Is it arrogant for first time candidates to run for President?

It happens every Presidential election. Last time it was Sharpton, Nader and Clark. Someone who has never been elected to so much as dog catcher always runs for President.
Isn't that a little arrogant? Shouldn't the person in the highest elected office have some level of experience holding previous elected office? That always annoyed me.

including from prison. I don't think he ever ran for another office. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Did Jesse Jackson Sr. ever run for an office other than president?

There is nothing wrong with running. They aren't going to win though.

If you don't expect to win then your qualifications for the job aren't really an issue.

I think people underestimate how big of a difference it makes to have a base of supporters who have successfully voted, volunteered and donated to you before.
First time candidates always make stupid mistakes as well. Presidential campaigns aren't for amateurs.

The only candidate you mention who imagined he might win is Clark. Nader, Sharpton, and countless others, have run knowing full well they would never win.

In addition to not having a campaign base, there are the questions of experience in elected office and in simply surviving being in front of the media.

I guess that is why Ike lost. Grant too for that matter. Yup, first timers never win, do they?

Before the modern age of attack journalism and 24 hour TV news.

From D.C.

The idea was for D.C. to elect a Congressional delegation(as Tennessee did, and as Alaska did as well)and then try to get seated.

Didn't work, but it was worth a shot.

Eisenhower won, of course that was when Republicans weren't as repugnant.


http://www.kliljedahl.net

There are likely others as well. I do think the media age makes it more difficult, because candidates need to be able to withstand scrutiny of their private lives, how they walk, speak, etc.... So either an experienced politician or a celebrity.

I agree. The litmus test hasn't been taken if they have never held elected office. Perot was the same way. I agree wholeheartedly. Being a Minister, a General, or a public figure isn't the same as holding an office and being accountable to the electorate.

Reagan, Nixon, all those wonderful paragons of freedom.

Would we be worse off talking about President Clark today?

I don't think so.

Politicians in general are held in such high esteem that they are the only ones qualified? It seems most people decry politics as usual. Isn't President an executive position? Should only executives be considered? It annoys me that someone should have a certain pedigree, I would like a capable person, I'm sick of most politicians.

In other executive positions you can count on people to take orders from you and follow them, especially in the military. If someone goes into the White House expecting that it will work like other executive positions they have held, they will fail miserably.

Every one in the executive branch takes orders, just like ant company. The difference is in the operation of the government. They must work with the other two branches. Except they can issue executive orders as we have seen. Imagine when Wesley Clark was SACEUR and had to work with the potential veto of any of his plans by nineteen different governments. Holding that together is beyond what any company executive could imagine. I don't think the President of the USA has to normally deal with that many different groups.

I think the OP is making a point and you're not helping.

;)

like the military, then you are sadly mistaken. Even cabinet members have their own political agendas that have to be kept in check. Federal bureaucrats also know they will be around longer than any President, so they sometimes do whatever they want. There is absolutely no comparison to the military.

The President has to deal with every interest group, every congressional leader, hundreds of foreign leaders and far, far more people than a coalition of 19 countries.

But then, the point of my post wasn't so much about qualifications. As another poster pointed out, its the arrogance of someone who thinks they are above holding another office like Senator or Governor. That turns me off.

You are the one talking about the military. Do you think all orders are followed in the military? You must have never served. I was not discussing the military other than the fact you call for some pedigree before some one can serve as President. Yes the President deals with different entities, but not normally all at the same time. Which of these groups or foreign leaders have veto power over the President? Who precisely thinks they are above holding another office? Are you turned off by the fact you live in America and people are able to reach for a higher calling? Your post was obviously inspired by your disdain for Clark as evidenced by a post in another thread prior to starting this thread.

Wes Clark was SACEUR. Most of the people he dealt with on a daily basis in that position defintely were not taking orders from him. The heads of state of the NATO nations were not taking orders from him, and he helped to hold them together.

It appears that many people don't understand that Wes Clark was not running around on a battlefield during the Kosovo War. He wasn't just moving tanks around on some blackboard. He was the SACEUR. He spent his days and nights negotiating agreements as to how things would play out. People weren't just "yes, sir"ing him. He was not some random one-star general expert in tactics. His job was 90% politics and 10% military.

clear message and platform. Especially if they are very strong on one of the major issues of a party. That and I believe they probably get a number of votes simply because they aren't politicians.

A business type would be fully qualified, IMO (assuming they are smart and not scum, etc).

... at least larger than, say, Vermont.
:)

As far as executive experience goes. :hi:

I'd love to see Bill Moyers run, for example, based on the brilliant speeches he's given and the incredible breadth of expertise he brings.

There was talk, before he was assassainated, of Martin Luther King running as a peace and justice candidate in '68. Would anybody on these boards really have objected?

Or what about a Cesar Chavez candidacy, had he ever chosen to go the elective politics route?

On the other hand, neither Adlai Stevenson nor Hubert Humphrey improved as a presidential candidate as they added years of experience in other elective positions(which is not said as a slam against either of them as they both would have been far superior to the Republicans who defeated them.)

There's just not a simple answer to this one.

There are people who've been governors who've been (or who would be) great presidents; then there's the Chimp.

