I thought he SUCKED in the primaries...

but now I honestly think that Clark should be the VP. I feel it in my gut and his learning curve has been tremendous.

"I'm attacking the president for NOT attacking the terrorists!"

What a great line.

campaign ran out of gas. I think he'd kick ass as a VP candidate, as a VP, and as a Pres.

Clark was polished on the stump at the end of the campaign.

He's a bulldog. Watch him eat Bush and Cheney alive. We need this man.

Clark joined the race in (I believe) October. All of the other candidates had been raising money and campaigning in Iowa and NH since January or February. They all had an additional 7 months to do nothing but travel two very small (but critical) states and raise money. Clark did the best he could with his limited resources but unfortunately he just lacked the finances to continue. But hey, if he becomes Vice President of The United States, that wouldn't be too shabby for his first shot at politics.

Clark proved himself as a fundraiser. He was pulling in the most money after Dean. I think that's one more reason why Kerry will pick him.

he sat out Iowa to take down Dean in NH, but Dean was out before NH, and Clark was left without a clearly defined persona in the new Dean-less landscape. When he didn't make a name for himself in NH (by winning) it was over for him, regardless of the money situation (which wasn't that bad, if I recall).

He also didn't catch fire with people ouside his core group of supporters. There's a reason some people like him, and they like him alot, but for others, they were just left scratching their heads.

He also got brutalized in the first week after he announced, and never really figured out a way to deal with it.

One thing about him I think is that he acts like a guy who has spent a lot of time in his life giving orders, and not enough time in his life learning the skills of persuassion. He never really was able to paint a picture of his vision for America and then argue for people to accept that vision -- or at least he couldn't do it broadly. I think most of the people who were really into him were into the idea of him long before he started campaigning, so they were never bothered by the fact (or never noticed) that for people who weren't already sold by the biography, they weren't getting sold on the subsequent oral argument.

I think that if you don't believe that last part, you just have to see the way people around here argue Clark's case. It isn't so much an argument about what Clark believes in as it is about Clark's resume. Bullet points on a resume aren't really an argument, and you need more to persuade people.

I'm not sure if the campaign for Clark has yet reached the stage of broadening the argument to include more than just his resume. But if he does get selected for the VP, this is definitely something he is going to have to be master.

I think a good analogy is a character in a movie. When you have a good character in a movie, you can imagine what the character would do in any situation. For example, think of Han Solo. I could spend more time talking about what Han Solo was like than he has spent on the screen in all the star wars movies combined. Invent a scenario and I can tell you how Han Solo would act even though he's never been in that situation in any of the films.

That's what a politician has to achieve. They have to provide you with a characterization of themselves that allows the voter a template which they can place over any political scenario.

Think of Kerry. I think I know the character of John Kerry based on the ideas and details we've been given. Dean has a very obvious character. I think Edwards did the best job of explaining who he was. I think Clark's character wasn't as strong as it could have been. He did two things that made this more difficult. The whole thing about whether he was Dem or Republican prior to running for president made it very confusing. This is one of the most basic binary oppositions in society -- it's the first question you ask about a politicians, and Clark couldn't answer it clearly for a few weeks. That's a problem. The second thing that was confusing was when he said, essentially, that he had four different positions on a woman's right to chose, and that you could believe the one that you preferred. That's NOT how to define your character. I believe that in politics, it's better to have a clear flaw that people know than for people to not know who you are (think Han Solo, or even George Bush). But you can't have too many flaws.

So that's my take on Clark.

And Iowa was all about starting too late.

Clark raised lots of money, no doubt about it. But when he declared his candidacy on Sept 17th, he had none--only the promise of money, a relatively small amount, from the draft campaign. More importantly, he had no real way to project how much he would have. No staff on board to crunch the numbers, and I'm not sure even the best possible staff would have been able to estimate what would come in, given his being an unknown quantity politically and how little anyone knew about internet-based campaigns. It's easy to see NOW how the draft pledges would mushroom into some serious cash, but there was no previous history to predict it. Not with any confidence.

So Clark opted out of Iowa. It was a calculated risk that made sense at the time. Iowa had never made that much difference in past elections. He would have gone up against candidates who had big organizations there for a long long time, and the conventional wisdom was that organization was the key to a caucus state. Even as late as the end of Nov, when the money was rolling in, organization was the one thing Clark didn't have--he had just hired a campaign manager a week or so before.

A significant loss in Iowa would have killed Clark's campaign faster than not competing there ultimately did, and there was good reason to believe a win wouldn't have helped that much. Not only based on past elections, but the whole anti-Dean strategy was based on just performing respectably enough to get a shot at Dean in the South. It's too easy to forget that, early on, everybody said 3rd or even 4th in NH would have been good enough, given the fact that there were 3 strong (at the time) New Englanders running. And back then, even 4th place was hardly assured--Clark chose to focus his time on NH. In hindsight, it was the wrong choice. But there was no way to know in October, when the decision was made.

After Iowa, it wasn't that Clark didn't have a message, it's that he couldn't get his message out. Sure, he had to waste a lot of time countering an unprecedented level of GOP attack. But the average voter never heard any of that--it's the stuff we political junkies follow, but not the vast majority of people. They didn't know who Clark was. You just can't compete with no "free media"--that's what momentum is all about.

The many statements on DU, like AP's above but all thru the campaign too, show how little people knew about Clark's policies and plans, even tho he was talking about them. And that's among people who are far more informed than the average voter, who only knows what he sees on the evening news. After Iowa and NH, Clark never made it to the evening news, and damn little on CNN and the like. He's been in the media FAR more since he dropped out, on Kerry's behalf, and the VP polls are just starting to show it.

It's silly to say Clark is only his resume. No one is any more than what they've accomplished, the product of their experience. Maybe I should expect that from an Edwardniac, since Edwards has so little experience--he's a pretty face with one good stump speech. He appeals to people who look no deeper. I'll grant you that's a lot of people, but Clark's face ain't bad, and he puts on a good show too, as the enthusiasm at his recent appearances demonstrates. The general election is not the primaries, and the role of a running mate is not that of a candidate for the nomination. It would be a grave mistake to base a VP decision solely on primary results--it's a mistake Kerry won't make.

It's worse than silly to say that generals only know how to give orders. It's ignorant. Senior leadership, especially at the level where you're working with allies, US govt agencies, and sister services, mostly involves persuasion, horse-trading, even manipulation and occassionally begging, all while maintaining the illusion of control. A sergeant may give orders and expect them to be followed, altho there's more to it at that level too. A general uses a much larger arsenal of diplomacy. As Eisenhower said, leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done by making him think he wants to do it. Clark is a master.

No one remotely expected both Dean AND Gephardt to collapse in Iowa. It would have been too implausible to factor that scenario into strategic decision making. Gep was the favorite in Iowa for the longest time, but he came in a distant fourth behind Dean's distant third. A lot of Geps votes went to Edwards as the other perceived anti free trade candidate. Both Dean and Gep bleeding massive votes created the opening for BOTH Kerry and Edwards to leave Iowa with impressive results. Had Gephardt not imploded that would not have happened.

