Compare: Clark Vs. Your Candidate.

Wesley K. Clark:

Education:
1966 West Point first in his class. (Highest possible)
Oxford University
Masters Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
(To save time and space I only listed Master's Degrees)
Rhodes Scholar.

Ranks:
0-10 (Highest Possible)
Supreme Allied Commander (Highest possible in the world)

Wars:
Vietnam
Iraqi (first)
Bosnia

Injuries:
leg
right hand

Author:
"Waging Modern War" Best selling

"Winning the Modern War" Released soon.

Chairs:
Wesley K. Clark & Associates
Leadership for America

Other postions held:
Second in charge of the Office of Budget and Management in White House
(He helped write the US Budget)
Severed as several board members of non-profit organizations
Lecturer
Analyst for CNN

Awards:
The Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards),
Distinguished Service Medal (two awards),
Silver Star,
Legion of Merit (four awards),
Bronze Star Medal (two awards),
Purple Heart,
Meritorious Service Medal (two awards)
the Army Commendation Medal (two awards),
NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, (NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia.)

Foreign awards:
the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom);
Commander of the Legion of Honor (France);
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords(Netherlands);
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy;
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal);
The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland;
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain);
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium);
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class(CzechRepublic);
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic;
Commander's Cross,
The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia;
Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria);
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia);
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas(Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia);
The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco;
Order of Merit of Argentina;
The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia)

Oh almost forgot, and the Military Service Cross of Canada.

I have to say, if someone can beat this man's record, I will most likely be covered to them.

J4Clark

I am not impressed with medals as they are a dime a dozen these days.

What does he believe in?

What are his passions?

What is his vision for our country?

Some might be, But not the Purple Heart and the "Medal Of Freedom" This are rarly given out. The medal of Freedom less than one person a year gets. It is the highest civilian medal. It is awarded by the President of United States himself.


Issue, Domestically liberal, like most the other candidate.

"Wesley Clark's stands on the critical issues facing our country make him a very attractive candidate for the Presidency. His experience and credibility, especially with respect to foreign policy and homeland security, as well as his progressive stance on domestic issues, give him a strong opportunity to challenge and beat President Bush in the 2004 election.

Here are some of Clark's stated positions, in his own words.

Foreign policy

The United States has an active role to play in the world, especially in preserving and extending our core values around the globe; however, we must still balance our actions and convictions with the ideals and opinions of other nations.

"The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. ..." Continue. . . http://www.draftclark2004.com/issues.asp

J4Clark

that's not enough for me

I would need a lot more info. on his pro-choice stance as well

And John Kerry has 3 purple hearts

What Democrat is not?

No, John Kerry has 3 awards with his one purple heart. 2 Bronze and 1 silver. And that is all. Purple heart is much lower than a " Medal of Freedom". Clark has a purple heart with 4 awards. Plus all the others you see listed.

Is Kerry Rhodes Scholar?No
Did he graduate first in his class?No
Is he a best selling author? No
Did he ever balance the US Budget? No
Did he oppose the war in Iraq?No
How many degrees does he have? Two, Clark, more than 4
Does he know the leaders of 60 different countries? No
Can he speak more than 4 languages? no
Did he save the lives of 1.5 million people?no, but a few
How many wars did he win? None, but he tried
Was he injuried saving the lives of anyone?No, but why be punished for that
Did he grow up without a father being poor? No, he was born rich

kerry fought for gay rights starting decades ago. he worked on hate crimes legislation. investigated iran contra. and i believe he was injured in vietnam helping his fellow soldiers. he did help in balancing the budget by voting for clinton's budget which no republican voted for. he helped abused women . he supports kyoto.

Project Vote Smart: "Received Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, 2 Presidential Unit Citations and a National Defense Medal."

And THEN: "Leader, Vietnam Veterans Against the War"

Never collected a PAC.

Speaks several languages, his wife speaks several more.

Author of The New War. Booklist: "Fresh from a hard-fought win over Governor William Weld in the 1996 Massachusetts senatorial race, Kerry pulls together information he gathered as chairman and ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations (1987-97)."

His new book, "A Call To Service" is due out soon (you can pre-order at Amazon).

Committees:

Finance
Commerce, Science & Transportation
Foreign Relations
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Ranking Member

Kerry was responsible for breaking with many in his own Party to support Gramm-Rudman Deficit Reduction; taking on corporate welfare and government waste; pushing for campaign finance reform; holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; working with John McCain in the search for the truth about Vietnam veterans declared POW/MIA.

He also successfully weathered a grueling, national-level campaign against the wildly popular Gov. William Weld in 1996, demonstrating a real fighter's spirit throughout.

And, finally, he has put together one of the most progressive records in the Senate, yet showed a willingness to occasionally vote conservative when he felt it was the right thing to do (like balancing the budget).

---

For the record, his father, Richard, volunteered to fly DC-3's in the Army Air Corps in World War II - probably where Kerry got the love of stunt piloting. His father (Jewish, not Brahmin) wasn't rich - his mother's family (Forbes) was.

From the Globe profile: "His father's government salary, combined with his own struggles with money, left him planted further on the outskirts of New England's ruling class than many realized. The boy who was educated at patrician prep schools grew into a gentleman without significant means, part of a landless aristocracy that one might find in a Jane Austen novel."

``We weren't rich,'' explained Kerry's sister, Diana. ``We certainly had some members of the family we thought of as rich. We were the of a great-aunt who had no children. My father was on salary from the State Department, and my mother had some family money but not major.''

Not that what you say is not true. I am not refuting its veracity. It's just that VoteClark listed things with essentially no "spin" or embellishment in order to demonstrate Clark's uber abilities. I am not saying Kerry hasn't done great things, I am sure he has but you can't top Clark's "resume" just by padding Kerry's with personal interpretations. I am not getting into a flame war here. I am just supporting my fellow compatriot, VoteClark.

Peace :)

:dem:

What is point?

Ike defeated Stevenson twice and never got a vote before

Hillary Clinton was never elected before she won in a landside against an experienced congressman.

Grant won against an experienced politican.

Andrew Jackson, same thing.

Ronald Reagan on won the state governor twice before become President.

Clark has won elections if you count college.

Almost everything I posted was directly from either the reputable Project Vote Smart or the Boston Globe profile. What part do you think of as padding? The progressive record? The campaign against Bill Weld?

My intention is not to "top" Clark's resume. His resume is indeed very impressive, and he has tremendous credibility. I would be more than happy to vote for him in 2004. I just happen to think that Kerry has more depth on domestic issues and fighting stateless terrorism (again, he was the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee for Terrorism and International Operations).

I think Clark would also make a fantastic VP for Kerry, and I have often said that he was my first choice. I think their combined credibility on foreign relations would be formidable.

And again, I am in no way discouraging you from supporting Clark's entrance into the race. I think he is a much needed voice in ousting Bush. I'm just not sure where my spin is in all this.

Your posts on Clark have been inteeresting, thoughtful and thought provoking. There are a few things on my mind. I have posted to you before this but the thread may have been lost. First,I have a personal problem voting for President anyone who has never held an elective office. Yes, I know it's my problem but it's a concern nonetheless. Also, the opposition had a similar situation in 2000 with Colin Powell. It was a distraction for everyone until he made it clear he wouldn't run. Then the repugs were able to focus. In addition, his being a lock for Sec of State in the administration helped Bush. We now face a similar situation. Clark runs the danger (for himself and the party) of getting caught up in the intrigue of will he or won't he. And he could learn to enjoy it. The longer he waits the more he hurts the Dems. He needs to declare one way or the other. And soon. And if he's not running for the top spot then let him say he's available for another. How about VP or Sec of State?

I understand your concerns about not electing someone that has never been elected before. However, I think that is irrelevant. For two major reason. First, it is about electability, not number of times elected. Trent Lott, Storm Thurmond, and Newt Gingrich have been elected numbeours times. But it is how they appeal to the general population. Clark, has the skills to be a good President. That is what matter. He is first in everything he has done, from shooting a gun, to graduating high school, to graduating college, to the highest rank in the world. Elections are about chance, and name recogintion. In the Military and College, it is about skill and ability. I don't being popular is what makes a good president. I think someone that learns quickly, is intelligent, well informed, and experinced in life is what makes a good president. But what elects a President is name recognition, reputation, and likeabilty.

Clark has two really good skills that I think will help him. First, he can debate well. He knows how to convience people and talk to them.

Second, he has a telegenic face and a nice voice that is commanding. I think when someone sounds and looks good while at the same time being about to think on their feet, debate the issues, and is knowelegable on every subject in the world, it is hard to go against that.

I think Clark can slaughter anyone in a one-on-one debate that is in the race now. He will, but he will do so repecting the candidates.

In terms of Clark entering the race "right this minute", that would be bad in the long and short run. Right now, the candidates are fighting eachother, let them attack eachother for a while, then enter. This makes more sense than jumping in when the mud is the deepest.

J4Clark

When you say "Never collected a PAC" are you saying that Kerry has never taken PAC money? I'm not Kerry-bashing, I've just seen that claim made by another poster and a simple search on www.fec.gov will show that Kerry has accepted PAC money on numerous occasions, in both his Senate and Presidential campaigns.

I'm really not that hung up on the PAC money issue, but I think that there are people that think he's not accepting PAC money....and he is.

(on edit)

A search reveals this claim made many times. I interpret Kerry's FEC PAC data this way: If a contribution from a PAC is shown as a positive number and then as a negative number, the contribution was credited to the campaign (in acordance with election finance law) and then returned (constituting no "acceptance" of the money). There are, however, several PACs that only list positive numbers. I take this to mean that the contribution was not returned (constituting acceptance of PAC money). Am I reading this wrong?

(on further edit)

Threads such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=21529&mesg_id=21529&listing_type=search#21967 have posts claiming "ZERO PAC dollars" when the link provided clearly shows $8725 in PAC contributions to his Presidential campaign (which is 0% statistically, but NOT "zero PAC dollars").

I actually put qualifiers when I first typed it, but decided that it would just lead to confusion going through the mumbo jumbo over roughly .5% of his 2000 intake, which I believe was from a Massachusetts Veterans group affiliated with him. It does seem a little nit-picky, though, don't ya think?

For his presidential run, I hope he does.

Again, this is NOT an attack. I'm looking for a clarification. I've detailed how I'm interpreting the data and asked for guidance if I'm reading it wrong. Dr., I agree that his contributions from PACs are a very small percentage of his total contributions, but, if I read it correctly, Kerry DOES accept PAC money.

Now, my problem with BLM's asertion that Kerry "Never took CORPORATE pac money". I understand the difference between labor PACs and corporate PACs. However, the www.fec.gov site shows the following entries that seem to be accepted corporate PAC contributions for Kerry's Senate campaigns:

AOL Time Warner Inc. PAC
$1000
6/25/99
#99990057828

Contigroup Companies PAC
$5000
11/8/99
#20035463855

Gillette Company PAC
$1000
9/27/02
#22037754410

Morgan Stanley PAC
$5000
9/27/99
#99034882319

...and the following entries for his current Presidential campaign:

Florida Crystals Inc. PAC
$1000
6/27/03
#23991393357

Philadelphia Suburban Corporation H2O PAC
$1000
3/14/03
#23990665907

I really don't think that accepting PAC money is a problem as long as the candidate gets the overwhelming majoity of his contributions from individuals. I really fail to see how anybody can state that Kerry does not take corporate PAC money, however. If you can enlighten me, please do.

Kerry takes a MINISCULE amount of PAC contributions. And some of your examples are from '99. But I yield to your point that Kerry did take corporate PACs, in the upwards of 0% of his contributions.

Which is enough for me to get away with saying he took no PAC contributions! C'mon, we're in the age of Donald Rumsfeld, where language takes on a new plasticity! No doesn't necessarily mean "no" here, and yet it strangely does...n't.

By the way, where did you find those numbers? I couldn't navigate to them. Could you give a more specific link?

I'm just disagreeing with the "NO PAC money accepted" statements of some posters. Besides, as I said, as long as the overwhelming majority of contributions come from individuals, I really couldn't care less.

For some reason, I cant get the page to link directly, but here's how to get to it:

1) www.fec.gov

2) "Campaign Finance Reports and Data" link from the menu on the left

3) "Candidate Search" link about halfway down the page

4) "Kerry, John" entered into the search box

It gives you a choice of either his Senate or Presidential campaigns.

And they were the ones looking to find any speck of dirt they could on Kerry. MWO was on this story for over a week earlier this year.