There are people who've been in Congress for years who wouldn't make good presidents, and others who've never been in Congress and would make great presidents, imo.

It's a combination of traits, in my view, that makes someone qualified: integrity, knowledge, intelligence, leadership, open-mindedness, and being articulate, for example. "Experience" counts, but I think that experience can vary from one person to another. There's no one mold, and I think it's limiting to adhere to one.

..afterall, the original poster's point was to rule out Wes Clark and Al Sharpton.

I was going to ask whether being governor of a state such as....oh....let's say....Arkansas would qualify one for the office of president.

:-)

Some people that have held very powerful posts either in the administration or in the civil society may be as qualified as elected officials to be president). and I am not sure Reagan was qualified, and Bush was clearly not.

along with other issues.

of experience. Let's go back to Clark again.

2 terms in the remedial class of electoral politics lots of experience.

I probably would have voted for him, had he ever made it on the ballot. RIP, Pat.



"Comic Pat Paulsen first ran for president in 1968 at the urging of his then-employers, the Smothers Brothers. "Why not? I can't dance--besides, the job has a good pension plan and I'll get a lot of money when I retire," he thought. And he's been running in every election since, basing his campaigns on "outright lies, double talk and unfounded attacks on his challengers," techniques which in 1968 were truly ahead of their time. They have since, of course, become the essential elements of any campaign. When Paulsen began his faux political career, political satire was thriving. Nowadays everyone's still pissed off, but no one has a sense of humor..."

http://www.metroactive.com/cyber/nod/nd-paulsen.html

Until then, we'll stick to 35 years or older natural born citizens who has been a resident for at least 14 years...

People will make all kinds of rules about who they will and will not support regardless of the constitution. If people rule out first time politicians and you don't like it, you can always amend the constitution. Until then we will stick with freedom of choice for voters.

There definitely should be tougher requirements for being commander and chief of the US armed forces and our top international representative. Prior elective experience however is not one of them.
If anything, political experience is a corruptive disease. They're training is mostly in demagogics, intrigue and compromise.

Me, I like 'm fresh and unspoiled. Motivated rather than seasoned, filled with ideals rather than disillusioned.
Your Sharpton, Nader and Clark examples, however, do not fit that bill. They may not have elective experience, but they are political dogs of respectable age.

Because for every case for an experienced politician, there is at least a case for an inexperienced (or perhaps a better word, unspoiled) one.

Either way, they still need to go through the grinding process we call the primaries and a leader will emerge. Note that I am a Clark fan and I hated the way the primaries worked, but that's the way things are and he'll just have to play it smarter next time. In 2008, however, Arkansas will vote much earlier in the primaries, so either Clark or Hillary will have a prominent role, I believe. No need to discuss how likely either is to win, please, as that's been hashed a zillion times in other threads.

J.

Let him/her run and the people decide on the merit. I am sure that this would be a factor, but probably not the only one.

It is also good for being in the pocket of special interests and corporate bribes. Sometimes only an outsider can save a business or a countries government. Give me an intelligent and honest individual instead.

if they're in the pocket of special interests because they will have a voting record we can examine and records of who finances their campaigns. If someone has never been elected before, they're just as likely to be in somebody's pocket, but we have no way of knowing whose pockets they belong in. It becomes a gamble.

You know where they stand. They align with causes, organizations and lobbies across the board during the campaign itself; the difference is that they don't have a long career of making deals with such lobbies, their representatives or other politicans beholden to them. They're there on principle, NOT from debt, blackmail, or political posturing.

...show that you can win the small fights, have a decent record to run on. A newbie to politics running for President can be a disaster if the primary is painless....and the general is not time to test muster.

I also tend to think the voters get smitten with a "cult of personality" type...who is an unknown quotient in terms of political philosophy.

what you end up with generally are mealy-mouthed cyphers mirroring the advice of advisors (who ain't that great, believe you me!).

because they lack personal knowledge and confidence about how campaigns work. They are more likely to follow bad advice because they don't have the political judgment that can only come from experience.

experience does not seem to make much difference in that regard.

So maybe it does help. Kerry was a weak candidate for other reasons. At least he didn't make the kind of amateur mistakes a first time candidate always makes that could have led to a disaster.

He was so professional that by the time the campaign actually started, he was rocked back on his heels and stayed there until it was all over. I do not believe that there was a single, professional moment. And that isn't Kerry's fault. Our operatives and either stupid or lazy or both.

to win the nomination and take Iowa away from Dean when everyone thought Dean had the nomination wrapped up.

The best part of Clark's campaign was the draft Clark movement. His polls were highest when he first announced. The fact that his polls went down when people got to know him better indicates he was a weak candidate.

am very tired of professional pols. They rarely say anything of note, rarely accomplish anything of note, and are boring as shit to listen to for an extended period. You may disagree and that is, of course, your perogative. These are my sentiments though.

I think it is a logical progression.

Presidents are not expected to map out war plans. The job of President is primarily political and people under the President don't follow orders the way military officers do. It takes drastically different management styles.

is a highly political job.

And I think LOTS of people under this president are following orders the way military officers do.

What's up with the "bash Clark" thread? Don't tell me you're starting to warm to Howie....

not just Clark. This is why I used to say Nader would have better spent his time getting elected to a Congressional seat than running for President. He would have had a platform to speak from and might have accomplished something.

And no I'm not going to start supporting Howie for President anytime soon. haha :) I guess my failure to support either of the two most popular figures on DU doesn't make me very popular in this forum.

I can certainly wax long about the shortcomings of certain candidates. But sometimes your posts seem a little....overly antagonistic towards some of the more popular candidates in this forum.

I'm just sayin' :-)

or candidate.

As a first-time candidate, they have little experience shaping a message and don't have honed political skills. They are prone to gaffes.

And you have to remember that POTUS is a job that combines politics and political skills. If you aren't used to working with legislatures, you're going to have a tough time with the job. If you aren't used to selling your ideas to the public (because that is not something that ends after election day), you're going to have a tough time with the job. I expect a President to be able to handle Washington before Washington handles him. I'd be reluctant to support a political novice, especially in the primaries.

Of course this thread is all about Wes Clark - and I think he's a good man, but I have doubts about his political skills and therefore doubts about how effective a POTUS he would be.

I've always had a problem with this.

People are swayed by the allure of the highest office.

Jon Krakauer talked about this syndrome in his book Into Thin Air about a tragic Everest expedition in '96.

He said that Everest attracted a great number of people who were not climbers, and were not in it for the climb, but rather because it was the biggest.

The trail to Everest's peak is littered with their remains.

The Presidency is no different in my opinion.

I don't like people who think they are too important to be a Governor or Senator. I don't want that kind of person in the White House.

to the top. That's a very narrow-minded view, imho.

is a good example of why elected experience isn't everything.

Washington was a giant who shaped this country and did not have to deal with the intensity of Washington (the city) politics. Also, he was elected unanimously and could have been king if he wanted. There is no man who will come to close to him in this day and age.

Massachusetts had been using the paper ballot to elect a governor for more than 100 years before Washington was elected president, and the Continental Congress elected at least one president before Gen. Washington was selected as President of the U.S.

And had spent more of his life in elected office than he spent as a general.

He was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses (the colonial legislature) and the Continental Congress.

Of course, it's also arrogant for a well experienced politician to stand up and say "I want to be the most powerful man on the earth. And I want all of you to put me there." and ask for hundreds of millions of dollars while he's at it.

Arrogance is one of the job requirements for the Presidency.

What matters is whether it's realistic. Do they have the political and campaign skills to be elected President and to be effective as President?.

If the answer to the first question is NO - and history has been pretty consistent on this point - the second question becomes moot.

have the skills and experience to get elected President in the modern political environment. First time candidates always make bad mistakes running for any office, much less one as demanding as a Presidential campaign. So, I guess that answers the question.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ulysses S Grant held no elected office before becoming president, according to their biographies at the White House website. These three gained prestige as Generals.

Lincoln was in the Illinois state legislature for 8 years before running for president. Woodrow Wilson was Governor of New Jersey for 2 years. TR served in the New York state assembly for 3 years, and was governor of New York state for 2 years before becoming vice president. The first Bush served 2 terms in the house of representatives before becoming vice president. All four of these presidents had what we'd consider today a brief career in elected office before becoming vice president or president. John Edwards' perceived weakness was his short tenure in the senate, but he's in good company (except for GHW).

Eisenhower was considered ineffective in his time and much of his agenda didn't pass Congress. Many historians consider Grant to be the worst President in history.

Lincoln had also served as a member of Congress. I'm not sure why you mention TR sine he had a pretty long career in elected and appointed political offices. Bush served 8 years as V-P before he became President, which is a lot of political experience, so that example doesn't hold water either. Besides being a Governor, Wilson was also a professor known for his writings on government administration. Your examples are weak and only prove my point.

of truly awful, not just weak or ineffective, presidents who had very long histories in elected office before becoming president. In retrospect, even GHW wasn't AWFUL, just... not good.

Nixon had a long political history and was elected to a second term in office.

My examples illustrate the fact that having previously held elective office does not make someone a great president, and having held little or no elected office doesn't make someone a bad president.

Men are presidents on their own terms, and if the people choose to elect someone who hasn't held elected office or who has only held elected office for a short time, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Personally, I think Clark would have made a better nominee than most of the people who ran in the primaries, in part because he brought a fresh vision to the political table. Ditto for Howard Dean and in some ways, John Edwards.

Three of the primary candidates who had loads of political experience, Kucinich, Gephardt and Lieberman, were rejected quite harshly very early in the primary process, while there were (and are) many folks here who would make Barack Obama our next presidential nominee, even though the bulk of his experience to date is, like Lincoln's, confined to the state of Illinois.

All it does is give you experience in the POLITICAL aspects of it and help you make some friends. If anything, the people who would have the most experience coming into the job are cabinet members. But cabinet members almost never run for POTUS right away.

And if you can't master the political aspects of the job then your agenda will never be passed and you will be an ineffective and useless President.
You can have the greatest ideas and resume and management skills in the world, but if you can't get things done politically none of that will mean a thing.

And both of them had a very difficult time getting things done. There are political aspects to the job, but that doesn't necesarilly mean that you have to have experience in politics to do them.