Fast forward a week to NH. Even riding the media darling "upset" surge coming out of Iowa, Edwards still came in behind Clark in the NH primary, though narrowly. Edwards spent months campaigning in Iowa long before Clark entered the race, but Clark still surged past him there prior to Iowa. It is hard to argue that Clark would not have beaten Edwards by a larger margin in NH if Edwards had had a less impressive second place showing in Iowa than he scored. And here is the thing. If Clark had beaten Edwards by just another one or two thousand votes in NH, Edwards could not have gotten away with all that media fudging about coming in tied for third in NH. In some cases media simply reported Edwards as having come in third there, period. Clark in a distinct third place NH finish, with Edwards in a distinct fourth place, would have completely altered the free media coverage of the campaign moving out of NH. And it was the lack of free media that crippled Clark. Clark, almost everywhere, was running ahead of Edwards outside of the South. But fortunately for Edwards, his birth state of South Carolina was next up on the rotation. Elsewhere Clark generally did better than Edwards on that Tuesday, but the free media clung to Edwards.

In Wisconsin, Edwards almost upset Kerry. Clark had already pulled out, but had been running ahead of Edwards there until he did so. It isn't a stretch to imagine, had Gephard held on to finish even a close fourth in Iowa, that Edwards would have left Iowa with a tad less momentum than he did, allowing Clark to win third by another thousand votes. Thereby stetting the stage for Clark to carry the fight on and eventually defeat Kerry in Wisconsin, moving on to Ohio etc. etc.

Clark led Edwards by as much as 20 in NH, Edwards made up all but .1% of that in the short time between Iowa and NH. Give it another week and Edwards would've passed Clark and by a wide margin.

clark had extremely dissapointing finishes in places like Missouri, where a supposed southern candidate should do well. Edwards got 25%, Clark got 4%. Clark got 7% in SC where he spend tons of time and money. He just barely beat Edwards in Oklahoma after spending much time and resources there as well, nearly calling it quits afterwards. He finished off the radar in Michigan, Washington, and Maine, and was soundly beaten in his last stand by Edwards in Virginia and Tennessee.

and if you look at the popular vote in these primaries, Edwards is well ahead.

What nonsense. You have no idea what would have happened in NH if there had been more time for the Iowa bump to wear off. It was precisely the compressed schedule that kept the Iowa momentum going, with all the free media it engendered.

You conveniently omit all the primaries Edwards did poorly in. Face it, Kerry's the only one who beat anyone "soundly" and that was both Clark and Edwards, across the board. Edwards just did see it as early.

Either that, or you never really listened. When you wrote:

"I think that if you don't believe that last part, you just have to see the way people around here argue Clark's case. It isn't so much an argument about what Clark believes in as it is about Clark's resume. Bullet points on a resume aren't really an argument, and you need more to persuade people."

Those of us who strongly supported Clark for President were always aware of and impressed by what Clark believes in. We said so here and elsewhere repeatedly, and in detail. Now that "the game" is the VP slot, rules of discussion have changed. No one talks much about any of the leading VP candidate's ideas, it is all about what they will "bring to the ticket". Edwards is "an upbeat Southerner and good campaigner". for one example. Not much mention of his ideas lately in the press. Nowadays it is all about "name recognition", "region of the country", "military, legislative or executive experience" etc. etc. etc. I wish there were more discussion of ideas. I think one of Clark's biggest actual selling points is that he is most ready of anyone to step into the oval office and take command were anything unfortunately to happen to Kerry.

While I wholeheartedly agree that VP is a different ballgame--the eventual selectee will be advocating Kerry's ideas, not his own--I take a little bit exception on whether Clark's ideas come into play for the VP nod. Most people who favor Clark, to include the many who did not support his presidential bid, do so precisely because of his position on the war, his having foreseen what would happen there long before anyone else, and his ideas for how to best handle the situation there now. Even the codeword "gravitas" is really all about how Clark is best equipped to help Kerry clean up the Bush mess overseas (not just Iraq, for that matter). It's not solely about his resume, altho that's no doubt where his ideas come from.

Oh, there are a few bubbleheads in the media (and here on DU) who seem to think it's all about Clark's being "just another veteran" or that he once wore four stars. But I do think most of the serious analysts realize what he brings to the ticket is his enormous ability to think strategically and to implement Kerry's plans (all of which were in line with Clark's own, fwiw) for greater international cooperation.

Like you, I wish there were more attention paid to the issue of who's best able to take over in the event that somthing happened to Kerry. But then, maybe that's because we both know Clark is the most capable. Not enough people do yet. Well, maybe Kerry does, and that would be enough. Unfortunately, it's not a big enough factor in how people vote, even if it should be, and Kerry's first priority is no doubt who best helps him get elected. But I think (hope?) he will not pick someone who is not prepared to step in, and that makes me feel a whole lot better about his decision.

Don't get me wrong. I know that a lot of Clark's appeal, esp to those in the political profession (campaign staffers, media types, other politicians), is just image. They figure voters will think, he's a general, so he must be strong on defense. And a lot of voters will. It's too bad people are like that, but if Kerry can use it, so be it. It's no worse, a lot more rational really, than the fact that he doesn't dare pick another northeasterner--now that's really stupid, but a political reality.

But I wouldn't say there's no consideration at all of Clark's actual qualifications as well. I don't think we'd be seeing him giving the responses to Bush, or publishing articles like the one in Washington Monthly, if someone didn't think he was more than just the uniform.

more often takes the tone of a third party saying, "can't you read...his resume?!" than it takes the tone of the first person, Clark, articulating what his vision is.

It is not looking at him as a resume, but listening to him, hearing the brilliance of the man.

His resume is only important as far as the things he did in his life, make him the person he is.

For example, he can talk about foreign affairs, based not only on his book learning, but based on where he has been, the people he has gotten to know, the cultures he has come to understand.

The PNAC Neocons who dragged Bush into this war, knew NOT what they were talking about. Wes was able to understand it all, knowing the military needs, knowing the people at the Pentagon, & the capabilities of our Armed Forces. Wes understood war because he ran one. Wes understood the Muslim culture & its customs, so he would not have screwed up the way the current crew has. Wes knew our allies, & whether they would help or not.

His grasp of so many things that are CRUCIAL to our country, is second to none.

He inspires me, he leaves me in amazement at his brilliance, he helps me to understand complex issues, & with his steady hand on the tiller, he makes me feel secure.

I know how much you admire John Edwards, & that is fine. But do not always assume that we Clarkies are any less inspired than you are. Perhaps, we are looking for a DIFFERENT inspiration.

I read AP's latest post last nite, and try as I might to parse his sentence structure, I couldn't figure out what he was saying clearly enough to decide how to reply.

But you are dead-on right about how and why Wes Clark inspires those of us who have really listen to him. I do believe that Clark is probably the greatest strategic intellect of our generation, maybe much longer. And yet he remains enough of a "real person" that he can break down his complex ideas into words that we normal folks can understand. Most of us anyway. And he is a man of such integrity and passion for doing what's right and good, and the courage to take the personal risk, make the personal sacrifices, for what's in the best interests of Americans. I can think of no politician in my lifetime who so completely put the good of the nation above his own personal benefit or profit.

I have never "got" why so many call Clark a bad campaigner. Could it be possible that when I hear Clark speak, I am so moved by what he's saying that I do not notice so much how he says it? And yet, his audiences seem to react similarly--I have never seen him fail to rouse equal passion in the crowds around him. Something just doesn't jive, and that's why I tend to think the "bad campaigner" and "green politician" tags are something that just got into the media lexicon and repeated so often that people who don't know Clark accept them as a given. Not that Clark didn't make mistakes, but I know for certain that the so-called seasoned politicians made gaffs too that I never saw replayed and exploited in the same way (except for Dean after Iowa--and that became part of a media meme as well).

I will say this about AP's line of reasoning, such as it is. I will give him that we Clark supporters do perhaps emphasize the resume more than we should. But I submit that is mostly because Clark was (and still is) so often attacked, here and in the media, for both what was in his record (usually twisted or lied about by Rovian minions and left-wing nutcases doing the RNC's work for them) and for what wasn't (long-standing Dem credentials, for example). Perhaps we've gotten into a habit of assuming any criticism stems from the misinformation and outright lies that have been so widely circulated. We react defensively, almost instinctively... but I am not easily convinced the reaction is unwarranted.

But AP and others have indeed missed the point IF they sincerely believe the resume is what Clark's support is all about, or even the preponderance of it. Maybe it's precisely because what we are most inspired by is his intelligence and character. How do you give evidence of such intangible qualities except by describing the personal and professional accomplishments that were their direct result? The only other way I can think of is to quote Clark's own words, and those of others who know him. Well, the DU archives are full of those quotes. They seem to fall on deaf ears.

This is not to say we did not believe in the policies that Clark espoused and the plans he devised, and I remember many a DU discussion along just those lines: Iraq, taxes, healthcare... you name it. But as Tom pointed out, policy and plans are not nearly so relevant to the VP debate; it's only about what Clark (or whoever) can do for Kerry's election potential and to carry out Kerry's plans once in office.

As for the former, there have been MANY whole threads discussing Clark's effectiveness as surrogate, his attack dog talent, his ability to raise money, his popularity in the traditionaly red states. This is not resume-stuff, and if AP wants to characterize it that way, he's just out to lunch. Clark's resume only enters the equation by the credibility it lends to what Clark is doing and saying on Kerry's behalf.

For the latter, tho, it is Clark's military, diplomatic and yes, leadership experience that will matter most. These are more than appropriate to mention and I would submit that AP and other Edwardniacs only resent it because their guy has no such experience.

You get it, & I get it, & so do all the other Clark supporters.

I am just so tired of hearing why I am wrong to favor Wes.

We have our reasons, & they are damned good ones.

And that's a very nice statement you made, but, thank you, I understand Clark, and I understand Edwards, and, as I said, I like Edwards more.

What I'm arguing is about my personal feelings about Clark. I'm simply trying to explaine why I think more people didn't get on board with Clark. As I've said a couple times I think Clark's strongest support came from people who were sold on him before they ever saw him campaign.

I think if you loved him before he ever tried to sway a single voter you might not notice that he wasn't doing a great job of making an argument about himself to people who weren't predisposed to liking him regardless of his persuassive skills.

background better than people who don't?

(Edwards isn't the son of a "mill worker," he's the son of a mill manager/stool pigeon - and I, as someone who is really struggling in this economy, don't like this "simple person" persona bestowed on Mr. No Pro-Bono)

doesn't help your credibility. I'm supposed to trust someone so confused about politics? I'm supposed to believe someone who thinks that way is right about Clark?

I'm clueless as to what people see in him.
He has taken his upper middle class upbringing, his lack of pro-bono work and his son of a mill worker speech to spin himself into a populist born of poor stock who worked himself up and now wants to - after years as personal injury attorney who never took a freebie case - say he helps us "little people."
I think what the difference here between you and me is this: I was a reporter for 10 years (12, if you count the two years of internships I did) and I can smell spin a mile away. I don't like it and I don't respect it. You, however, think Edwards is peddling the truth - and he's not.
I cut my adult teeth covering politics.
I like Wes because he doesn't play that idiotic game and is a straight-talking, experience-having, pull-up-by-his-own-boot-straps-doing real person - not a figment of media manipulation.

He never ever said he was poor, but to describe him as upper middle class betrays a misconception about class in America that is revealing.

To complain about him not doing 'freebie' work is funny too. Instead of helping injured middle and working class people sue for damages caused to them by negligent corporate hospitals, well-comensated medical professional corporations (ie, doctors) and their stingy insurance companies, what do you think he should have been doing? What would have been a more effective way to spend his time?

You don't know me personally, so I have no idea how you think you can know the difference between you and me.

But, so long as you're admitting that you were a journalist, I'd love to see some of your work. I want to see if it has the same attention to, um, fact, that your posts reveal.

Care to post some examples of your work?

That's just not true. I don't remember ever hearing Clark on CNN, altho I may have. I never cared for CNN and tended to watch MSNBC.

I also don't remember hearing Clark when he was the SACEUR, altho I'm sure I must have. I was newly retired and more involved in finding a job and getting to know my kids. I kept up on what was going on in Kosovo, mostly in the paper and on the internet, but didn't watch much on TV.

I'll admit I joined the draft, in July, based on what I thought Clark could accomplish in the foreign/defense arena, from what I knew he had accomplished before in Kosovo, Bosnia, and as a trainer at Ft Irwin. I knew him by reputation as a military officer. I knew he had been a commander who took care of the troops and cared about families. And I knew he always got the mission accomplished. In a real sense, not some sign for a photo op on an aircraft carrier.

But I didn't get really involved with his campaign until I started to watch him on C-SPAN--I had never been that politically involved before and it took a while to get over the inertia. I caught only the end of his announcement declaring his candidacy, but I remember hearing him for the first time fully at the college in Henneker (sp?) NH at the very end of September. I thought, wow, this guy is good. I went to my first meet-up in October.

I started watching for him, and the more I saw the more I liked. I probably didn't get to the point where I caught every appearance, downloading videos of the ones I'd missed, until early December--the Phillip Exeter College appearance was the very first I taped. But I do remember thinking Clark was the next JFK by the time the anniversary of the assassination in late November--it scared me to death. So the "falling in love" with a candidate that happens with real inspiration came during that 90-day period, and it was all from watching his campaigning on C-SPAN. The only interview I remember was on 60 Minutes, and I remember my husband being impressed with Gert Clark more than anything else from that.

