Isn't Clark's lack of a legistlative record really an advantage?

All these long time governors, senators and congresspersons have waffled at some point and the RepuKKKes will exploit this. Why fight this battle if we don't have to? Furthermore, it allows the freedom to go after most of the GOP's hypocrisies without having to be able to be called on it on a tit for tat basis.

for. And most of his policy speeches were written by his advisors who tell him what to say because Clark's never been in politics before.

And he has a legislative record. The point being, I'm not sure that's a fair argument given that Dean has to be force fed foreign policy.

Why put a lot of surface to the wind?

"most of his policy speeches were written by his advisors who tell him what to say because Clark's never been in politics before"

First of all... name a candidate who doesn't have policy speeches written for them by advisors.

Second of all... can you back this theory up with facts? (It's a rhetorical question, because you can't.)

It's usually the people who go around crying about how mean everyone else is who just can't resist taking a cheap little slap at another candidate.

Hypocrisy is not pretty.

Republicans but as a Democrat I have a problem voting for someone for PRESIDENT with no record of voting as a Democrat. Please do not get me wrong, I like the guy, have nothing against him really, it is just my own nature that makes me worry over things like that. I would love to see him work as a Dem for a while just to get a feel for what he would really do. Then I would feel a lot better about my decision, either way.

and still have them, really, even though Clark is now my first choice. I don't blame anybody who does. I think the more Clark gets out in public and demonstrates his sincerity, the less this will be an issue.

That is all I need, to see him in action as a Democrat for a while. I do not think that is a horrible thing, ahh well. I really do like the guy.

Could Dennis win statewide in his own state? I don't think so and he hasn't proved otherwise. I bet Clark would win easily in Ohio. So would Edwards. Gephardt, Kerry and Dean would probably squeak by. When Kucinich proves he can win statewide in Ohio, I will follow him.

Why did you bring up Kucinich? I tried to tell you that I like Clark, this is a personal thing for me, not a bash or a slight. I never asked you to vote for Kucinich, never even mentioned him. You know what? When people really want someone to look at their candidate they do not usually start out by telling someone they are wrong for what they believe, they usually respond by giving someone another way to look at things. I think your response was uncalled for and rude and a very poor representation of your candidate but somehow I doubt you really care. From now on I will not respond to Clark threads because an honest, non bashing answer gets responded to like this. Jeeze, why can't you even take a small, innocuous response that gave you a perfect opportunity to tell someone about your candidate without having to fire back?

I agree with you completely. That's why I don't use a candidate avatar... people who have grudges against that candidate take them out on people with the candidate avatar. Childish but on DU unfortunately true.

There are rude people out there and I think it's funny when people are proud of never using "ignore" - "ignore" is like a building block of my sanity around here ;)

I am thin skinned but happen to believe that all of these arguements are very important at this time. I never mind responding to questions or even criticisms but I do not understand the rudeness although from time to time I have also blown my cork. I have never used ignore but I think that will have to change soon. Anyway, thanks. Maybe you could tell me why you are able to take Clark, without a record as a democrat, and believe him. Is it just a hunch or a vibe of truthfullness you get from him? I like so much about him and will vote for him if he gets the nomination even though I will be a little nervous about it. There is one candidate I will not vote for so see, I am not dissing him at all, just not very trusting these days.

But it's a funny thing when it comes to Clark threads, the first, second, or third response is almost always Ignored. They're sure quick, those devils.


:dem:

I will vote for Kucinich if he the nominee. BTW, I don't represent Clark. I'm just saying Dean is an unacceptable candidate and I'm for anyone else. I'm especially for someone who can beat Bush but I'm also hoping that there is someone who I could be proud to vote for. I would be proud to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

But again, I apologize.

I thought you were a Clark person, my bad with that assumption. I also feel that way about Dean. Clark has little record, Dean has a lot of his closeted away. Neither are acceptable to me really but I would vote for Clark because at least he is not trying to hide anything, but damn I wish he had a record to reflect his commitment to the party.

for Clark. But I would be proud to vote for Braun, Clark, Edwards, Gephardt, Hillary, Kerry... and have proudly voted for Dukakis,Clinton and Gore. I don't want a guy who was endorsed 8 times by the NRA. I don't want someone who trivializes the Confederate battle flag into a marketing tool. I don't want a Democrat who gives addresses at the Cato institute. I don't want someone from "that" wing of the Democratic party.

Kucinich is the rare exception. Thank god for him.

And Dean likes to keep his records private, so basically
we have to take his word on things much like Clark.

explains why Clark is harder for me to support. I KNOW Kucinich and for me that is important. Thanks. I do get the feeling that Clark is honest.

Even if ABC and Ted Koppel tell us otherwise.

He's never governed and he's never won an election.

Clark has either been told what to do, or told other people what to do since he was eighteen. He hasn't had to run for office before. He hasn't had to build a constituency before. He hasn't had to offer up or vote on legislation before. He hasn't had to lobby or bring a concensus on legislation before. He has never had to worry about balancing a state budget before. In short, no track record pales in comparison, when pitted against a man who has been a successful governor and left the state of Vermont better off after he was governor than before he took office.

they are about perception. Didn't someone post a telling quote from Marshall McLuhan around here somewhere?