You are an executive, you typically have a cabinet (though not usually appointed so not necessarily friendly to you) and you have a legislature to deal with. The only thing being governor doesn't prepare you for is directing foreign policy and commanding the military, but I'd say that it's as good as it gets in terms of preparation for the White House.

Although being a governor gives you SIMILAR executive experience, it really can't adequately prepare you for the challenges of being President.

Naturally. But the governorship - particularly of a large state like New York, California, Florida, etc. - is IMO the best preparation one can get short of already being President.

But working with a state legislature (in some states in particular) is nothing like working with the US Congress. Also, Governors are ill prepared to handle matters of foreign policy (if you believe that experience matters in that area). I suppose the best preparation would be for someone to have been a Governor and a Congressman or Senator and a Secretary of State. But that never happens.

My point is that while it is probably good for the President to be experienced in running SOMETHING, it doesn't mean that he has to have held elected office before. The best Presidents aren't the ones who have the most experience, but the ones who know what they are doing, have good leadership skills, and know the difference between right and wrong. The best man/woman should be chosen for the job, not the one with the most impressive resumé.

Fuck politicians. The only thing one learns from being a politician is how to lie, compromise your integrity to save your job, and raise money (from where-ever).

A good educated, caring and honest man is what we need, and that's not something you learn running for office; that's for sure.

have a wide array of experience dealing with the mounds of political elements presidents have to deal with. There are so MANY different aspects of the presidency I just don't think it is appropriate to elect someone to office that has never dealt with international politicians, REAL and legitimate budgeting, etc. etc. As far as I can tell bushitler FAILED at everything he ever touched other than baseball! Despite what baseball fans think, running a baseball team does not really translate over to sitting in the the highest office in the nation!

No offense to baseball fans. I just don't particularly enjoy the "American pastime" as much as I do football!

you're arguing in favor of the OP or against the OP, but I think the only job that can remotely prepare someone for the presidency is the vice presidency, and even that's like preparing for the world series by playing T-Ball, to continue the baseball talk.

There's just too much stuff to learn. Many of the presidents who've gone into office championing their domestic agenda have wound up fighting wars, and many who have trumpeted their foreign policy experiences have had to deal with recessions.

are an awful lot of people that have effectively dealt with international aid issues and the financing behind them that are a lot more qualified to deal with the office of the presidency than bush ever was. I don't think "political experience" as in previously holding a political office position is all it's cracked up to be!

As far as the poll goes... No, I don't believe it is arrogant for someone to run for president that has never been involved in "politics" but I would like them to have dealt with international issues and MAJOR budgeting previous to a run for office.

Does that clarify my position a little better?

:-)

It's arrogant for anyone to run for President, whether he or she is first-time or tenth-time candidate. It's always hubris on some level. Big deal.

2 famous Washington insiders & a Gov of Massachsetts...

Or we can just nominate Kerry again...a long time Senator from Mass.

The failure to come up with new ideas & think outside the box is perhaps the Democrats' biggest weakness. Most people, after they have tried something over & over again, get a clue, & try a new approach.

But not the Dems...they are lost in the 60's...they have no clue that the "Great Society" has passed into history.

And the nominee for Prez is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dems need new ideas, new approaches, & a new message if they are ever going to be a majority party again.

What you call "arrogance" may instead be desperation; people desperate to save our country & put it on a new course.

PS to Radical Activist...Che is over...get a new idea.

That's too bad. Is this the New Democrat/republican lite thinking we can expect from Clark too? Is this who he is? I thought you were marketing him as a liberal?

So are you on a mission?

And you never addressed my point, which is that Dems need NEW ideas, unless you are thrilled with the path we are on, & have been on for a very long time.

But from other threads it is clear that you are arguing the case for a Clark candidacy.

Every one needs new ideas, that is life. However I don't think we need unqualified inexperienced people running for President.

to post a poll that appears to be directed towards ruling out only one serious candidate among those who are currently being talked about?

But some DUers never let that get in the way.

The thread became about Clark because he has a lot of supporters on DU. I feel this way about anyone who runs for President even though they've never been elected.

But you specifically mentioned Clark, Sharpton, and Nader, so don't play innocent with us.

Just give us all a break. History has already indicated that previous experience and positions has little bearance to how the presidency might turn out.

Clinton was a governor but then so was GW Bush. There is only one NATO Commander for every 50 governor at any given time - so it's pointless to play with statistics. While I am a Clark fan, I think either Sharpton or Nader would've made a better president than many current elected politicians..

May the best person win the presidential bid in 2008. The last I checked, there was only one winner in Nov 2004 and he wasn't a Democrat, so no point in rehashing the primaries either.

J.

Not just Clark. That's everyone who ran for President who had not held office before. Aren't you proving my point? The world does not revolve around Clark!!!

DU has gotten "Clarked". Mention a negative thing about the man and you incur the wraith of Clarkies until you cry uncle. Watch the furor over this post if you don't believe me.

:nuke:

I am proud that a new term "Clarked" was coined to describe the phenomenom..