Look, I know this is all anecdotal--one person's journey. But I do know there were many who went through the same process. There were some 50-100K who were involved in the draft to one extent or the other--small numbers compared to the total at the end. And not all of us were "fans" from his CNN days even then. We were just looking for something more.

Actually, the best indicator of how Clark's support grew during the campaign is probably to look at the fund-raising. There was an initial surge as the draft pledges came in, then it dropped, and then built steadily again. By December, Clark was raising more money than anyone but Dean. In January, he even beat Dean. On the day that Clark withdrew, he had raised more money in under five months than Edwards had in well over a year, including the money he transfered in from his Senate account. It didn't come from the few of us who were with Clark from the begining. It came from the people who responded to his campaign.

You were inclined towards Clark without ever really hearing him tell you why he thought he should be president.

I know you're saying that you weren't convinced until you heard him talk, but you clearly had formed an identity in your mind of what he was about before that, and what you heard directly from him might have fit within that paradigm.

For so many other people, there was NO framework and no previous impression of him.

All I'm saying--and it's not all that controversial -- is that for people without any framework for understanding him, and without any preconceived notions about him at all, Clark wasn't really able to tell them who he was and what he was all about.

You say that there were 50-100k involved with the draft. I don't think Clark has gotten more than 300K votes in all primaries so far. And you'd think that the people who drafted him would at least still vote for him in the primaries.

Or are you?

That 50-100K was spread over 50 states, and probably a few overseas. If they were evenly distributed (which they weren't), that would be 1-2K per state. Clark had almost 100K votes in OK alone. You know damn well the vast majority of Clark supporters, well over 100K, never got the chance to vote for him. Puh-lease.

As for my post, you must have missed my point entirely. Or don't care to see it. I don't know why I bother.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/D-Ballot.phtml

There aren't many heavily populated states left to vote in the primaries. New Jersey.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/events.phtml?s=c

You volunteered the 50-100k number. Last time I checked Clark had about 300k votes total. I was off by 260K. I guess I'm a big idiot.

I still don't understand why you all are so angry, and I don't understand why you can't admit that Clark didn't do a great job of articulating compelling reasons to vote for him.

You tried to say 100K drafters only grew to 300K votes. That's just absurd, and what I was calling stupid. And if you can't see why, I'm not gonna try to explain it further.

In any case, it's just not comparable to Edwards in any way, shape or form. Edwards had no draft movement, and very little grassroots. He campaigned for almost 2 years. He collected votes in many more primaries than Clark competed in. He did it with near round-the-clock favorable free-media. The numbers are irrelevant. You're mixing apples and oranges and can't even seem to see how.

I say, look at the money while they were both in the race. But no, you don't even want to think about that.

And no, we will NOT admit that "Clark didn't do a great job" at anything. Get over it. He did the near impossible. But I guess I am smarter, 'cause I know exactly why you can't admit it.

My point is that many of Clark's biggest supporters came to him before they heard him campaign.

50-100k draft-Clarkers is a big number -- and that's a lot of people who liked him before EVER watching him campaign. 560k voters to date isn't that much bigger than that original number.

That's my point. And this is my point:

Most people who like Clark a lot seemed to have based it on something other than his ability to persuade them and others that his vision was the best. That's OK for a VP. But EVERY man elected president in the US to date probably started with a smaller number of people who passionately liked him without ever hearing him speak, but, because of his skills as a campaigner and persuader, multiplied that number exponentially as time passed, and by a factor of 100s and 1000s and 10000s, rather than just 5-10. If Bill Clinton had to have been drafted to run, how many people do you think would have drafted him? 100? How many voted for him? 40 million? How did he go from 100 to 40 million? By being able to talk to people.

I am not saying anything very controversial here, and it simply amazes me that nobody is willing to admit the obvious.

The drafters are NOT a significant subset of the voters. The drafters were spread out over 50 states and overseas. The majority were in NY and CA, who never got a realistic chance to vote for Clark at all.

I bet in the entire state of OK, where Clark got almost 100K votes, there weren't more than a hundred or so drafters. They are not a computer savvy bunch, and most of his votes came from the rural areas, many from the reservations.

Of the over 500K votes Clark got, I bet no more than 5K were drafters, if that. Based on where the primaries were held.

Besides, you can't really divorce the draft movement from the regular campaign. It's still a matter of people being brought into the circle. It's a false dichotomy.

You WANT to believe Clark was a poor campaigner because it justifies your preference for VP. It's the ONLY thing that does. So you're grasping at straws. But it just ain't so.

Clark went from nothing to a strong campaign in about 3 months. In a total 5 months, he raised $25M, more than Edwards had raised as of the same end-date, having campaigned for almost 2 years. And he did it with a second-rate campaign staff, no media coverage, and having never done it before. I don't expect you to support Clark over Edwards--NO one would expect anyone to change loyalty like that, or respect anyone who did. But you could at least acknowledge what he did accomplish.

Clark's strongest supporters were 50-100k who drafted him before ever hearing him campagin and that that that number didn't grow exponentionally agter he started campaigning and that perhaps that sugests that the best thing about Clark was his resume and that the best thing about most winning candidates is their ablility to convince people to side with them?

I think my point is extremely valid.


By the way, Edwards and Clark both raised 27 million, and Edwards got an extra 3 mil in matching funds. Edwards has 567 delegates. Clark has 68. Clark pulled out one or two weeks before Edwards.

Edwards spent $10 per vote and $51,200 per delegate.

Clark spent $48 per vote and $397,000 per delegate.

Not one or two. And those added contests for the most part were in very populated states. Votes were bought retail in the small states, wholesale in places like California and New York. That changes the cost structure. But more important, Edwards had a virtually relatively free ride as a Kerry opponent after first Clark, and then a fast fading Dean, "pulled out". Of course Edwards piled up votes. He finally got that "two major candidates" race he was always asking for. And then Edwards lost every single additional contest. I'm not saying any of this to take away from Edwards accomplishments. Just pointing out why I think the picture you just painted is distorted.

The study showed that the person who didn't win looked like he was on a trajectory for winning the primary if the primary had gone longer, and if the general public were getting the information the people in the study were getting.

That person could have been Clark. It could have been Dean. It wasn't. It was Edwards.

The week after Iowa before NH, and the two weeks following NH before Clark won in Oklahoma. During that time period almost all free media attention was on Kerry, Edwards, and Dean. After Clark won in Oklahoma, Clark began to regain some media exposure, but it remained less than those other three. Studies in TN showed that, despite Clark pouring great resourses into that contest, his name recognition factor there remained significantly below the others, including Edwards, who benefited greatly from the free media attention.

Those three to four weeks were huge, because for the most part the general American public, unlike political junkies like oursellves, don't tune into the nominating process untill the actual voting begins with the primaries.

to bypass the media portrayal of the candidate.