If we run a really nifty ex-governor who did all sorts of great things in his 700,000 person state against the President of the United States who is allegedly involved in a "war against terrorism"(bogus as it might be), the response will be that's nice but not quite what we need at the moment.

In point of fact, what is known about Dean's record isn't quite as rosy as some would have it, but he is a pretty capable guy and if he got into office he might make some changes for the good (though nowhere near as many or as good as DU's might prefer)

Unfortunately, that "win the election" part is where it falls down.

So, we run a military guy with a non-existent political history but who is clearly much better at war and stuff than Bozo the Wonder Chimp and all those people who want a reason to throw the clown out can skip happily into the voting booth and vote Democratic because, after all, if you want someone to run a "war" get someone who won a war.

Now THAT is politics.

And that is why Clark is our best shot to win.

Dean is probably the better political leader, and clearly the more experienced, but that is not the issue here, is it? The issue is do we go with the wild card or do we stand pat and lose?

In a few weeks we'll know who gets the nomination. I will be very disappointed if Clark isn't the nominee but I'll work for whoever is. I hope you Dean guys will do the same if someone else gets the nod.

vote clark.

I was going to reply with some scathing witticisms but I think I'll just wait to see what the voters decide.

Ciao for niao

Vote Dean

"Mmmm, Vermont Maple Syrup...."

But seriously, excusing for a second the complete irrelevence of your post to the thread at hand, what if anything in Clark's past or record would lead you to believe that electing him President would lead to more war?

But hey, I like maple syrup...

I've seen a good governor from Georgia become president. I've seen a good governor fro Arkansas become president. In both cases the record did matter. It is better to have a record than not to have one.

where one can jump into with no experience and go straight to the top.

is important; running a combined European/American force structure is exactly the type of executive and foreign policy background I like to see in a President.

I have had enough of war and generals. I'll vote for the man from Vermont with a proven track record.

:eyes:

the guy is a black box and given his apparant flipping on many matters of substance, its no wonder people are nervous about him.

You can't judge a book by its cover and so far he hasn't so much content as a comic book.

(foreign policy, ran out of space) but it tells us nothing of his political beliefs. that was the basis of the analagy.

sorry it I slid that past you, it was unintentional.

its not enough to tell me how you feel, I need to see that you have acted in accordance with those convictions.

and I'm not even from Missouri.

about his positions. If you're interested in learning more about him, this interview with Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo) is a great place to start:

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000020605&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

actions speak louder than words.

there are precious few actions and more than a few would not indicate that his words were to be believed.

Al Sharpton has not held office either but he does have actions to back up the rhetoric.

In dealing with the legislative process, anyway. It's all a case-by-case situation.

I was watching the Daily Show when Clark was the guest, and he talked a little bit about the job of a general. If you think it's all run on military-precision and efficiency in the Pentagon, you're crazy. It's a buearaucracy just like any other, with all the politics, begging, and maneuvering that goes along with it. The ability to get things done in that type of environment is very, very valuable to a President.

And your post title reflects how I feel about it too. It's a double-edged sword, especially in the primaries.

Clark is in the enviable position of being able to transform himself into whatever will sell and I just can't buy that for a Presidential election.

If he were a well-known activist with a sterling record it would be a different story but he's not and there's too much questionnable baggage that can't be erased with campaign rhetoric.

This is a huge disadvantage for him.

and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee, but not much else. Presidential elections are not won on activism they are won on realism, and a sense of pragmatism. They are about building coalitions not idealogical purity. I'm also one of those DUer's who thinks the Clinton did a good job:)

I'm mostly for someone who can bring fair voting back to America. Isn't that the first step in guaranteeing democracy?

has never been a good business practice.

n/t

In the general election it's a definte advantage. In the primaries, he doesn't have a domestic record to point to.

But let's get real. In the general people do not vote based on your domestic record, Bush's record was abysmal and they effectively revised it through spin and media hype as something to be moderately proud of. Which is what all candidates do. Voters in the general want to hear about what you are going to do and why they should trust you to do it, but most of it is just "gut feeling". If you tell them you were God's gift to legislation while Gov. of the State of X, I haven't seen much evidence that they are likely to rigorously question you about it.

Clark will run on his character and his military/forgien policy experience. His main theme will be that he is uniquely qualified to deal with the war in Iraq, smart enough to deal with the economy and has the character and leadership abilities to take the country to a better place.

If you think of a military base as a small town or city, depending on its size, there are the same human needs to be organized: housing, medical care, education, food, roads, motor vehicles, physical plant, judiciary, police, fire, sanitation, etc. You have the same social issues: domestic violence, civil rights, abortion, crime, whatever.

When he was SACEUR, this reached into the hundreds of thousands of people to provide services for, so the size of a state. I doubt there is anything he doesn't already know about governing and the political wheeling and dealing that comes with the territory. He would have been before Congressional committees trying to get more schools, better housing, improved health care, supplies, all those things that go into running a municipality or state, many, many times.

So I don't agree he has no record, just not a civilian one. I have read that he was known as the "Fix-It Man" and assigned to troubled bases where morale was low and required to "fix" them, and he was considered the best at reorganizing those military bases.

:dem: