Compared to when he ran for President in 2004, What do you think of Wes Clark Now?

The Labor Day weekend is now here which is traditionally when political campaigns begin in ernest, and it is making me think about what was going on at this time in 2003, and how I was feeling when a somewhat different set of Democrats were competing to become the Party nominee. Wes Clark was the last serious Democrat to enter the Presidential race that year, and he had very little public background with the Democratic Party outside of Arkansas before then, and not very much there either. Given the circumstances, many of us either had to make a quick judgement about trusting and/or supporting Wes Clark back then, or never really found the time to make much of a judgement about him at all given all the other Democrats who were already running.

So I'm wondering now, with four more years of Democratic Party activity under Wes Clark's belt, how a sample of DU activists might compare their current feelings about General Clark with the ones they held during the 2004 race? Speaking for myself, it was a personal jolt back then for me to be confronted with whether or not to support a retired 4 Star General for President. Republicans had flirted with Colin Powell, and they actually nominated Ike in 1952, but Democrats hadn't run, or given serious consideration to running, a General for President since the Civil War.

I think comparing the attitudes held by the left leaning population of DU activist users toward Wes Clark both now and then is interesting to look at, but it might also be interesting to run a similar set of poll questions in other threads devoted to John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich also.

Polls are fun because they are quick and visual, but I would love it if people would also be willing to comment on their sense of who Wes Clark was to them then, and who he is to them now.

I think that would be a real good night for Democrats and not a very good night at all for Republicans.

I don't think he's likely to run, but I hope he ends up with some important position in the next Dem administration, like SoS.

That would be a very good choice, I believe.

which won't be until 2010.

I thought a couple of BushCo bigwigs (maybe Gen. Hayden of the CIA) got some sort of Congressional waiver like that.

I would be 2009 when he took office, so that's pretty close.

I would have supported him then and I'd support him now.

He needs to be a part of the next Dem administration. He brings so much to the table that it would be foolishness not to.

I'll always appreciate what he did here for Ned Lamont. Thank you Wes Clark!

made me proud to have supported Wes Clark in 2004. Ned was a great candidate, I wish more National Democrats had rallied to him as strongly as Clark and Kerry did (and I appreciate that Edwards also campaigned with Lemont right after he Lemont the CT Democratic primary).

I collected names to get him on the ballot in our state. Many people had not heard of him at that time. I hope they have listened closer and know what a good man he is.

I had to finally come to the realization that even though he's said countless times that he's "still thinking about it" .. that it seems pretty unlikely he'd jump in at this point.

There was a list on here that showed the names of the people Senator Kerry vetted for his VP candidate, and Clark was one of those who went through the vetting process in 2004.

I know that General Clark said once that he "wouldn't be anyone's Dick Cheney" .. but if his country calls on him in '08 to run for VP, I think he'll go for it..

I hope so anyway! ~~

My opinion of him is about the same, the difference is that in 2004, I preferred both Kerry and Dean to him. If Clark were in the race this time, I would prefer him to Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

My thoughts parallel yours to a large degree.
In 2004, we had a stronger field of candidates by some standards - and Kerry>Dean>Clark>Edwards was a strong center/left range. Kerry being the most progressive loong voting record, (except for Kucinich) with great enviro and foreign policy/intel experience. He would have had a great cabinet, as well - even though a bit to my right, he would have been a sane and thoughtful president, the most liberal ever in many ways.

A Kerry/Clark ticket might have been optimal, and Dean is to me the perfect DNC head. If he had been DNC head instead of TM, we would be in a different situation today, I think. Right now Wes might be best staying out of campaigning, (as VP candidate) but as Sec of State he would shine. I hope the candidate this year wins, wins big with coattails, and has the wisdom to bring in really competent people, and Wes is in there somehow. We must repudiate authoritarian "conservatism" to the greatest degree possible, then repair oh so very much.

This election, short of Gore or Clark stepping in... well, I will support whoever wins the nom. I am in Texas, so it is always pretty clear who will be the nom by March. Gives me some distance, I guess.