I don't believe there is "furor" or "wraith" unless people insist on posting misinformation. And I thought this is DU - where if heated arguments don't take place most of you wouldn't know what to do? :P

Lastly, I shall voice my objection about your comparison to "freeped". It makes me think you have nothing to do then trolling or baiting other posters. If you want to call this being "Clarked", so be it.

J.

You didn't "single out" Clark originally, but then you used an arbitrary criteria which happens to include Clark. If you don't want people to comment about Clark, don't bring up his name.

I could play your game and select every one who ran for President who's from Massachusetts or whose first name starts with H or J, that doesn't mean that I am not biased or do not have a hidden agenda on those candidates. It doesn't mean that I do either - but you fully deserve any response you got or will get from Clark, Sharpton, and Nader supporters. It just happens that Clark has the most vocal supporters here right now but that doesn't mean that you need to single him out either.

The fact that you keep screaming "The world does not revolve around Clark" when nobody has said the world does implies your bias.

J.

You accused this poll of being about Clark. I responded that it is about anyone who does this in the past or future. I'm glad you now agree that it might also have been about other candidates besides just Clark.

Just because a question might make your hero look bad doesn't mean that its a "game" or that I have a hidden agenda. My agenda isn't hidden at all. I don't support people for President who have never held previous elected office. I tried pretty hard to make that obvious and unhidden.

And you can't seem to read.

I never said this poll was about Clark. I said if you don't want people to comment about Clark, don't bring up his name, whatever criteria you wish to dream up.

You then keep screaming the world does not revolve around Clark.

You are welcome to your opinions. Many of us beg to differ. However, you are the one that keeps screaming the world does not revolve around Clark, when nobody has said that it does. YOU are the one that is keeping this focus on Clark, by taking it personally everytime a Clark supporter disagrees with you.

The rest of your post is pretty juvenile. First, I do admire Clark and perhaps he could be considered a personal hero. However I don't believe the question made him look bad - exactly the opposite, to many of us that's tired of politics as usual.

J.

and you responded with "nice try" and "don't play innocent." If that wasn't meant to imply the poll was about Clark then what on earth was your point? Don't try to back out of what you typed, its right there. It seems like you're contradicting me for the sake being contradictory.

Its so bizarre that you would accuse me of being juvenile and taking things personally after you just accused me of "playing games" "having a hidden agenda" and not being able to read. Check back in when you learn how to make a point without making accusations and acting like a general jerk. Then I MIGHT respond to one of your posts again.

"The world doesn't revolve around Clark".

And I didn't say you had a hidden agenda - read my post again, you twit (I can play the name calling game too).

I might be an asshole, but it takes one to know one.

J.

I think we'd be better off to concentrate on who would make a good President than to make up a bunch of nonsense "requirements" for people to check off before we declare them "eligible" to run. I think the framers of the Constitution understood this.

Would that be a profile that has been around sine Dec. of 2003 but only has 19 posts? Why would someone be afraid to post under their regular username? Are they afraid to be crass and obnoxious under their regular username?

:evilgrin: sock puppets are for spineless wonders.

I can't tell you what your definition of a sock puppet is, but whatever strikes your fancy.

And by the way, my profile has been around since 12/2003 but only has 19 posts because I joined in 12/2003 and has only posted 19 posts. I know it may be too hard of a concept for you to understand, but it happens to be the truth.

Your other speculations are worse than your political fantasies. jfenway is my regular username.

J.

Over 1/3 of your posts have been spent in a petty bickering match with me. I'm honored that you feel I am so fascinating and deserve that much of your attention. Thank you.

let's go to Paris in the spriiiing time..........

I actually have a life and have been mostly a lurker. I don't know who your tag team partner Farce is but it hardly seems necessary.

I will allow you to feel that I find you fascinating - whether that's true or not. :-p

J.

nothing to be ashamed about!

Are you trying ot say something about RA that I don't know about?

J.

his oral arguments never fail to please the, err, judges! :evilgrin: Enjoy him while you've got his attention!

oral skills. Although when we...debate, I really enjoy driving the point in repeatedly to make sure I nail down my final argument hard.

:P

how about we allow a 3rd party candidate to soap the box a bit? :evilgrin:

Perhaps a single party authoritarian system is in order here.

J. ;-)

his thread has prompted more than 25% of your total posts since you've registered over a year ago. I admire your restraint, you didn't even partake in Schiavo Mania!

Most people have been very hospitable and welcoming since I started posting here, but I note that some among you try to label everyone who signed up earlier but got too busy out campaigning, rather than blogging, to learn the DU system and some HTML until it was all over--as, well, somehow Un-Democratic and not on the same side as you.

I signed up long ago--back in 2003 when I got my first DU T-shirt--but then I got too busy to spend much time learning the system, first with campaigning for my candidate in the primaries and then with campaigning for Kerry. During that period I didn't have the time to learn or to post often.

Now after a small respite after the November elections during which time I took the liberty to wash my underwear, see if I still had grandchildren, and balance my check book (a book with a tragic ending due to house parties and on-line fundraising), I have found the time to try to learn the DU and the Kos systems.

It is really as if a small number of people who post frequently to blogs do not realize that grassroots work is often more than just blogging--perhaps those people you denigrate were out manning phones, going to rallies, raising money, writing letters to the editor and writing columns, putting on visibility events, running media response teams, being precinct chairs, representing Democrats at conventions, analyzing voter data and doing block walks etc, as I was.