Edwards didn't carck 34% in any state (other than maybe GA) on Super Tuesday. The media, in other words, created a landscape in which only about 1/3rd of voters were loving him at the end of the study, but the informed voter study concluded that the participants really liked him a lot.

If the discrepancy had been between real and informed voter impressions of Clark, I'm sure they would have noted it.

I know that Edwards proved to be a popular candidate. And Edwards is a good candidate, and he would make a good pick for the VP slot. One thing that Edwards got very little of was negative press. For the longest time he got very little press, true, but he almost never got negative press. That obviously was not the case with Clark, who the Republicans went after hard from day one. Their reasons now are obvious. Everything Clark was saying about Bush's "leadership" regarding the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq have played exactly out so that the public is finally seeing through Bush's veil of patriotism that Clark was about piercing.

Methinks the public is proving even more receptive to Clark now than they were during the primaries.

There was a study of fall 03 media coverage which broke down each candidate into 5 categories -- personality, biography, policy, politics, campainging (IIRC) and then listed each candidate according to the number of stories appearing which fit broadly into one of those categories).

Dean was the only candidate who had stories appear in papers which addressed all 5 categories, and stories about him filled the top two slots. IIRC, only three candidates only had stories in one category. One of those was Edwards. And the only category in which stories about him fell were personality. They were second last out of about 15 or 17. Stories about every aspect of Dean placed higher than the highest category for Edwards. (In fact, stories about Dean in his five categories totalled more than stories about all the other candidates combined).

Now consider this for a second. It turns out that Edwards's greatest strength (proven when WI rolled around, and proven by the informed voter study) were his ideas and policies. Now, that study showed that the media NEVER reported on Edwards's policies.

Furthermore, doesn't anyone remember the primary debates? Remember how we used to time who got the most time? Remember how REGULARLY, Dean would get 15 or so minutes, and M-B, Kucinich and Edwards would get about 4 minutes each. Remembe how we'd all point out that Dean would get more than the bottom three combined? Remember how the second place person was alwasy the person who attacked Dean that week (eg, Gephardt, Lieberman or Kerry)?

It's funny to me that there's this revisionist history about Edwards's great media coverage.

Edwards deserved great coverage for doing well in IA, but it was bounced out by the scream. If you look at the fact that he's come 2nd in every primary and caucus is except one or two since he dropped out, you could probably make an argument that he deserved more and better attention beginning a year ago and not on Feb 14th or 15th, which is when people started to pay attention to him before the WI primary.

My points remain that Edwards essentially never had to spend time fending off negative press, and that he got ample press in the critical period after Iowa. Edwards certainly deserved his positive press after Iowa. I guess I disagree about one thing. The Dean scream in my opinion did not choke off Edward's press, though it might have contributed to choking off Clark's press. Edwards became very much a media story after Iowa, almost the exact reverse from how he was marginalized before Iowa.

My gripe with the media is very very basic. There is little of more importance to America than who is to become our President and why. There is absolutely no defensible excuse for why media attention is so unevenly allotted to the acknowledged major candidates. The universally accepted debate formats are a tacit acknowledgment that the public deserves to hear from all of those who have some serious claim to their potential votes. Can you imagine a news network trying to justify giving Dean 8 questions in a debate, Kerry 5, Edwards and Clark 2, and Lieberman Sharpton Kucinich etc. only one each? That would be universally recognized as outlandish on it's face. Yet our media doesn't hesitate for a moment about being so unbalanced in their ongoing coverage of the candidates in the primaries.

EOM

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/OK-D.phtml#0203

(And Edwards got 89,310.)

I followed the primaries as close as anyone - and ended up working for Clark. His positions on the environment were what FIRST attracted me to him. He was against the war. He knew what he was talking about. The last two issues distinguished him (for me) from Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich and Dean. Of those candidates, I never found anything interesting about Edwards. I have seen a thousand trial lawyers who can talk like him, and I've seen them argue both sides of any issue to a jury (depending on their client). The whole "two americas" to me was a rather empty line.

While you find Clark's resume the only interesting thing about him, I find his honesty the most compelling. He looks people in the eye with an authenticity otherwise absent from politics.

He isn't Han Solo - he isn't a character (although I would agree Edwards is). Because to me Edwards is playing a role, and Clark never does. He's a real person, 100% of the time. Sure, some folks said that wouldn't play in politics. But a lot of us have been looking for someone intellectual and authentic - not hollywood -- for a long time.

Obviously we disagree about these two guys, but I'm sure we agree on a lot of issues (just as Edwards and Clark do).

I was impressed by what Clark had to say before I ever took a look at his resume - so that blows that several-paragraph theory out of the water, now doesn't it?

mentioned the possibility on TV. I jumped up and cheered and have been cheering ever since. I was one of the first 1000 people to write him a letter and ask him to run for president. (One of the ones Susan handed him an NH.) Obviously I'm very proud of that fact...but I'm more proud of Wes Clark. Go Wes Go. God it feels good to be cheering for him again!

Anyway, you're the person who can't even get the facts straight about Edwards. We're supposed to trust that your piece of anecdotal evidence is reliable?

Edwards misrepresents his background. His father may have been started as a millworker, but he was management by the time Edwards was growing up, and they were decidedly middle-class, not poor. How dare you call Scoopie a liar on this one.

drove to see him in Memphis. He took them to a restaurant on the top of one of the tallest buildings in town. They looked out the window and said they'd never seen so far in their lives.

The guy may have worked his way from the floor to lower management, but how, um, rich and powerful could a guy be who'd never been in an airplane and never been higher than two or three floors off the ground by the time he was almost 50?

Also, Edwards's father, not having a college degree, his job in management was to train college educated people half his age to do what he was doing so that they could be promoted over him and paid more than he was.

I dare call Scoopie a total bullshitter for trying to make the implication about class with this misrepresentation, and I call you one too.

I said he was "middle-class" and you turn it into "rich and powerful"?

Who's bull-shitting whom?

Edwards' father was a time-keeper for management. Back then in the mills, that was a stoolie. Pure and simple.

That doesn't mean Edwards was one. But it does mean he doesn't tell the whole story. Which in itself isn't wrong either--what candidate broadcasts the less favorable aspects of his past? But Edwards got an awful lot of milage on the "son of a millworker" crapola. And that's exactly what it was.

There's a reason the unions didn't back him. Even blocked his use of union halls in Ohio, from what I hear. But I'll admit I don't know for a fact if that's true.

a plane and hasn't been in a building higher than 2 or 3 floors, who has to walk out of a roadside restaurant because his family can't afford to eat there, whose child had to leave Clemson because it was too expensive, had to graduate from NC State in 3 years to save money, and had to turn down Duke Law School because it was too expensive, is a person who is exactly what Edwards described.

I can't believe you're criticizing a person who worked his way off the shop floor and to a career that was the best he could possibly imagine.