Please...it's the FEC's website. Are you seriously saying that they're wrong?

The money is from people who WORK at those companies but it is not CORPORATE pac money. If it was CORPORATE pac money you'd be seeing much LARGER numbers.

How could I possibly se larger numbers? According to the BCRA of 2002, an individual candidate can legally receive:

1) $2000 from an individual
2) $5000 from a multicandidate committee
3) $1000 from any other political committee

http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp

How, then could there be "much larger" PAC donations?

Also, if they're not "individual" contributions and they're not "corporate PAC" contributions, what are they? They're listed as PAC donations in the FEC filings and they have corporate PAC names, not individuals' names (The only PAC contributions I listed a few posts up weren't labor, etc. They were all corporate). I'm unaware of any contribution designation that is designated "PAC", carries a corporation's name (such as AOL Time Warner), but is not considered a corporate contribution because it's "from people who WORK at those companies".

I'd be happy for any light you could shed on this...

because each of the inquiries are queries to the database, and the results are built each time.

:)

but I disagree with a lot of what you're saying.

See response from DrFunkenstein above

But you can't get away with simply saying "He is pro-choice. What Democrat is not?" That is not a good enough answer. And there was still no response to the issue of his environmental policy. One sentence is not enough to tell me what his opinions are.

Although they have "come around," they both have significant records as anti-choice. Which might explain this from Project Vote Smart:

2002 According to the National Journal - Composit Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002 Senator Kerry voted more liberal on select votes than 87 percent of the U.S. Senate.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composit Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002 Representative Kucinich voted more liberal on select votes than 85 percent of the U.S. House.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composit Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002 Representative Gephardt voted more liberal on select votes than 76 percent of the U.S. House.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composit Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002 Senator Edwards voted more liberal on select votes than 63 percent of the U.S. Senate.

2002 According to the National Journal - Composit Liberal Score's calculations, in 2002 Senator Graham voted more liberal on select votes than 62 percent of the U.S. Senate.

...whose lives took different directions shortly after Vietnam. I am sure that both would say that the other served his country in the way he thought best. I'm sure Kerry would give respect to Clark's Rhodes and West Point creds, just as Clark would respect Kerry's achievements at Yale and rapid rise through politics afterward; I wouldn't expect either to brag about their academic creds, though.

As for Clark, I am honestly very impressed with his 100-year/30-year/5-year perspective, in which he conceives of envrionmental/educational/econmic sustainability/development as all linked together over various spans of time. You will have to dig a bit for them if you want to read/hear the quote yourself, but they're in this <a href="http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_5.html">Esquire</a> article as well as this (long) <a href="http://www.wgcu.org/fm/sasha_archives.asp">radio interview</a>.

This is exactly the sort of outlook that most environmentalists/conservationists should want their government to take, IMO.

(The radio interview also includes a surprising number of Repubs who said they would vote for him, whatever party he runs for...not sure if they were plants; clearly not hardcore Repubs, though, at least not the one who said that he'd vote for him even if he ran Green :))

"I am Pro Choice" - Wesley Clark.

That's it, simple statement. He doesn't have to dress things up or dance around things because no one can accuse him of not being a patriot, or being soft on terrorism, etc.

Ultimately, you gotta decide who is the best person for the job and who has the most credibility and accountability. I will leave that to you. Just remember, anyone can make campaign promises on "the issues". It's another thing to lay your life on the line for what you believe in.

Go to the Clark Websites, give Clark an hour of your time, you will see he is every inch as progressive as Kerry or Dean. Probably not as much as Kucinich. However, he would be able to get more done for the left than even Kucinich, IMHO. Finally, he could restore some faith in the country that we are better than the right wingers at foreign policy.

In the end, vote your conscience and support who you think is the best.

All we are asking is to give Clark a chance and until early September. If he hasn't announced by then, then we will go about our business.

Just keep an open mind :)

I believe Clark actually has 4 purple hearts from what I have
read on the internet. Not that it matters.

Clark is pro-choice. Read the Meet the Press transcript. As far as his stance on the environment, I'd say he is VERY pro environment seeing as how he is Chairman of the Board at Wavecrest Labratories -- a Virginia based company developing the world's first viable electric engine.

He's on the board of WaveCrest, an electrical car company.

He isn't just talking about the environment, he is doing something about it.

This makes him a great asset as a VP, but it doesn't seem that he has really thought through the issues enough to get top billing. That's my opinion, but feel free to pursue his candidacy!

I think you presented things in a balanced manner. Although I think Clark has a lot more than you give him credit for on domestic issues, I am the first to admit you made a good post and I appreciate your kind tone here.

and I don't think there's much to compare.

I don't see how we can throw our support to someone who

1) isn't running

2) hasn't said where he really stands on many issues of interest to us

but he may be come September.

We are just trying to continue to promote
awareness. Once he announces and shares his
vision, then you can decide for yourself.

We just want you to know that there is some
"good stuff there" and that he deserves a
second look.

Clark has extensive experince in the White House. He worked on the budget, that requires contacts and relationships in every department of the Domestic government :). He is also chair of "Leadership for America" and a board member on numbeous other domestic issues and boards. Sorry, he beats them on this issue too.

J4Clark

But I don't know about specifics. Here's the Draft Clark page on his domestic issues http://www.draftclark.com/domestic.shtml Now since he hasn't decided if he'll run or not, it's not his official stance but it's a good start if you're interested.

Clark is stronger on Domestic issues than other candidates for the same reason he is stronger on foreign policy issues - he defines his agenda, rather than, as the other candidates have, allowing themselves to be defined by Bush.

Clark's domestic agenda has been outlined in at least as much detail as the other candidates:

The first priority of the incoming President is to repeal the tax cuts and produce jobs. This is best done by having a progressive income tax system which rewards work and real investment, rather than parking money.

The second priority is to rebuild education and the social safety net.

The third is to address the long term priorities of environment and constitutional legitimacy.

As a commander, he had to provide real social services - and unlike a governor, he couldn't just raise taxes. He fought for, and got, improved health and education services for military families in Europe, he fought for, and got, counselling services. He fought for, and got, improved access to a host of needed items, such as blankets, for families transfering through or temporarily assigned.

The people who want to muddy the record are doing themselves, and their candidate a disservice. Of Wesley Clark's years in service, some were spent at war, but most were spent during peace time, and his primary responsibility was taking care of his people. That's experience in administration of service delivery which is real.

As for "being a fine VP" - I've heard that from Kerry people, I've heard it from Graham people, I've heard it from Dean people, I've heard it from Edwards people. Looks to me that everyone wants a peace of Clark, and that he is everyone's second choice - which probably means we should just cut out the middle men and nominate Wesley Clark for the top spot.

http://www.draftclark.com

Perhaps he has an excellent and thoughtful agenda, but all I see at this website are vaguely liberal notions. For military and veteran benefits, Kerry has been at the forefront of almost every initiative. Even when he fought to trim the Defense budget, he was looking to expand services to military personnel.

BTW, like most candidates (including Kerry), he calls for a review of the Patriot Act before the sunset date, not a trashing of it.

BTW2, I don't see ANY economic agenda here. Something like, for instance, the Kerry amendment that Public Citizen championed to reform NAFTA. Or say, any comments on corporate crime or ending corporate welfare, like Kerry.

There is a reason everyone wants him as a #2 man. He has tremendous foreign policy credibility, but an obviously thin domestic agenda.

The last time I checked, Clark is not a candidate. Has he made an announcement that I missed?

It would be an awkward comparison with the items you are valuing in your choice; military service and related awards, activities, etc. aren't a factor in my choice, and my candidate did not serve in the military.

Which university, what the master's degree was in....that isn't a big factor either, since they both attended a university and got their MA.

The items that I would list for my candidate would be the elected offices he has held and his voting record in those offices as evidence of his position on various issues. That's the record that will help me decide if I support his candidacy or not. You didn't list any elected offices or a voting record for Clark to make a comparison with.

by vast numbers of Americans. For
politicos like us, sure we "focus on
the issues". But many, many voters
don't focus on this. Rather, they have
a couple of litmus-test issues
(abortion, gun control, terrorism, etc.)
and thenvote on a hunch -- this may be where
Clark shines -- the hunch factor.

He looks great on paper and in real
life. He is not a career politician.
He actually has the "know-how" to get
us out of Iraq with the "mission accomplished"
while re-establishing Trans-Atlantic
ties and strengthening the UN and NATO.