So, now I've learned how to blog and have time for it and you will be hearing from me. Get over it, please.

just have interesting ways of welcoming us "newbies".. :)

J.

I like you much better now that you have a sense of humour! :woohoo:

It's like a hazing ritual. I went through it, TWICE actually since a wacko here published all my personal info under my old handle. We deal with waaaaay too many trolls here, including people we thought were our friends. So excuse the jaded-ness. Post well and you will earn respect. Welcome to DU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a basic lesson in elementary logic may prove useful: you inferred that teh OP meant to exclude Clark; he DID NOT imply it. See, logic is fun!

Unless the person is General Wesley K. Clark

:7 ;-)

Both sides of the spectrum seem to be out of touch with their constituencies on too many issues. There's too much corporatism and not enough caring for people.

on the experience, knowledge, and skills of the candidate.

There are a lot of career politicians who are very arrogant, and some who even seem to feel they have some sort of "entitlement." This is very unhealthy for our democracy.

Sometimes they can have a higher sense of service than the politician who sees it as reaching the pinnacle of their career.

We have had presidents before for whom it was their first elected office.

I always liked Pat Paulsen. Contrary 1 is right, he wasn't at all arrogant.

looks like your poll is showing that Clark wasn't considered arrogant to run for President by like 69%-70%. And like I said in an earlier post; fuck politicians!

If it was up to them, we would be giving the Republicans everything they want.
Wait!
We are!
Dang, 'bout that?

Maybe politicians is one of the very reasons that we are so FUCKED right about now! Maybe trying something else couldn't be any worse.

One with no experience in public office. He's the worst of both worlds.

By definition all military officers hold "public office." Gee, maybe that's why they call 'em "officers." Duh.

But weren't you arguing in another thread that Clark had no political experience? Now you say he's a politician. Make up your mind. Not that it's really relevant. The OP is about being a professional or career politician. Clark is neither.

Shame on me.
He is a politician with no experience in *elected* public office. He represents the worst of both worlds. He is ambitious but not experienced. Regarding world affairs he is George Bush with a D in front of his name.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You've turned up brand new and post only anti-Clark shit. You don't even stay consistent in your arguments, just anything snide you can think of to denigrate Clark or DUers who support Clark. And never backed up with any evidence.

"George Bush with a D" eh? Seems to me Dubya HAD experience in elected office but no experience in world affairs. Like I said up-stream, everything backwards. Upside-down and inside-out as well.

But keep it up Molly. Don't let facts intrude on your sniping. One of the most obvious proofs of Clark's quality is the nature of the attacks against him. You're making our job easy.

Besides, there are enough intelligent DUers to see thru your game.

When I said Clark was Dubya with a D in front of his name I meant in matters of national security and warmongering. I think he is a neocon.
Please notice how I didn't feel the need to get personal with you at all.

Not with anyone who knows what a neo-con is.

Clark fits the discription IMO.

Wrong on the facts, mistaken in your opinion

Seriously, isn't one of your marketing points that the world is a scary place and we need a strong military image to win the election and keep the world safe for americans? Isn't Clark's selling point the fact that he knows all about international terrorism and how to use the military to make us *****SECURE****** ?

If you did a little more researching and a little less spouting off your mouth, you'd embarass yourself less

Clark's point has always been to use DIPLOMACY to make us **********SECURE*********, since his point has always been that the military cannot solve underlying political problems.....

Wes Clark is one of the leading ANTI-Neocons. Long before he decided to run for the presidency, he was going around the country trying to combat PNAC thinking. Either you do not know what Neocon means or you do not know much about Wes Clark.

A few people still jump to the unwarranted conclusion that because he is ex-military and a General, he is a Neocon. However, most people have bothered to inform themselves and have gotten past that kind of stereotypical thinking, even if they have no intention of ever backing Clark.

Clark's entire philosophy regarding world affairs couldn't be more diametrically opposed to Bush's.

Honestly, to say that makes you look very ignorant. It's an ignorant thing to say.

with a sense of entitlement.

Maybe we should consider requiring a literacy and math exam.

It might prevent some of the more 'fuzzy math' issues we encountered in 2000 and 2004 from the current pResident and eliminate more candidates that cannot string 3 words together without committing verbal hari-kari.

Perhaps we should award extra points for those who can pass rhetoric and logic too.

(Points would be subtracted using an agreed upon algorithm for guesses and egregious statements later proved to be false)

some elective experience before attempting to run for President of the United States, along with some kind of record of how he/she may stand on the issues--either with a voting record or if a Governor the types of legislation he/she proposed and/or signed into law. It is easy for someone who has never had this kind of experience to say what they would do, but without anything to back it up all it is are words.

Your statement implies that you do not feel that professional politicians (regardless of party) actually tell you the truth.

Maybe we're getting to the heart of the matter.

I think many Clark supporters feel that his career, honesty and integrity are sufficient to believe that he fights for what he believes in and doesn't take the 'expedient' way out. Most of us who have examined what Clark has said (and what he's done) in public and private life already believe that he is a truth teller and have confidence in his character.