It's stunning. Such hostility to achievement...to the American dream.

By the way, UNITE LOVED Edwards, and I personally met one union member (hospital worker) who loved him but was told by the union leaders that they had to go with Kerry. I'm sure she wasn't the only one.

Edwards was lying when he was telling people how hard his family had to work get ahead in life?

Nobody wants to insult the working class man?

Nobody want to pretend that the truth of Edwards's biography isn't a powerful allegory about class and opportunity in America, and about the importance of public investment in the infrastrutcture to ensure that all Americans have an equal opportunity to create personal and social wealth?

Why would questioning the background of Edwards insult the working class man? He is not being completely honest. That's the insult to the working class man.

No wonder the subthread is abandoned...

And I'm glad to see that most people here are too ashamed to continue making that allegation in this subthread. However, I'm sure they'll start up again in some other thread which doesn 't include my post above.

I didn't call him a liar. I said he is not being completely honest. He omits a few facts here or there and creates an impression that fits his campaign theme but is not the complete truth.

Btw, don't take it so personally. Most of the politicians do this.

Pot meet Kettle.

Chill down...

I do.

I do this to get chilled.

of course most don't exist anymore. You don't understand, do you?
You could start work in a mill without a high school diploma which was common in those days. Most people could not afford college for their children. The man worked his way up in rank within the mill.
He was a manager not a corporate manager with mega money. They were all here, but from up North. Edwards father was indeed middle class and lucky to be so. Unions were never big in the South because we were worked for minimum wage. I call it slave wages in the South that still exist. If and when you talked Union, the plant just closed and moved away. Edwards worked his way through college after having to drop out of one because his father could not afford it. Evidently you have Edwards father mixed up with a Northern Plant Manager overseeing the South. They always made big money.

BYW--the Northern Unions always hated the South because we didn't have unions and worked cheap. This still goes on today and there are few, if any, or very weak unions in the South.

My point is that Edwards is the son of a mill worker. And a proud son that has a proud father to boot.

or refused the promotion to make the detractors here happy.

Didn't he know his son was going to run for president someday?

Seriously: thanks for the post. Let's see if any detractors want to challenge you.

I know that unions are weak to non-existant. Has nothing to do with the character of the work Edwards' father did.

I certainly never said that Edwards' dad was rich or in upper-management. What you say about those guys is absolutely correct. I don't think anyone here has claimed otherwise. You're building up a straw-man to knock down.

The point is that Edwards misrepresented his background by making people believe he grew up in poverty as the son of a WORKER. He didn't. His dad was a middle-class management type. Upper-middle class by at least one account, but that's all relative to the surrounding community. I'm sure they were "poor" compared to most people outside the rural south (most white people, anyway). But not compared to, say, a single mom in Arkansas, raising a son on a secretary's salary. But whose son never tried to make a big deal of or belittle the up-bringing his mother gave him.

in Four Trials, and he definitely grew up during an era in American history when an auto worker in MI could put his or her kid through the University of Michigan and when the son of a millworker could become president.

He want's to bring America back that kind of class mobility and job security and ability to save money even from working class professions.

I have no idea how you got so confused about what Edwards was saying about class. However, I think people who have even paid a modicum of attention and who have no desire to spin any lies into Edwards's message aren't as confused as you are about what he has been saying about class and opportunity and his own biography.

When did Edwards EVER say he grew up poor? He has never said that. What did he misrepresent? What did he say that isn't true? His father was a millworker who trained people with college educations to do the jobs he was doing for higher pay, and so they could be promoted even higher up to jobs he wasn't even elligible for since he didn't have a college degree.

What class do you think that is?

Edwards could not afford to go to the best schools to which he was accpeted (Clemson and Duke).

What class does that make you?

He's ok but I think a few of the Clark fans here need to take their medication. He isn't THAT great. Edwards is a much better speaker.

3 times and he was AWESOME!

I guess it is a difference in what you are looking for. Each time, Clark has spoken directly to my heart and addressed the concerns that I have dead on. Gert has done the same thing.

So, maybe the argument of Edwards being a better stump speaker as compared to Clark all boils down to which issues concern someone the most.

In my case, it was national security and misdeeds that are being done with our military and TO our military. It was the issue of being ashamed to be American for the first time in my life. It was the issue of feeling that we need to regain our friends and work in cooperation with the rest of the world and to regain respect. For me, it was the belief that domestic goals can never be accomplished without those I stated above. Perhaps those people who don't believe that are the ones who think Clark was a "bad speaker".

If I could have been there to see Wes speak with Kerry, I would have been very happy. Sadly, life gets in the way. My brother-in-law was found dead Tuesday morning and this week has been utter hell ever since.

:hug: How very sad. Please accept my condolences.

The issues you posted are my issues also. Wes was so passionate about all of them. I felt him. My 11 year old son felt him...he LOVED Wes! Every time I heard him speak, I went away with HOPE! I love the man. :loveya:

To add to all that, I had a proposal due at 2 p.m. today for a pretty big job. I JUST MET MY DEADLINE!!!!!! Golly, I thought the stress was gonna get me.

Not over yet, though. Viewing tonight, funeral tomorrow, graduation tonight, track meet tomorrow, many other proposals to have completed by next Wednesday when I'm leaving for Arizona. But, the one I just finished is a big load off my back.

Thank goodness my hubby is a pretty strong man. He has been taking care of his mom and dad AND our son while I have been stressing over this proposal.

Now, back to Wes Clark. I don't know why everyone else can't see what we see. As for myself, I spent from late May or early June studying every tidbit of information I could find on the man. When he made the decision to run, I immediately got involved. I have met many people, including his wife, who know him personally. I have met him a couple of times (actually, four). When we went to New Hampshire in December, his cousin (Wayne Clark) was a member of our group. "Mr. Wayne" was a great man as well. I can't say enough about Gert either. She is the nicest lady you would ever want to meet.

One of my favorite stories: In New Hampshire, we gathered at a radio station where Gen. Clark was doing an interview. We were all standing outside listening to him speak. The radio station said they would be taking callers. After a break, they said they had the first caller on the line. We were all nervous wondering what terrible question would be asked or if there would be a bad or kind comment. The caller said "My name is .... and I came 1500 miles all the way from Arkansas with this group of 50 people......" We all began to look around frantically. We finally saw one of our group way out in the field on his cell phone. We were laughing hysterically. The best part, though, was that another member of our group had gone into the station to use the restroom. She took advantage of the opportunity and was watching Wes as he was interviewed. She said he had this very serious look on his face, but, when the caller started talking, he pushed back his chair and started laughing as well. He, then, of course, spoke about how honored he was to have our support. Later, he and Gert came out of the station and visited with all of us. Gert said to my daughter that she couldn't believe we came all the way from BALD KNOB to support them. She said she would never forget when we worked with her in Little Rock and my son slep the whole time.