I am not going to put any candidates down
but I want you to ask yourself that if your
candidate were put in front of the vast
majority of "non-political", albeit partisan,
people, would he/she pass "the hunch test"? That
is up to you and your conscience to decide.

:)

operate on the "hunch" factor to varying degrees. When 2 candidates are close enough that I can't find a defining difference that matters to me, "hunch" is probably part of what helps me make a decision.

I'm also not choosing a candidate based on what I think other people's "hunches" might be. My conscience is not the least troubled by what other people think or do; only by my own choices. If I thought I was the only voter in America who supported a particular candidate, I would still vote for him/her. That's my conscience. Voting for what/who I believe is right, regardless of the masses.

When my candidate stands in front of a wide range of everyday people, he resonates with them. They are enthusiastic. That's great. Even if it were not so, I would still base my choice on my own conscience, not on the hunches of any "vast majority."

All that said, if Clark actually decides to run, I will look closely at him, as I'm doing with all of the 9 declared candidates. If, at that time, I become convinced that he is the right candidate to get the job done, I'll support him. I have reservations, though. After the job done by *, I don't see that we need a president whose largest area of experience and knowledge is in the military. I don't want my country to operate with a military/war mindset, and it's not the way I want the world to perceive us.

I do appreciate your points, though, and will keep them in mind should Clark become a candidate.

:hi:

We're no longer dealing with politics as usual. In my opinion, we're dealing with the most alarming administration in my lifetime, with Bush. I would vote for Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, or the others in a minute if they won the nomination. However, we shouldn't be concerned with our candidate of choice winning the nomination or which candidate "best" represents all our views. The stakes are too high. This cannot be about just the nomination. This has to be about the presidency. We MUST be ready to COMPROMISE on some of our principles if that's what it will take to get Bush out of office. Our only consideration must be this: WHICH CANDIDATE OFFERS THE BEST CHANCE TO BEAT GEORGE BUSH. As hard as it is for me to hear myself say this, but I would even vote for Tricky Dick if he was the only choice against Bush. I'm that alarmed.

After looking at the current choice of Democrat candidates and considering their chances, I have come around to Wesley Clark, primarily because I think he can beat Bush and for no other reason. Clark has enormous charisma. Clark thinks, looks, writes, and sounds presidential. There's nothing phoney or slick about this man. Clark has that "every man" appeal that some Americans (hard as it is to believe) find in George Bush, but with an intellect behind it and a heart. Clark can appeal to the center and he has the ability to articulate his views in few words, but with tremendous effectiveness. The fact that he is from the South is also an important consideration. When I picture the Democratic candidate on that podium in a debate with Bush (provided that Bush will even agree to a debate, next time around), I know that I would support any of the current nine. But the one that I see in my mind debating Bush and defeating him in a political war of words and issues is Wesley Clark. In Clark's own words:

"There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein." "… it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

"Because the Bush administration has thus far refused to engage our allies through NATO, we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."

"They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

"…You look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we've incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is the result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: "Is this wise, long-run policy?" I think the answer is no…"

"The United States is a 225-year rolling revolution. ... We are the embodiment of the Enlightenment. If we're true to those principles, then it's a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."

Clark is a man of destiny, if he decides to take his opportunity.

I personally think Clark would be an awesome choice as a presidential nominee, but I am also inspired by Dr. Dean, and I think Kerry would be great, too (except the media seems to have already smeared him).

It seems to me that for a bunch of reasons, Clark would be an extremely strong choice to beat Bush. But I don't know how useful it is to promote him as a knockdown candidate strictly on the strength of his resume. Yes, his military and academic experience are impression, but then other people can legitimately bring up his lack of political and campaign experience, etc., etc.

In any case, elections aren't decided by comparing CVs, so I also have some doubts about this exercise. I think Clark would be a great choice for beating Bush not because of the details of his resume, but rather because of the way in which he articulates the issues, both in person and in print. He knows how to deliver nuanced messages and ideas in a straightforward manner--not dumbed down, but just clear. He's very quick on his feet and excellent under pressure. And most importantly, perhaps, he really can talk an amazing game on foreign policy and defense.

I think Clark also realizes that unless things change (and they very well might, given the recent yellowcake scandal), the atmosphere since 9/11 means that any viable Dem candidate must be able to negate the advantage Bush and the GOP get by playing to Americans' fears and worst instincts regarding security. He thinks it's sad but true, which is why he's even considering a run.