After all, isn't it a real question of character that we're talking about here? Is it possible for someone not 'pre'-elected to be honest and stand up for what he or she believes in?

Wes Clark has been fearless in the face of power.

and this is just my personal opinion as I stated, but I still prefer people who run for office to have some kind of record of elective office behind them. I felt that way when Jesse Jackson, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader ran as well.

I'm not even disagreeing that some may feel the same way.

I'm just wondering how many might not 'trust' the candidate they back without some 'voting proof' of their candidate's intentions.

Is it because we have become cynical and we've been trained (over the years) that 'all politicians lie' and that we need some sort of proof that they mean what they say?

Is the question "Do they really mean what they say?" a function of our exposure to "real" politicians that DON'T stand up for what they believe in and time after time disappoint us by 'caving'?

If so, what makes us think that more of the same is a good thing?

Someone running for office can say they believe anything they want to win votes. If they don't have a previous voting record, all you can do is cross your fingers and hope they mean it. I don't like that.

than a 'voting record'.

My criteria in candidates has always been what some have called "values" rather than 'voting records' per se. (Hear me out, I'm not talking about what you think)

Voting records are subject to interpretation.

Unless you are on a legislative or executive political staff, you really have no way to keep track of every bill on every subject. As a private individual, you have access only to the results of votes (and even then, filtered results--even if you subscribe to the Congressional Quarterly). The minutia of every day in our legislative experience is overwhelming. At best, you can choose which 'filter' you use.

In fact, a vote against an 'almost right' bill might be made in order to defeat it so that an 'exactly right' bill may pass. What was the best solution in 1972 may be a horribly wrong solution by today's standards.

Important occurances do not always have precedents. Many important issues we face are unique.

What in John Kerry's voting history (for instance) would have led you to believe that he would vote FOR the IRW? I haven't found anything that would have led me to believe that he would. What in John Edward's legislative experience (record) would cause him to co-sponsor (a step above just a 'vote') the Patriot Act?

People (even legislators and governors) change their minds

If we need to get into detail, I can give you some examples, but would rather not make this post longer than it needs to be. The only politician I have ever heard of that possessed an "irrational resolve" was the current occupant of the White House. Maybe I should re-word the above to: Human beings change their minds

Voting records are what they are. A flawed (and incomplete) glimpse into the character of a candidate. A way to judge whether they can be honest brokers that will stand up for their beliefs and a way to gauge whether their political orientation matches our own.

I've seen a lot of denigrating and insulting posts on DU that somehow Clark supporters are 'hero-worshipers' and don't use the right criteria (such as a 'voting record') to assess our preferred candidate.

Clark supporters believe that character is more than a 'voting record'. It's a whole life. One spent in service to the country (that's you and me, by the way).

Clark supporters (gasp) believe that he tells the country (that's all of us, remember) what it NEEDS to hear, not necessarily what it WANTS to hear. We firmly believe him to be a truth-teller. Not just when it's expendient , but all the time. That is a 'value' that can stand all the 'politics' and new circumstances that come along. It is the very definition of honesty and integrity

I'm not new to politics. I'm not new to the concept of the horse-trading that goes on in Congress. I'm one of those who had been cynical about politics and politicians for a long time (having seen it from the inside out).

Until Wes Clark came along.

There are other ways to tell how a person really stands than just a voting record. Better ways, imo.

Clark stood up against the Pentagon to fight for Clinton's objectives in the Balkans, when a lot of folks wanted to see Clinton fail just because they hated Clinton. It essentially ended Clark's career, and surely you don't think he got to be a 4-star without understanding that risk beforehand. You may disagree with what Clinton was trying to accomplish, but it's still evidence that Clark stands for something larger than his own ambition.

It's well documented (Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize winning book, and elsewhere) that Clark pushed for intervention in Rwanda, again against the prevailing mood of the Pentagon. And he was only a 3-star at the time--much harder to buck the power structure.

Likewise, Clark worked damn hard to make internationalism work in the Balkans. When the Joint Chiefs, and even some on Clinton's NSC, grew frustrated with and wanted to circumvent the NATO process for military planning, he fought it tooth and nail. And won. Another nail in his career coffin.

Along those same lines, you should also listen to the BookTV video of Dr Sadako Ogata and Clark, which played on C-SPAN2 this weekend. A native of Japan, she was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees during the Kosovo War and has spent a life-time in humanitarian pursuits. She had nothing but praise for the way she was able to work with Clark, and how responsive to her he was, to help people caught in the cross-hairs, so to speak, and to protect her staff on the ground.

Seymour Hersh is another who speaks extremely highly of what Clark was doing, years before Clark ever ran for office. Hersh says Clark has "a great streak of integrity" and recounts how Clark came to his defense to the NYT when the White House said Hersh was just making shit up.

That's the military side of it. But there's more on what you might consider or domestic or social issues.

Clark has a LONG record of fighting for civil rights and equal opportunity throughout his military career. He went out of his way to make sure minority and female personnel were fairly assigned and promoted. He stretched the rules for gays who were serving, and encouraged his subordinates to do likewise. That's why he was endorsed by so many minority and gay leaders and organizations. It wasn't just because he was mouthing the right words. All Democrats say the right words; Clark lived them. And people who know real discrimination and bigotry know the difference.

