy. The the Meet the Press episode was embarassing.

I have never attacked his military record and I see it as a plus to counter the "democrats are weak on national defense" lie only if Clark runs as a Democrat, not as an independent with a stance on liberal issues. There jobs are pretty much different and is a plus in there own way, Vermont is the only state without a balance budget law and he balanced 11 budgets and managed to cover a majority of the population. Clark lead are troops to victory, fought in Vietnam, rose through the ranks, and became a 4 star General. The reason I think Clark is qualified because Dwight D. Eisenhower became President and he did an ok job as 1. Now, I don't know when this happened, but I am starting to see somewhat fight(not literally, just can't think of a better word to describe it. Plus I just woke up and haven't had any coffee yet) between the Dean supporters and Clark supporters and from what I know they seem to be exactly alike on the issues. I haven't seen 1 issue yet where they disagreed on.

I doubt Clark did any negotiating. That is what we have a state department for. He was in charge of positioning troops and working with Nato on deployments. It is against the law for our military to do any politicing at all. I would have to see some direct evidence that he set any policy at all.

negotiate the Dayton peace accords.

And the SACEUR does a lot more than position troops. I'm tired of doing other people's research on these threads. The info is out there. Google is your friend.

They both are pretty experienced when you consider that the position of Governor in Texas

1. Is Constitutionally subordinate to the Lt. Gov
2. The Tx Legislature meets in regular session for 140 days once every two years.
3. And I could go on and on. The Gov is pretty much a formality in this state, with the exceptions such as staying executions (hardly happened) or calling a special session (not effective if 11 senators hop across the border)

In other words, any of the 9 (or 10) Dem Prez candidates has more experience than * ever did.