When General Clark made the decision to end his candidacy, after his speech, Gert hugged both of us and told us that "The first campaign is always the worst."

swing voters, the Independents, or the moderate Republicans.

But Wes Clark would.

Actually, I'd be happy with either one.

and goes into some depth in ways average voter can understand... because he knows what he's talking about. Be it MacroEconomics or Foreign Affairs.

Edwards on the other hand NEVER goes into any details or depth... and I seriously doubt he has much understanding of ANYTHING. His only real attribute is manipulating people using his face and words.

And his phoney Populist persona began to crumble when he was left standing with Kerry. Of COURSE he ended up agreeing in principle with NAFTA just like all the other Primary Candidates.

You never did answer my last question. Clark wasn't considered in that study after he dropped. It only related Edwards to Kerry.

The study began on January 19th and ended on Super Tuesday. Obviously Clark was considered.

Clark dropped out the week before Super Tuesday, right?

He was considered all the way up to that point. And people in the study were still free to like him more than anyone else even after he dropped out in that last week or so.

I'll send an email to the professors and ask them. But first, you tell me what you're willing to admit if they tell you what you must already know --that Clark was part of the study.

I've done this before, by the way. I posted a study by a Harvard professor once, and lot of people made up shit about the study, so I sent the guy an email and asked him to clarify. He wrote back and told me the story that proved people here were full of shit.

I'm willing to do that again.

But you tell me what it will prove to you first. If I tell you that Clark was part of the study.

What difference does it make to you?

(I supsect that you'll fill your head with some other fantasy so that you don't have to admit the obvious.)

If you could provide me a link to a page that showed Clark in the results (I don't recall the specifics, but I'm thinking the last I saw him in it was Jan 9th?) I would retract my statements. I'm assuming you couldn't because you never answered.

If you get an answer from the pollsters, we'll see. But I have to know what you asked too. Not enough to ask whether "Clark was a part of the study." We know he was early on. I want to know if he was there thru the end date. The website published NO evidence that he was.

What will you admit?

A national experiment in citizen deliberation took place on line with scientific random samples from Jan 19 until February 26, 2004. Two hundred and sixty six eligible voters deliberated online about the candidates and the issues in the presidential primary season. Their views were compared to two "control groups," scientific random samples who did not deliberate but answered the same questions. These control groups numbered 346 and 546. Altogether more than 1158 eligible voters participated in this experiment which will continue until the general election this fall.



The participants discussed the candidates in moderated small groups for an hour a week, after considering balanced briefings on national security and trade as well as the candidates' positions on these and other issues. They also posed questions to experts each week about the issues and the candidate positions (and received answers online). In addition, they received a CD containing extensive material about the candidates in their own words, drawn from the candidate web sites and including videos of ads and candidate statements. Computers were provided for those in the sample who did not have computers and microphones were provided to the participants so that the discussions could use voice rather than text.

Where, from that description (at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html) do you get the impression Clark wasn't part of the study?

It just makes no sense that you think he wasn't in it.

And again, what will you admit about the study once we prove Clark was part of it. I presume you've been denying that he wasn't in the study for some reason other than just for denial's sake. It obviously means something to you or you wouldn't be wasting your time.

He raised the second most amount of money behind Dean at the start of the year, and was in second in New Hampshire for weeks. The problem was that he skipped Iowa, and Kerry's strategy of riding the Iowa bounce REALLY paid off, and thus gave him the nomination. In the process, many Clarkies went to Kerry, or went back to him if they were former Kerry supporters.
Had Clark not skipped Iowa and won there, he would be the nominee right now. Or if Dean and Gephardt had finished in the top two then Clark could have fought against Dean until Super Tuesday.

What brought this on? :)

I was really disappointed in him throughout the Primaries. I thought, and this is pretty ironic since he's a general, that he looked terrified on TV. Like the Clintons forced him to be there or something.

Now, and you won't understand this unless you watched America's Next Top Model (amazing television) he reminds of April from that program. She might not have been a natural, but she's so frightening an overachiever that she will learn -- dammit! -- and behave exactly as the perfect, archetype model would.

I hope you get to know Clark better now that you're more open to him. He's a good one.

http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=clark+town+hall+henniker&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

I thought he struggled sometimes in the big-hall address kind of setting, but he was *great* in Town Hall formats.

Do check it out.

That must explain what some people mean tho. I missed a lot of the early Hardball and similar interviews. Went back and caught 'em later and he did seem uncomfortable in a few. I thought it was his makeup, and the not-blinking thing. Never even occurred to me he was afraid of the camera--all those hours on CNN? Give me a break.

I mostly watched the C-SPAN stuff--townhalls, VFW meetings, college campuses and so forth. Clark always kicked ass in those, even early on. His press conference after the Hague was brilliant. I think that's when I "fell in love"--I never wanted anyone to be MY president so bad.

Never could understand the "bad campaigner" tag. He just had a crappy campaign staff--all the left-overs.

I think you picked up on Clark struggling early to NOT always be candid and spontaneous, because it took him awhile to calibrate how his off the cuff remarks would be spun by the media and opponents. After that day number two fiasco with the NY Times reporter, his handlers tried to reign Clark in. For awhile he was over scripted. But you are absolutely right about Clark being an overachiever, except for the fact that he is intrinsically incredibly competent, while typical overachievers aren't always. Clark has an amazing will to master the tasks and goals he sets for himself. And he does just that. The media tuned out of Clark's campaign just when he was hitting his stride. He's fully ready for prime time now, and very few men have the arrows Clark has available to him in his quiver.

He was always easy and relaxed in front of the camera... until he had to learn how to be a "candidate". Then he had to be careful about everything he said and how he said it, you could see the strain. And the influence of advisors, not always to his advantage either.

What was fascinating to see was his Charlie Rose interview a day after he dropped out. It was one of his best interviews. He seemed to have a weight lifted off his shoulders and was so natural and expressive, it was the "old Clark" again. The crash course in being a politician had started to weigh on him, clearly.

But he is an amazingly fast study, his improvement even over the primary season was incredible and at this point he can hold his own with anybody, I don't care how long they've been at this game. He is especially good with anything he truly feels passionate about and it's obvious there is nothing that matters to him more right now than getting rid of Bush. If he had started earlier, things may have turned out very different.

He's ready for his close-up now, Mr. DeMille... ;)

Yep, sure did.

media hype (the Clintons puppet, etc) caused many misconceptions about Wes Clark from the very beginning. He was never able to overcome many of them, even right here on DU.

It is heartbreaking to me that so many people are just now beginning to realize the truth - that Wes Clark is a great man and that he was genuine and sincere in every way.

in Wes and others couldn't, wouldn't or didn't want to? It's baffling. :(

I was for Kucinich from the get go but would have happily supported Clark or Edwards or Dean or whoever won the nomination.

My problems with Clark were (1) I had very high expectation from the General and he, in my opinion, did not live up to them in the primary (2) he did not speak with strength as he has been doing lately. I wanted him to take charge and instead I saw a tentative, hesitant, green politician.

