Is Clark's first name "General?"

Just heard the NPR interview on the Connection show last night, with General Clark. Host said it in a humorous way, Is your first name "General". Talked of how some wanted to call him Mr. Clark(Sean Hannity).
My question is, Why is Clark taken so seriously?
It seems he is running for Secretary of Defense. Are Democrats really so desperate they think just having a general run for President ruins the Republican Party's opinion that Democrats are weak on defense?
General Eisenhower and General Washington did something great that the nation rewarded them for, what is General Clark's great achievement warranting such reward?

he is bright, has great ideas, and is well respected in this country and around the world!

The other nine declared candidates are not bright with great ideas?

They're not generals, so no one calls them 'General.'

:eyes:

My arguement is that Clark supporters keep pointing out his military career as if that is supposed to win voters over. Don't think it will.
Wondering why that is important; important to the Democratic Party.

For almost 50 years, the Democrats have been portrayed as "weak on defense". Given the facts of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the situation in Israel/Palestine and North Korea.... national defense and security WILL be major issues in the next election.

Clark can easily shread the myth that Democrats are weak on this front. Also, his experience as SACEUR will be invaluable in rebuilding our destroyed international standing.

Many centrist, independent voters will find his military experience attractive. Many progressives will find his stand on the issues attractive. He would definitely take centrist votes from Bush.

First, as I said, I think Clark might be someone to consider for Secretary of Defense.
The president needs to set an agenda for the nation, not strategy for its execution. A general is no more or less qualified than a civilian with no military experience.

First, as far as I know, we don't have a history of choosing career military people as Secretary of Defense. It's a civilian position, and it's important that it remain so.

Second, if you have researched Clark, as you state, then you realize he has masters degrees from Oxford in Politics, Economics and Philosophy.

The agenda for the nation that he has spoken about is a great one. Internationalism, progressivism, anti-war, a return to civility, acknowledgement of Enlightenment and its role in shaping our country, etc.

He also has a lot of political experience, though not elected. SACEUR is a very political position. He was also a White House fellow under Ford.

I maintain that SACEUR is a much harder, and more political, job than say Governor of Vermont.

Al Gore as vice-president had an excellent resume. Not saying Clark can't pull it off. Just not seeing how he will.

That the candidate with the inferior candidate is more likely to win?

Was there a mistake in your text?

you asserted that "resumes don't win elections" and pointed to Gore as an example.

I was asking if you thought Gore lost (sic) BECAUSE of his resume.

means exactly. Ok.
No, Gore did not lose because of his resume, I believe Gore lost because he did not fight for the average citizen. He did not tell all Americans what he wanted for the country and what its citizens should do for the country.
He lost because he was so tied to the "system" that when another machine candidate came along (Bush) he stammered. "I agree with that" he kept saying to Bush in the debate. He(Gore) thought he was inheriting the postion.

OK.. now I see it.

I meant resume. Sorry.

And I assert that Gore did NOT lose the election. It was very close, though. Close enough for Bush to steal.

My point is that a candidate has to motivate people to go out and vote. Don't want to go over last election.
Just saying that a Democrat doesn't have the media working for them(like Bush had) and needs to really fire up people to vote.
Don't see General Clark being able to do this.

Don't see General Clark being able to do this.

My own perception is that you are absolutely, completely wrong on this. Clark has so far been the closest thing to Dean in terms of grassroots appeal and voter motivation.

DTH

The average person, when they hear Clark speak, aren't thinking "Gee, this guy is just some show pony the weak on defense Dems are trotting out to hurt Glorious Leader Bush". The average person is thinking "Gee, Clark's pretty smart, and he's a Democrat. And he's right about Bush. Maybe I shouldn't vote for him again."

As long as he's not dividing the party, and he's not, he's fine with me. We can always use more articulate, charismatic speakers to puncture Bush's Bubble.

Gephardt got a pretty good jab in. Got quoted.

at the debate in Baltimore.

I'm for Dean for president, but it sure is nice to have someone like Clark on our side. Every interview I've heard him give, he's been, as you said, articulate in an easy manner, and made the points that need to be made about Bush. People respect him.

An article posted here a few days ago explained this.

