Political experience? - Clark suporters, but also anyone else

Argument in Clark Approval thread over what constitutes necessary experience. Does someone need political experience? How much? Is there any point in someone without political experience trying for the office?

~~

So, would you (DU'ers) back a Democrat with no elected office experience for President?

because obviously it would depend on who it was and what other experience they have.

to a political office but he does have political experience. Being Supreme Commander of NATO has got to involve politics and he does know the ways of the congress. He's not exactly a total outsider. Not too warm, not too cold, just right!

Not against him.

Anyway, I just thought he was an example of someone who hadn't been in elected office prior to POTUS.

and if he was ready for office, then damn right I'd vote for him. I would have to use my very first vote on him/her too. :D

Can't fix it.

repubs to hold against him!

or any other emotionally loaded term. But no, I would never support in the Democratic Presidential primaries a candidate who had never served in any political office.

Someone who wants to represent me as a President would have had to have already proved their commitment to the things I care about through actions as an elected or appointed civilian official. Simply saying 'I believe this' or 'I believe that' is not sufficiently persuasive for me.

of things like gays in the military, standing up against the PNAC agenda in Iraq, funding for troops families etc etc etc.

I stand by my original comment.

Cestpaspossible wrote:

"Someone who wants to represent me as a President would have had to have already proved their commitment to the things I care about through actions as an elected or appointed civilian official."

So being an "appointed civilian official" qualifies a person, but a successful military career does not? Why?


As far as I'm concerned, Clark has abundantly proved his commitment to the things that I care about through botrh his words and his actions.

They would have a public voting record that I could look at to decide whether the rhetoric and the record matched up.

Clark worked in the office of OMB in two administrations I believe.

are you claiming that Clark has a publicly viewable record as a civilian official in the government? Where can I view this record?

By the way, why did Wesley Clark vote for Nixon and Reagan? and Ford and GHWBush? Is it because he shares their values or because he shares my values?

...I cannot answer your binary question.

Wes Clark did share with those you listed a belief that the military had deteriorated because of Vietnam, and needed to be rebuilt. An overwhelming majority of this country thought so too. The Democratic Party at that time was shell-shocked from that war, and very, very anti-military, a lingering attitude shared by many on this board.

Let us broaden the scope: I teach, and one of the first areas of policy I look to is education followed by womens' issues. Of course the war and foreign policy in my mind cannot be extracted from these issues, since our economic and domestic policies are now completely intertwined with those two over riding areas. FWIW, Wes Clark was the only candidate who put forth a philosophy and policies for education that I shared. Maybe it's because he worked hard to put a new curriculum in the base schools.

So when I look at a candidate, let's say for governor, I check out their positions on my issues. If there ever was a republican candidate that favored education and had favorable social positions vs an anti-choice, pro-voucher, pro-NCLB Democrat, I might indeed vote for the other side of the aisle.

Currently, my representative is an anti-choice Dem. Often times I fool myself into thinking that it is his strong labor stance that keeps me in line, but I have to believe that it is most likely a belief that any warm D is better than a pro-choice R in the House. And BTW, all of his R opponents have been pro-choice. My D representative voted to kill women rather than offer them a chance to live and have a late-term abortion. I'm feeling very bad about my vote.

Clark, as an unaffiliated voter, chose to vote his personal interest. Apparently Jimmy Carter not only understands Wes' position. It was Carter not Clinton who called Wes and asked him to run. McGovern endorsed Clark. I guess there's people who know Wes Clark's values and think that he represents them just fine.

One other note: it was Wes Clark who filed an "amicus brief" with the Supreme Court on the Affirmative Action case--not all of the above. Yes, he shares my values.

Jean Shaheen, Kerry's National Chair, had to finally admit she voted for Reagan (or Nixon... I can't remember, and who cares, they are both Republican, and she voted for one of them) after she called Wes Clark a "Republican" during the Primaries. And she was in Kerry's Campaign! Ted Kennedy's niece is married to the Republican Governor of California. (Ask her who she voted for... and he's a Republican.) James Carville, "Mr. DNC", himself, goes home and gets into bed every night with a woman who has served in the Bush Cabinet, and whose rhetoric is some of the most anti-Democratic bullshit this side of Ann Coulter. (Ask him how they conceived two beautiful children together. It may not involve voting for a Republican, but we sure do know he's done his bit to procreate with one.) Are any of these people less Democratic because of their dalliances with the RNC? If you can say "no" to even one, it's time to stop the anti-Clark bullshit here and now.

So, for me, it's put-up-or-shut-up time here at DEMOCRATIC Underground. Is it DEMOCRATIC Underground or not? Wes is a Democrat. If you read up on his positions ( www.securingamerica.com ), you will see he's probably as much or more of a Democrat than most of the people you lionize as leaders of this very Party. The likes of Mario Cuomo and George McGovern have both praised him highly as a liberal of the first order. If he doesn't get your support, he should still get your respect. And, threads like this are disrespectful, mean-sprited, and anti-DEMOCRATIC.