We needed a real fighter in the vp slot, instead of an also-ran from the primaries.

in Ohio. I really do. But, that's all water over the dam now.

TC

My opinion could only go higher if he cured cancer.

However, much of what went on at this site brings up bad memories.

That being said, I'm glad he left evil FAUX and went to MSNBC. I think he'll be on any short list for Dem VP contender.

Finally, I do think that the idea of a Clark run in 2008 is far-fetched. Even more of a longshot than Gore. I have little doubt that he's probably going to like Hillary because of his loyalty to President Clinton. And since they're both technically from the same state, I wouldn't fault him for supporting her.

So no change, really. I'm a little disappointed that he can't run this time, because it would certainly enliven the debate in the primary race, and he'd be an excellent candidate.

and he was a man that President Roosevelt couldn't do without. I often see Wes Clark as the closest thing we have to a George Marshall. Perhaps Clark is destined to become Secretary of State, just as Marshall was.

No other Democrat comes close to matching his impressive biography, his grasp of international affairs, his economic populism or his call for social justice. Washington Insider Democrats don`t want this guy. He`s too real.

that Wes thinks the Democrats could force Bush to come up with a winning strategy on Iraq. How the man can be so smart and so blind simultaneously?

Clark believes that it is in the Democrat's and America's best interest to force Bush to openly describe and defend his foreign policy for that entire region, because the unspoken strategic "thinking" (if I can use that word to describe it) that Bush still embraces there is a total catastrophe which actively is spawning further disasters not limited just to Iraq. The approaching war with Iran is a very obvious example of this. The way it is going we are letting Bush get away with driving the agenda for public debate.

Prior to the U.S. invading Iraq the comparison to now might be Democrats not disputing with Bush whether Hussein posed a major strategic threat to the United States, not disputing with Bush whether Hussein was definately building nuclear weapons, not disputing with Bush Hussein already being in bed with Al Quada, but just arguing with Bush about whether a decision to invade Iraq needed to be made that summer or whether it could wait until Spring or the Summer after to decide. For the most part now Democrats are not exposing the ideologcal ineptness and danger posed by Bush's neocon dominated foreign policy. We keep the debate fixed only on how quickly troops can or can not be pulled out of Iraq.

Clark does not expect Bush to come up with a winning strategy on Iraq. Since Clark, like all of our leading Democrats, cares about this nation and the world, he and many other Democrats have long pointed out mistakes the Bush Administration was making in Iraq, after first pointing out the mistakes about invading Iraq in the first place. A good example right out of the box was urging that the administration of Iraq immediately after the invasion be immediately taken out of the hands of the United States and instead given to an international institution. There are other examples, like calling for the reverse of the extreme aspects of de-Baathification that the U.S. under Bremmer imposed inside of Iraq while we literally administered their government. These ideas just made good sense and would have helped mitigate the disaster for Iraq's people, advocating for them was the responsible thing to do, it had nothing to do with trusting Bush.

In Clark's recent statement regarding Iraq he spelt out that Congress needed to start defunding the war if Bush could not produce a "winning strategy" for the region. Clark fully expects that Bush will not produce one, but it is essential that the misguided strategy that Bush continues to embrace be exposed to the public, and the only way to do that is to force Bush to try to defend his strategy. Then we can rip into it. The way it is Bush deflects criticism about what he is up to in the Middle East by diverting it into whether or not Democrats are willing to give our Generals the time they say they are asking for to make "the surge" work. Bush is off the hook that way, he spins it so that we are fighting with generals in Iraq, not with Bush Administration policies. We are giving Bush a free ride on that and in my opinion the price we may end up paying for that stupidity is war with Iran. Clark is trying to force Bush to defend his current and future wars, it's his Administration that is still making the calls on all the big issues of war and peace in the region, and making them wrong.

Brilliant.

Clark says:

bush whines that he's the decider...okay, you've got 60 days to decide on a new policy cause this one isn't working. If you have no plan, then you get no money.