Dean's against the war and an "outsider"--Clark's aginst the war and is a former SACEUR, enormous credibility on the issue. He's not a big bad Washington insider.

Kerry's a military veteran with foreign experience--Clark was in Vietnam, obviously see above.

Edwards is the hotshot southerner--Clark is southern, and more experienced.

Not to mention, he's got a master's in economics and taught it at West Point, speaks four languages, etc.

And again, another entry into the Pres. race doesn't mean he'll win. And if he does, he deserves it, right?

It just seems that everytime someone(including Clark)points out his military experience my response is, who said that's what we want from a president?
Never seemed to be a selling point for a Democrat before, why is it important now?

Which is why I'd like to see him VP.

Just throwing something out there...isn't the office of President an executive position just as SACEUR is? I see them as more similar than others, I guess.

It's not like he'll be drafting legislation.

I don't know that I disagree, I'm just not clear on what the concern actually is. What aspects would Clark be unprepared for?

that's why.

Frankly, I don't think we *need* a military guy. If I went for Clark it'd be because he had other good policies, but also this: He was against the war. For anti-war folk who don't like Dean (like me), he's an excellent alternative and has more credibility on foreign policy than any of the anti-war crew. Maybe that's what the big deal is? That he's a military guy who isn't gung-ho for the war stuffs? I dunno.

Really, though, it just comes down to whether you think people will like him. At the bottom line, that's what people vote for. Who they like.

This is why I don't buy the argument. Bush scammed out of Viet Nam, then went AWOL on alternate service. If people really cared about the military as is believed, Bush would not have been able to pull it off.
Ask veterans who are Bush voters about his defunding their benefits, they still support Bush.

I can see it now. Clark answers a question, during the Clark-Shrub debates, and Clark answers in French. Dubyas main breaker would trip.

Jay

Though he has not officially 'documented' his policy positions: every utterance of policy from him shows that he possesses good liberal credentials in the domestic sphere, and a strong internationalist position in foreign affairs ....

You should investigate him more closely ....

Perhaps we shant be calling him 'General' (I dont) much more ....

President Clark ? .....

I like it: ....

Just don't find him very compelling. Don't have to, do I?
It seems precarious to say that because his views jibe with "progressives" that he will be a good candidate/president.

Are there elections for that?

If Clark wants to run FOR PRESIDENT, why shouldn't he?

Democrats, and then general voters, will be able to reward him or not as they see fit.

The current Defense Secretary goes around telling people to shut up.
Seems to delight in insulting our allies as much as bombing our "enemies."

of course.

Also... historically, have we had many career military people as Secretary of Defense? I always thought it was SUPPOSED to be a civilian position. I know, I know... Clark is now a civilian. But it seems unlikely he'd want the job, or that it would be offered to him.

But I'd like to replace "General" with "President" in Clark's case.

A judge is called 'Judge ___________.' A Governor is called 'Governor ____________.' A general is called 'General ____________.' They earned the title.

A Governor is called 'Mayor ____________.'

Hmm, I like it. Now * isn't just "Governor Bush," but "Mayor Bush," or maybe "Mayor McCheese."

"Mayor".

:P

that's right. Note that Whitman is always called "Governor" even when EPA head, unless there was something EPA specific involved. Dean is still called "Governor."

People are usually called by the highest honorific they have attained.

Which leads me to ask how one refers to Taft, who was a circuit court judge, Secretary of War, President, law professor, and finally Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Taft himself was proudest of his Court term and said, "I don't remember that I ever was President."

Grant and Eisenhower were often called "General" during and after their Presidencies, as was Marshall when he was Secretary of State, but that probably had a lot more to do with the significance of the wars they fought than the rank they had. Should Clark become President, I suspect the "general" will fade much as Powell's has.

'tis a strawman this complaining about calling him by what he is.

Retired coaches are referred to as "Coach." It's a respectful tradition.

Let's see... first of all, he's a Rhodes scholar. He's telegenic. He's whip-smart and doesn't back down in a debate. He was CIC of NATO forces in Bosnia, which would give him a little inside knowledge on how to prosecute an anti-terror war.