As a base commander, responsible for real estate, Clark always bent over backwards to comply with environmental standards, even when it cost money out of his operational budget. Sad to say, that's not always the norm in the military culture.

Also as a base commander, Clark had an exemplary record on taking care of people-problems, like education, health care, housing and roads. He established town-hall forums, where soldiers and their spouses could bring problems directly to him. It's one of the many reasons so many of his former subordinates think so much of him.

There are probably even more examples--maybe someone else can jump in and add to my list.

But I think I've given you enough information as to why a simple voting record is not the only way to tell what a man stands for, or that he's willing to stand at all.

endorsements of General Clark speak volumes about his true ideals and character, IMHO.

J.

Also asked him to run...

With a eager mindset to do the right thing and get this country on the move again........and all I had was some college experience working with computers and some retail experience...I wouldn't be good enough to run the country?



Not to mention I would be the first guy from Ohio to be elected president in over a 100 years.....damn that was harse.

Then let the voters decide on your qualifications. (But you gotta be at least 35 to be sworn in as president.)

Trust me, there are stranger stories than that...!

candidate that is supported by the substantial majority of DUers (Clark in the primaries led all others in DU polls) is off the table and/or deserves slamming?

I think your answer would be yes. I think my reply would be to grow a little humility. Your insight is not one that all Clark supporters haven't already considered many months ago.

You are the arrogant one. Show some respect.

that I think I'm above responding to your petty little insults.

is when he's bound up in leather! :evilgrin: Then just WATCH his humility GROW~

whether deserved or not... This topic is his sandbox, afterall.

However, I do find it amusing that he seems to be surprised when people disagree with him. :-p

J.

Yes I agree that Sharpton, Nader and Clark had no business running for office. Typically it is a governor that wins. However, Sen. Edwards is making moves to position himself in 2008, and he will run againist Kerry too if he tries to run once more.

because I truly think that Sharpton, Nader and especially Clark would have made better presidents than Sen. Edwards. They are "real", Edwards (IMO) is packaged and rehearsed. The smile, the wave, the fingers up in the air, the memorized speech, the perfect hair, the use of the kids, the matching kerry outfit, the adoration of the fawning Corporate media, the no strong stance against the Iraq War.

Yep, Edwards is in a class by himself. The used car salesman turned politician class.

and I don't have time now to catch up reading well over a hundred posts, so pardon me if I am repeating something.

I think your question is intrinsically foolish. Arrogance is a subjective quality when applied to a person who presents him or herself as a leader. After all that act boils down to claiming "I am the best person to lead you". A case can be made that it takes a degree of arrogance for anyone to presume that they can make a good President of the United States.

Was it arrogant for Dwight Eisenhower to run for President of the United States? Would it have been arrogant for Colin Powell to run for President of the United States?

In my opinion the Presidency is a very complex job with huge responsibilities in varied areas. Above all else I want a competent President who I can respect and trust. I have learned a great deal about how candidates can be pre packaged and sold, how electoral victories can be bought and/or stolen, about how images can be polished and promoted with scripted phrases and photo ops, about how special interests and the media can rig the playing field to distort messages, frame issues, and rewrite history to benefit a chosen candidate. I no longer take comfort from knowing that a given candidate for President has been elected to one or more previous offices. Are Jessie Ventura, or Arnold Schwarzenegger better prepared to become President of the United States because they rode their respective media fame into a Governor's mansion? I suppose so, but that doesn't make them qualified does it?

There is a presumption that a career as a professional politician better qualifies one for being President of the United States than other career paths, yet nearly a fourth of America's Presidents were ex Generals, while a whole lot of political hacks have been Presidential sock puppets for special interests. The premise of the question, like I said, is foolish. No one will become President of the United States without running for office. Let the people decide who is and who is not arrogant. Let the people decided what skill are and are not relevant for the job.

George W. Bush had money and his name and a right wing machine easing him into office when he became Governor of Texas. You know, Bush didn't even bother much running on his record as Governor when he ran for President. It wasn't a great record. Bush ran on an image and a promise. He would be a moral President. He wasn't a Washington insider. He would restore honor to the Presidency. He would bring people together like he did in Texas. Great, I suppose that means Bush wasn't arrogant to run for President.

I think Howard Dean would make an excellent President, but not because he was Governor of Vermont. Yes that is relevant, it is an important job with executive responsibilities, but that in itself does not prove that Dean has the vision or leadership skills to become leader of our nation and, as they say, the free world. Dean proves that himself through his own being, and proves it well, but there are big holes in Dean's experience the same as there are in Edward's or Clark's or Kerry's. No one has done everything.

Personally I believe an outstanding record of leadership culminating at the highest level of the United States Military, complete with Head of State Status as N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander, is evidence enough that Wesley Clark is not arrogant in presuming that he could make a good President of the United States. Clark has demonstrated ability and comfort as a leader at the highest possible levels.

I personally think it is arrogant for anyone to come up with a political formula that rules in or out people for the Presidency before taking into account an individual on his or her specific merits. But ultimately the people can decide.