Just remember, they could have called this place PROGRESSIVE Underground, or GREEN Underground, or MILITARY-HATERS Underground, or ANTI-WAR Underground, but they DIDN'T! So, as long as it's called DEMOCRATIC Underground, Wes and his supporters have the right to be here, post here, vote in polls here, and demand the respect we all show the rest of you and your candidates. Wes Clark is a proud Democrat. And we are proud of him. END OF STORY.

TC

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

I would never support anyone for the Democratic nomination who voted for Nixon or Reagan.

I started out my political "life" as a Republican - my parents are Republicans, my extended family are Republicans, the community I grew up in is so Red it might as well be smack dab in the middle of the country instead of the east coast......so I was a Republican - and I'd be willing to bet I'm not the only person on DU who can say that.

And, yes, I have, in the past, voted for Republicans.......so sue me......but I have been a proud, active and vocal member of the Democratic party for over 20 years. Life changes people in a lot of ways........politcal philosophy is just one of them.

One of the primary reasons I could never get fully behind Kerry as a candidate was his assertion that Clark wasn't a "real" Democrat because he had voted for Republicans in the past. I couldn't support a candidate who showed such blatant contempt for ALL Repub-to-Dem converts - myself included.

This notion that one cannot claim to be a true Democrat unless they emerged from the womb clutching a DNC membership card is elitist, exclusionary and just flat out WRONG!

So, please, can we stop pinging on Clark for having dared to vote for Republicans at one point in his life? He isn't the only Democrat who has, and he has more than proven himself to be dedicated to the cause..........AND those of us with a similar past are getting a little tired of being told that we're somehow inferior.

I am sick of it too. We are so proud of him. He is a DREAM CANDIDATE, A NATIONAL TREASURE! I PRAY HE RUNS IN 2008, yes P R A Y! Whyis it that I'm starting to feel like all anyone has to do to get put down and trashed, is post a positive Wes Clark thread. Well, I for one, will keep posting on Wes Clark. You can accept or reject it. Just because a candidate doesn't get my support, doesn't mean they don't get my respect (*exception: any neocon)

Best part of TC's post:
"If he doesn't get your support, he should still get your respect."

AMEN, TC!!

So do we live in the PAST...or do we look to the Future....Freedom of right to make a choice, should be everyone's...He also voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry...and soooo? He speaks for US...for every American..not just Dems...We don't live alone in this country, and appealing to all is his forte...and by the way, IF he hadn't been open and admitted he voted that way, how would we ever know he had done so? Did he have to tell the truth? That IS private and priviledged information isn't it? But then I suppose none of the rest of us have ever voted someone into office and lived to be sorry, right? It should be about the BEST MAN FOR THE JOB...and in my book...that's Clark...
windbreeze

There is no information of Clark voting for any Republican other than Reagan and Nixon once. Have you considered where this information could have come from?

Just this week, he visited Kazakhstan. He was received by the President of that country. Heads of State think he has enough experience to meet with him. He was a "chief negotiator" for the Dayton Peace Accords. He was Supreme Allied Commander (read: COMMANDER IN CHIEF) of NATO. I repeat -- Commander in Chief. There are may other qualifications he has that add up to "experience" up the wahzoo, but still gets no credit... But, isn't "Commander-in-Chief" one of the jobs the POTUS is supposed to do? Wes has already done it.

TC

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe had any political issues to deal with?

About the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe

I'm not impressed by the fact that Wes Clark was a high ranking general. That tells me notahing about his priorities. It tells me nothing about what tradeoffs and compromises he'd make while governing. It tells me absolutely nothing about his commitment to health care, labor, the environment, the poor, fair trade, etc, etc, etc. In fact it tells me absolutely nothing about the questions I ask when I'm deciding whether to support a politician.

Now you're questioning his "priorities." He has given many speeches on where he stands on issues and I have no reason to believe he's just making this stuff up for fun or for the ridicule it generates from the Republicans. http://www.clark04.com/issues/ http://www.clark04.com/speeches/

Can you explain why Clark would not be frank and honest with us throughout all of these speeches and policy papers? You seem to be desperately grasping for reasons not to support a true liberal here and the best reason you seem to have come across is that you can't believe what you're seeing because there's no convoluted voting record that you can cherry pick to "prove" it.

of my comment.

What I said was: I would never support in the Democratic Presidential primaries a candidate who had never served in any political office.

Someone who wants to represent me as a President would have had to have already proved their commitment to the things I care about through actions as an elected or appointed civilian official. Simply saying 'I believe this' or 'I believe that' is not sufficiently persuasive for me.


I respect the fact that you disagree with me, however I also must respectfully decline to allow you to try to state my position for me.

