A Legitimate Question About Wesley Clark

There is no question as to General Clark's distinguished military service of 34 years. But, with a decided lack of experience in politics, why should we believe he has what it takes to lead our country?

Dean, Kerry, Gephart, Kucinich, Lieberman and Braun all have valuable political experience. Experience as a congressman, a senator or governor is valuable and cannot be ignored. This experience give voters a real resume to help form judgements.

Aside from military experience, why should Clark run for president, and not start out with a smaller step, such as congress, or a bid for governor of his home state of Arkansas?

Real foreign policy experience as defined by civilized society.

And then please list which other candidates you think don't have it and why.

Real foreign policy experience as defined by civilized society.

As opposed to uncivilized society?

See Supreme Allied Commander Europe, got NATO to go by his warplan via good diplomacy in Kosovo, has military honours from roughly 30 countries for his success there, not counting the US. Compare that to Dean's absolutely none, Kerry's is ok being a Senator, but he hasn't been much higher than that, same with Holy Joe, Sharpton is in the same boat as Dean (along with having OTHER issues), Gephart and Kuicinich are probably about the same, being only Congressmen, but Gep probably has more of that because I think he's been there longer of the two, and CMB, while being a former ambassador, is just sunk in the water anyway for other reasons, among them that her campaign hasn't really caught fire yet.

That enough in brevity?

When comparing General Clark and his life experiences to the current resident of the white house, I believe one can shout to the rooftops, NO CONTEST!

Here's a link you might be interested in

http://forclark.com/story/2003/11/27/0021/3916

This prompted Rather to compare Clark's position to that of a mayor of a town. Clark responded with:
A big town. In this case, it was, you know, spread out all over. (In Britain and Spain and Germany and Italy and Turkey.... you have responsibilities as a parent and as a leader to speak up, because the higher rank you have, the more your responsibility to speak out and help others. And we always took that very, very seriously.... I had schooling issues. I had hospital issues. I had housing issues. I had spouse abuse, child abuse, suicide prevention, quality of life, spousal jobs. And when I was the commander at Fort Irwin (PH), I had the engineers on post, the commissaries, the post exchange, the chapels, the movie theatre.

To me this is more like being a governor of a small state than being a mayor of a "town," but you can be your own judge. In a separate article Elizabeth Drew quoted Ron Klain on this matter:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Ron Klain, Clark's senior policy adviser, says that as a result of Clark's military experience, "he's more like a governor than a senator. He has run bases: they have school systems, health care issues, race issues." Klain said that in briefing Clark, "it's much more a conversation you'd have with Clinton than with Gore."



george bush…pResident?

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

in 2005 after losing the Election... we will be in a sticky mess around the world.

We are not that popular right now and I doubt by the time a Dem gets in things will be any better if not much worse.

If things should get bad.. I want a person in office who knows enough to really be a commander-in-chief to not go directly to war and look for alternatives.

However, should we end up in war someone who has enough capabililty of strategic thought to choose the right options.

We can keep trying to deny it, but that won't change the truth.

Don

experience.

The military is highly politicized in that it is the arm that carries out the policy of the government. Even though Clark could not express his party affiliation while a general, he was full aware of and participated in political decisions.

I would wager that being a major player in national politics via the military would equip him just as well as Dean or Bush were equipped via being minor players--governors in state politics.

And, as a higher-up in the military, Clark has experience in budgeting time and money and in knowing the political environment in which his military acted. He is no political novice...if you think so, you severely underestimate him.

... and very well stated. Thanks.

We need a leader who has a futuristic vision for our country and at the same time has national security credentials. We need that leader now.

Clark makes the case that he is experienced in politics, because he had to be in order to take care of the personel under his command. He talks about working with politicians to get their support for the military, and important programs like education and healthcare for the families of the military. Also that there is politics in the military command itself.

Finally, if you find him to be running an effective campaign then that would be a good example of whether he can be an effective politician.

chain of command. Taking orders and giving orders. Dopey me.

.... just sadly myopic and uninformed.

If you truly believe that, notwithstanding "chain of command" hyperbole, then you fail to recognize the integral and complex politics and political structure of any large and multi-dimensional organization, much less the United States military.

In which General Clark has not only survived with excellence, but prevailed.

Unlike the good Doctor from the Northeast who was checking the powder conditions during the timeline that the General was navigating, very well indeed, the poltical waters of the Army.

and internet sites, if anything, I am overinformed. I know a great deal about the military. It is an insulated entity all unto itself. The only thing Clark has proven is that he knows how to give and take orders. As for the rest? Well....kinda suspect.

I don't think that leadership is necessarily something that you can gain through extensive political experience. While there is little doubt that leadership can be enhanced by extensive political experience, I do believe that the concept of leadership is sufficiently different enough from pure political experience that it is possible to have a good leader with little political experience in terms of legislative experience (but tons of political experience in bureaucratic leadership and decision making from his Army days) (Wes Clark) while it is also possible to have a bad leader with more political experience at, for example, the gubernatorial level (President Bush, who seems to only get most of what he wants by threatening his own party members in Congress).

It's a good question to ask! Gives all of us a chance to consider different ideas of and concepts of leadership and political experience.

1. 'mercun people easily fooled. Media lazy. Media will make election about nationa security. 'Mercun people will believe it.

2. Chimp beats Dean to death with ads like those being run in iowa, only better done. Election over.

3. Chimp cannot attack Clark with national security hammer. Election close, but winnable.

Dean folks always want to gussy it up with bells and whistles. Sorry folks, it was that simple in 2000 and it's that simple now.

1. 'mercun people easily fooled. Media lazy. Media will make election about nationa security. 'Mercun people will believe it.

2. Chimp beats Dean to death with ads like those being run in iowa, only better done. Election over.

3. Chimp cannot attack Clark with national security hammer. Election close, but winnable.

Dean folks always want to gussy it up with bells and whistles. Sorry folks, it was that simple in 2000 and it's that simple now.

We do not have time for Clark to make his way up from governor of Arkansas. We need him now.