As an aside, I'm extremely liberal/progressive, and his military perspective doesn't bother me at all--his view of both war and peace strikes me as very humane and the product of deep consideration. His positions on the economic and social issues (go to any of the various draft sites to check them out) are decidedly center-left, which would be a huge change from the direction in which America is heading right now.

I very much hope that he enters. I have a feeling that whether or not he enters or not, and whether or not he wins or not, that he will have a positive impact on the race. We should all realize that this nomination process is about more than personal advancement for any of these guys--it's about pulling the country back into a progressive, liberal, democratic direction. And I would hope that competitive primaries can contribute to rather than detract from that process.

:toast:
A liberal progressive ready for America to be run by a career military man. Well, thats where we are in America, friends.

On domestic issues, I'm pretty much old school--universal health care and education, Keynesianism, max out expressive civil liberties, use ads, taxes, and harm reduction to deal with drugs and sin. I don't think trusting a career military guy (as long as he's good and retired) contradicts those things at all. As Gen. Clark wryly points out, the Army is pretty much a socialist institution in those respects! :) (Actually, that's probably one of the most clever things I've heard him say--come to think of it, it's really funny that, due to Vietnam, military folks are so Republican, since they get so much provided by them by the gummint). And I think the experience with both military and civilian life may allow one to see that there ought to be a bright line between the two situations, which may be why he opposes PATRIOT act.

On foriegn affairs, I would have been a Tony Blair internationalist--would have, if TB hadn't gone over the cliff with the Bushies crazy no-UN Iraq invasion. If there is such a thing, Kosovo was almost a progressive war--if Clinton didn't have to face a vicious GOP Congress and could have threatened ground troops and avoided bombing from high altitude, as Clark suggested, it would have been completely just. One compare and contrast that would be really useful would be to compare Iraq and Kosovo...

And thanks for the toast--cheers!

:beer:

This is essentially the "message" that
we Clark supporters want to get across.

I do think the "CV exercise" is to promote
awareness of his many talents and to help
people realize that Clark is special, not
your everyday run-of-the-mill Presidential
Hopeful.

My tact at this point is not to convince
anyone that he is better but that at the
very least he can compete and his not being
a "career politician" is a huge plus with
Middle America (the bulk of general election
voters).

I just try to stress people research Clark
and see that they "broke the mold" when
he was made.

What are we worried about?

Peace
Jobs
Prosperity
Fixing the "tax cut" debable
Preserving abortion rights
Freedom
Security
Faith and credit of the United States
Trans Atlantic alliances
Alternative energy
government transparency and accountability
government credibility
equal rights for gays/lesbians
keep church and state separated
removing bush
blackening the eye of the right
raising pride in what the left stands for
equitable health care for all americans

If you read enough about Clark, you
will see that he stands for these things.
I can't promise you he will focus or
deliver on each and every point, but
the ethos of the man is consistent with
the above. Things he has done and said
is consistent with the above.

All I am saying is "give Clark a chance"

:)

but I was immediately put off by the tone of the original post. I felt that the poster intended to put down the supporters of other candidates. Here's why:

1. Why say "compare" your candidate to mine? Why not say, "Here are some great things you might not know about Clark"?

2. Why the need to point out that "1966 West Point first in his class. (Highest possible)" First is highest possible position, really??

3. Why the need to tell us exactly where Clark was injured (leg, right hand)? Is this really part of his CV?

4. Why say this "Oh almost forgot, and the Military Service Cross of Canada" instead of just adding it to the list?

5. And, finally, I assume there's a typo here, but I don't know what he/she means by this: "I have to say, if someone can beat this man's record, I will most likely be covered to them."

I think it's great that the poster was able to find out all this fantastic information about Clark.

Good luck! Anyone But Bush!

That's something I have yet to find out from any Clarkies. Do any of you guys know for sure? Does he?

Clark is interesting, and he seems on the surface to be a great candidate. Boy does he have some real credentials.

HOWEVER, just as I accuse the Dean clan of blindly following a candidate based on what they wish, I also caution about getting to fired up for Clark.

I want to hear more from him...How he answers certain questions will say a lot, what are his views, how hard will he fight for those things that matter to he-and all Democrats.