Ah yes. Then the end of funding becomes bush's fault not the Democrats.

I love it.

Quite honestly, I've been wondering for a long time why the Democrats haven't turned the tables on bush. It is always heartening when the General says what I've been thinking. I thought that they should have done this in the spring. Well, we all know how that worked out.

That is what thrilled me during the 04 season. Knowing that a Four Star Rhodes Scholar didn't think I was crazy. It gave me hope.

General Clark has made it easy to support him.

the person he said he was in 2003-4. In other words, he has held up his end, it wasn't just words to get elected, he really did it and continues to do it for the right reasons, reasons that all Democrats can admire. He continues to display a canny insight into the middle east and where we are headed under the current administration. I would trust him with the WH more than any person I can think of. My only wish is that he spent more time on domestic issues.

I think in 2003-04 that was what really got me. I never feel he has to agree with me on every single point, but I always know he speaks and acts his truth every single time, whether I like it or not. For a supporter this engenders a tremendous amount of trust that transcends expectation in that you know he is the real thing, the genuine article, even when you don't like it. None of that has changed for me, so I voted at the top.

He would be an asset to any cabinet or ticket.

...just witnessing the notorious circular-firing squad in action again on this forum makes me kind of glad he's not in the race. He's probably a more effective voice right now as someone outside of these innerparty turf wars.

It's a pretty sad commentary on how our system works, really.

Any one of them would come away looking less capable than he. That's the one that should be running.

None of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) are in a position to fight this. I see them all caving in just like the Democrats in Congress. Things could get very bad if Bush does this, and I don't see any of the current candidates able to handle the problems. The only two democrats that could are Gore and Clark. Unfortunately, neither of them are running.

So nice to have met you at YK07 :hug:

I don't give much credenct to millitary experience being a predictor of civilian leadership/campaign prowess.

Clark already has an impressive record in the political arenea, especially when you consider the fact that he has only been in it for four years. For an absolute novice Clark did extremely well in the 2004 primaries, defeating our former Vice Presidential Candidate, our former House Minority leader, and a popular former Governor and Senior Senator from the important State of Florida among others. This dispite the fact that Clark had 6 months to a year less time to camapaign than any of the other candidates and that he did not compete in Iowa, largely as a result of his late entry. Clark was the top finishing candidate from a state that did not border on tiny New Hamshire in that State's Primary dispite getting no tail wind out of Iowa, and Clark was one of only three Democrats to win a Primary in 2004, coming in second or third in quite a few others also before bowing out fairly early to throw his support behind John Kerry. John Kerry then chose Wes Clark to be his primary campaign surragate during the 2004 General Election, and Clark was highly effective in that role for Kerry.

Wes Clark was the Democrat most frequently requested to campaign for Democrats running for the House in 2006, largely because of his strong cross over appeal to voters in both major parties. Wes Clark was Jim Webb's first major backer in Virginia before Webb even won his primary there. Clark was the only National Democrat who Jon Tester allowed to come into Montana to campaign for him in his winning U.S. Senate campaign. Wes Clark chaired the advisory board formed by VoteVets.org and Jon Soltz, he played a guiding hand in the creation of that group and was featured by them in one of the most hard hitting commercials aired during 2006; "Remember, the next time Republicans tell you to fear terrorists, it's because of Iraq". I have written elsewhere extensively about the political leadership and wisdom Wes Clark has shown for the Democratic Party in reframing the public debate about which Party supports our troops, and which Party knows how to keep America safe. Answer: the Democrats.

And I'm sorry not all "military experience" is created equal. Clark's included extensive diplomatic elements at the head of state level, and in some of his military roles Clark hands on worked extensively with senior members of Congress from both parties. Since running for President in 2004, Wes Clark has worked extensively with the leadership of the Democratic Party regarding issues of national security and has repeatedly been called on by National Democrats to be one of our party's leading spokespersons in that area.

Jessie Ventura and George W. Bush both managed to get themselves elected to a Governorship. Personally I don't give much credence to having managed to win an elected office as a predicator of civilian leadership myself.