Clark broke his ass to provide quality health care and education to the military communities he was responsible for. He dealt fairly with labor, US and foreign. He worked hard for the environment, even won awards for it at Ft Irwin CA. Etc, etc, etc.

You're choosing not to look at Clark's record because you don't want to see it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the country is, too. I think it's more important that the VP have congressional experience than the president.

I have never understood the mentality that someone had to first do all this other political stuff to run for ANY office, including president.
In this day and age, when corporations, the wealthy and special interest groups have greater access to Congress and the President than the average American, I think it would be nice to have someone who hasn't been influenced by them.
I want someone who has worked hard all his or her life, earning more on par with what average Americans earn, who has lived amongst average Americans and who isn't beholden to any of the above-named groups, as my president.
I know it certainly would be of more benefit to me - the average American trying to find average work in an average town - than some Bilderberg or media or Texas Oil Consortium "honey" is.

actively looking for someone who is thoroughly competent but not a part of the current political mess. Right now that is Wes Clark. But would also consider others depending on how much respect I had for them in comparison to him as to intellect, policy inclinations, compassion, and democratic values. If none of the above are available, then I will turn to regular politicos and assess the best among them. Nothing is simple and few Democrats are totally excluded from my calculus.

without having held elected office. I think Wesley Clark has loads of political experience of the relevant kind, probably to a much greater degree than many elected officials.

I would not advocate someone with *no* political experience for the Presidency, nor do I think it would even be possible for such a person to get elected.

I guess that those who think Wes Clark has *no* political experience probably shouldn't be so worried about him since if it were true, it would mean that he was no threat to win either the nomination or the Presidency.

and the higher the office the more important it becomes in todays political climate.

Clark was hurt by his public gaffes and obvious inexperience in the public politician world, I'm not sure how someone can overcome that in a short time.

I'ts like a single A minor leaguer getting called up to the big leagues to face a Roger Clemens fastball. Chances are they will strikeout

he/she can show me they've got what it take to kicks some Republican ass.

I'm so fucking tired of these politicians and their "careers" and the fucking "health Benefits" always "compromising" my shit away...it ain't even funny.

Tell all of the "Scary" I better watch what I say politicians to kiss me where the sun don't shine. It's because of them that we are up shit's creek without a paddle.

"Wait a minute...I can explain that vote".....my ass!

Used to be Clark detractors said Clark had no political experience. But then, each time that was said, it was revealed (again) that as Supreme Allied Commander, Clark's responsibilities to soldiers and their families was that of a Governor.

Now, the meme is that he has no "elective experience."

In other words, the process of becoming a leader is more important now to these folks than the actual job of being a leader.

But most of us know that politicians hire people to do most of the "elective" work.

The perverse logic gaps that some people willingly accept on this forum are quite stunning. Very sad, but stunning.

experience is less important to being President, than it is to becoming President. I also think that most experienced politicians come into the Oval Office unprepared for what happens next. Presidents these days are often state Governors (Carter, Reagan, BushII, Clinton), and have a big adjustment to make when they assume the office. There's just no way you can prepare yourself for it at the state or local level.

Kennedy didn't have a lot experience either, though he was in Washington as a Senator first. But he really got his ass handed to him on foreign policy in the beginning, going along with things like the Bay of Pigs and then regretting it. It took him a while to realize that just because some guy was an "expert" or wore a lot of stars didn't mean he wasn't a kook. He took some bad advice at first.

G.H. Bush came into office ready to go. It should be pretty obvious by now that he's about the most connected guy on the planet, and he had already flown the plane for Ronald Reagan, so he was pretty much all the way up the curve.

Wes Clark has minimal political experience, which hurt him in the last campaign. OTOH, he's an abnormally quick study so I expect he'll have a very good operation the next time around. However, in terms of applicable experience he's way ahead of where most people that seek the office are. He's held one of the highest diplomatic offices of the United States (SACEUR), and he's got leadership experience coming out the wazoo.

I viewed him as the most capable, qualified candidate in the last election, and I'm sure I'll get another chance to empty my wallet into his campaign coffers and vote for him again.

Wes Clark is the man.

Clark's obvious superior intelligence will help him avoid some of the mistakes he made in the 2004 run for the Presidency. He is the right man for these turbulent times.

We tried the "experienced" ones the last time.

None who run have experienced being a President before, unless it's an incumbent. Most who ran won at some other office before, and that doesn't seem to help either.

So "done that, been there, and ready for something else".

I want to try someone "out of the box". Looks like Clark qualifies for MY requirement.

Karl Rove's worst nightmare
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html


"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."

- Tom Harkin

Somebody with experience kicking GOP ass is really the only requirement needed, IMO.

Plus Clark really was the only one that spoke up clearly about 9/11 and the incompetence and lack of accountability of the administration, of all of the '04 candidates. That's important to me!

General Clark has political experience. :)
As if coordinating 19 nations in NATO or navigating the shark filled waters to 4 star is not political experience.