And, yes. He's a decorated four-star general and Vietnam veteran. It's a selling point. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Plus, he probably knows more about Ike's famous 'military-industrial complex' than most.

Those are noble accomplishments. John Glenn went to moon, got elected to Senate.
Just not seeing the greatness of Clark. Not against him, just don't see the fascination.

Are Democrats really so desperate they think just having a general run for President ruins the Republican Party's opinion that Democrats are weak on defense?

Well, I was trying to point out that he appeals to many Democrats not only because he's a decorated four-star general and Vietnam vet, but also because he's a very smart guy who has shown courage in the face of the Rove machine.

For example, though even Al Sharpton knows he's not getting the nomination, he has worked a long time for Democratic causes and civil rights.
Not saying Clark has done nothing, just that compared to others with a record of allegience to the Democratic Party, Clark comes off a little...(not opportunistic) but a little late in the day.

It's about making the country a better place. Clark has the goods to do that -- as has been discussed ad nauseum on this message board.

And don't forget about President Grant, or Andrew Jackson, or Tippecanoe.

Thus, protocol dictates that he be addressed as General Clark, just like Senator Mondale gets to keep his title. I think retired judges also get to keep their titles of rank.

Oddly, executive branch officers, from the President of the United States down to the mailroom clerk, do not get to keep theirs, although by custom, we often still refer to the Big Dog as President Clinton (God, I miss him). Neither do former members of the House of Representatives.

All of the above are referred to as Honorable So and So, however.

I read all this somewhere. I guess 20 years as an Army staff weenie sticks to you like that.

I'm no etiquette expert, but I think Miss Manners (who is) said that Presidents always remain "Mr. (Madam) President."

Gep for VP, Kucinich for EPA, Lieberman for Ambassador to Israel, Edwards for Attorney General. It seems to me that these people are actually running for these positions. Don't blame me. It's just my opinion.

The Surgeon General has about as much authority and responsibility as *I* do. And I'm unemployed.

And people don't really relinquish senate seats for Ambassadorships.

when asked to name him before the 2000 election. It's on video tape of Bush repeating "General" over and over. It's a riot.

And his rank is 'Wesley.'

probably didn't like being called Wesley.

However, it was a macho name for the Man in Black in the Princess Bride, which was Andre the Giant's best film by the way.

anybody who can grow up in Arkansas and get through West Point with the name "Wesley" has gotta be among the toughest in the world.

>Just don't find him very compelling. Don't have to, do I?

No. You don't. But you were asking why other people did. So people are answering you. It was a serious question, right?

And thanks for your views.

So, other than "General," I'm not sure how we're expected to refer to him.

He dedicated his adult life, thus far, to the service of his country. I have no difficulty referring to Howard Dean as "Governor," in a similar light.

I dunno about General Clark. Better than General Electric, I suppose. Or General Disorder. That would be REALLY bad :)

...Which is why GW should be referred to as Governor Bush

Let's change it to "President."

Clevinger was dead. That was the basic flaw in his philosophy.

Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0822002965/ref=ase_darwinanddarwini/002-5001428-0408838?v=glance&s=books

Wow! Maybe it's not just the other side who is refusing to consider facts!
The point he was making was that Hannity was insidiously trying to cut him down. Never thought I'd see Hannity promoting on this board.

Also, GORE WON. In spite of all the media lies, a resume does count with the voters.

It is not about protocol. (or was I trying to be too clever?)
It was a question about whether General Clark is more than just a man with a military backround.

As for presidency as a reward - nope. No one gets rewarded with elective offices (except maybe in the bush family).
But I'd consider myself rewarded with a president Clark (last name Kent?:-) )

Thanks for asking.
By "reward" I was speaking figuratively. Of course Eisenhower had to run for office. He helped win the war and was "rewarded" by the voters.

Doesn't winning an election mean you are elected to the postion?
He won the popular vote. And I believe he won the Florida vote, but the official count was in Bush's favor. What is wrong with stating the literal(actual) facts?

but please note how they always refer to "Condi" as Dr. Rice and Lynn Cheney as Dr. Cheney - hilarious! Just tells me Hannity has no respect or care for the military. He would address a right wing general as general.

:-)'s