If Clark comes out and can hang with John Kerry on the environment, hang with Edwards on the "average Joe" issues, hang with Dean on health care, hang with Kucinich on globalization and externalization then he may be a real winner.

But until then its all conjecture.

His son has confirmed this (here), as has everyone close to him. Clinton said as much as well. He's a pragmatic guy who believes in effective action--no futile 3rd party/independent run for him.

The reason he doesn't want to label himself a Democrat yet is because he wants to milk the nonpartisan/independent support for as long as possible. It's a very canny strategy. But his positions in the main have a distinctly liberal/progressive tilt.

I agree with Kwolf's admonition--there's no need to follow anyone blindly, especially not in today's environment--but the positions are *all* conjecture. Clark's record and rhetoric have been consistent over the years. With luck, though, he'll declare within a month and everyone will be able to find out...

Why is Clark waiting this long to give his answer on whether he will run or not? The Draft Clark campaign is generating some momentum (suprising since they don't technically have a consenting candidate) so it doesn't seem fair to keep his supporters waiting for an answer.

For the Clark supporters here, is there a particular date you're expecting to hear his answer? Does it make you worried that there isn't a definate answer yet?

...because his ability to attract Republican and Independent voters depends on his image of nonpartisanship. He wants to keep that aura, as well as get the free media of press speculation, as long as he can.

I'm a Clark supporter, and while it would be nice to hear him declare, I also think it is entirely fair and reasonable for him to maximize his chances of beating Bush.

He said that he would provide his decision by the end of August. It doesn't worry me that he hasn't made a definite decision yet--if he hasn't made it, it's because it's an enormously hard decision and certainly not one one would want to rush. I don't begrudge him that.

I strongly believe, based on everything I know about him and the campaign, that he will announce most likely in August.
Some people might think that is a bad idea. I don't. I think it is smart for two reasons. First, it allows him to see how things are going in the race. If someone is getting all the attention, and than he jumps in, he will get sunk like the other candidates. Not much point in jumping in when you will just be number 10, and not a top tear candidate. Second, the more people that hear about Clark, the more people are joining before he enters the race. This buys him three advantages. There is more buzz about him and people get interested. Second, it has a larger force when we enters the race to do ground work for his campaign. Third, people that are independants and Republicans continue to join the Draft Clark campaign, giving him non-partisan support to win the Presidency.
Clark will have a fight for the Nomination, but it will be a walk in the park to beat Bush in 2004 for the General Election.

J4Clark

He will announce his acceptance of the VP position with the Kerry campaign. They will run together, looking more presidential every day as a winning ticket. Dean will pick up Graham and it will be one hell of a race.

On the contrary, what would be unfair is if he declared, spent millions of dollars and then found out he couldn't get elected.

The desire to jump in early because of a false sense of urgency and the need to look big, and the pressure of others to jump in early - is what got us into Iraq.

I think we've learned the lesson that jumping in early just because some pundits say it looks decsive is a bad way to run a country.

Suppose Clark is our candidate, and shows up to the first debate in his military uniform, with all those shiny medals.
:evilgrin:

Unfair? Maybe. But it would negate any perceived advantage by Bush on security issues. Plus, Clark isn't a frothing, oil-thirsty neocon.

That's an evil thought.

Maybe Clark can hire Rosser Reeves to take over the campaign.

http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/real/eam_war2.ram

That would give him 1/2 an excuse for the haircut. :)

It's Beatles.

It may be dumb, but it beats the One-ders.

n/t

Clark is not a "career politician".

This is an asset for the general average
swing voter, not a liability. You should
realize that.

and if he throws his hat in the ring, things will change, no doubt about that either. But what someone asked about his positions on things - that's going to be very important. And thus far, he has had the luxury of being able to say one or two liners in answer to those kinds of questions.

He has the advantage and disadvantage of being "outside the beltway" - advantage because he's a fresh face, and doesn't have that kind of baggage, and disadvantage because he doesn't realize what it takes to get policies and legislation enacted in this country - it's definitely one of those don't watch sausage being made things.

He's very handsome, very well spoken, he TOO has a nuanced stand on this past war and on the use of military forces in general, and I would be very happy to support him if he is the final Dem nominee.

He is not however, my first choice.