Like I said before, I think he should be VP, ESPECIALLY if the Iraq situation worsens (if that's possible). And I think he complements Kerry without taking away from him (as I fear Edwards, a natural born spotlight hogger) would.

He was a green politician. And, that hurt him more than I expected. I had hoped that people would look more at the man than the "politician". I was wrong, though.

but we live in an age of soundbites and 90 second interviews. Kerry has some honing of his own to do, clearly, but Clark started with a big disadvantage.

You need to be a good politician to make people take that second glance and deeper look. An unknown like Clark needed to hit the ground running, not tip-toeing.

That is one of the reasons I liked him so much!!!!!

I am tired of slick pols, with slick sound bites...it is so phoney.

From the beginning, Wes spoke like a REAL person...I fell in love with him when he was on CNN during the war. He did his best at town halls, when he was talking to average people & answering their questions. You could tell that he really cared...his sincerity shone through.

And then the handlers put the brakes on him, & you could tell he was not comfortable being stage managed.

If Kerry chooses Wes, he will not always be the smoothest, or the most glib. But he will be the most brilliant guy in the room. And he will be the most capable guy in the room, based on what he has thus far achieved.

After his life experiences, I can sleep soundly again, knowing Wes is there with Kerry. And if something happens to Kerry, Wes can take over.

everyone/world can just sit back, relax and enjoy the results of his intelligence, insight and strategy. (The next time he has to campaign he will be more experienced.) Personally I think he did great...but I won't get into that now.

What I'm trying to say is that most of the criticism I hear about Clark has to do with his campaigning...however after the election...that won't be an issue.

her ideas are better than the other side's ideas.

This is one of Bush's biggest weaknesses. It was Clinton, Kennedy and FDR's greatest strength. FDR was reelected every time he ran. Clinton was reelected twice. JFK was shot because it was so obvious that he was going to get reelected.

The best thing about campaigning as being the job interview for the presidency is that it's the same set of skills.

Bush managed to "persuade" 70% of the people that a suicide march was in the best interstests of the country.

The value of persuasion is only as good as the policies being pushed.

And that's why he'll probably lose the next election.

Are YOU joking? Do you really think Clinton, JFK, Lincoln, and FDR's greatest skill is one you ONLY need for the campaign?

he started out a little wobbly, but I for one will never forget the week of Jan 6th-11th in NH when we Clarkies had the place to ourselves. It was magic!!

:)

when we all lit candles?

to make us cry Leilani?

Yes, I remember...*sniff*

:)

Just remembering the fun times.

Maybe we can do candles when Kerry makes his Veep announcement?

thats a good idea, looking forward to lighting them again. :thumbsup:

:hi:

I felt we were all partying/hoping/praying and then grieving together.
I can still smell the candles. Let's hope we can light them again and have a HELL OF A HAPPY ENDING.

I frankly can't think of ANYTHING in the world that would make me happier than to hear Wes Clark would be our VP...except the day he and Kerry were inaugurated. Then the healing of our country and world can begin. :bounce:

:grouphug:

Edwards in cities, Kerry in Tulsa ..... these were the 'trends'

Dept of Peace - Dennis Kicnich
Dept of Defence - Wesley Clark
Attorney General - John Edwards
Health and Human Services - Howard Dean
Secratry of State - Carol Mosely Brawn

since he can't be Def. Sec.
The Defense Secretary has to have been out of military service for 10 years or more. It's a federal law.

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. way, and This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that. Look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's & MIAs. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean."

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders (he has knighthoods or the equivalent from 18 european nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times.

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class,
became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters. 4 star hero vs. the
"chickenhawk."

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected by the President in National Security issues.

Please, for the good of the country, select Wes Clark.

:hi:

Now let me finish reading your excellent posts! :)

All this stuff about Wes Clark not being a real Dem.--people should really look at the man's background and campaign history. Yes, he voted for Reagan and Bush 41, when most military people did so because the R's were perceived as stronger on defense. As a military leader, Clark was non-partisan. If you look at his record in the military, you see a supporter of equal opportunity, affirmative action, support for quality education and healthcare. Clark was a Democrat in deeds before he even realized that he is one. Please read the below commentaries from/about those who served with him. Wes Clark is a true American hero whom we Dems. are lucky to have in our fold.
The following are posts to CCN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By cris
Posted to cris's weblog (Firsthand Accounts) on Tue Nov 18th, 2003 at 03:51:17 PM PST
The Man for all Reasons
If you are lucky, once in your lifetime a truly exceptional person will cross your path. I met and know such a person: General Wesley Clark. For three years, I had the privilege of working for General Clark when he served as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. I can attest to the fact that he is a general's general and a soldier's general.

I first met General Clark in June 1998 on a special assignment in Maastricht, Belgium, in support of General Hugh Shelton. I was immediately struck by two things. First, although General Clark wore the uniform of a four star General, he spoke as though he were a polished diplomat. He seemed comfortable in both worlds - as a General and as a spokesman for NATO.

The second thing I noticed was the way he treated his subordinates. He treated everyone equally, regardless of their rank, and he listened - really listened - to what people had to say. And the General's security detail clearly loved working for him. This is not common; most security guys don't get to know their principals on a personal basis.

A year later, I got a call from my assignment officer. He told me I could either work at the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense, or I could work for General Clark. After my memorable first encounter with him, there was no question what I would do. I said that I wanted to work for General Clark.

In the weeks before I arrived at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), I thought that I would be the "token Hispanic." When I arrived, I quickly found out that I was mistaken. I had never seen so many minorities working in any high-powered setting. I learned that it was because General Clark values diversity and wants to give everyone a chance.

And from the moment I arrived, General Clark and his wife did everything they could to make me feel welcome. My first assignment was to take the General to his quarters and then to a dinner engagement with NATO officials. After the event, the first thing General Clark asked me was whether I had gotten anything to eat. To most four-star generals, security is an instrument. With General Clark, it was a different story. He always treated his staff like family.

During the war in Kosovo, I saw how deeply compassionate General Clark is. He worried about the pilots who were out on night missions, and he would not go to sleep until he knew the last pilot had bedded down. Instead, he would work in his study, going over the latest intelligence reports and providing updates to the alliance and officials back in Washington. When he finally went to bed, it was only for two hours, and more often than not, he would be awakened by calls. His instruction to me before going to bed was: "Cris, push every call through." No rest for the General.

In fact, I don't think anyone in the U.S. armed forces worked harder than the General. His superiors in Washington, DC knew this. They would often preface their calls by saying, "Don't wake General Clark." All of us who worked for him were amazed by his constant upbeat tempo and energy. We wanted to do everything possible to take care of him because he was doing so much for America and NATO.

And no matter how pressing a situation became, General Clark always stayed calm. I recall when an F-117 went down - the only plane to go down during the entire campaign. In contrast to other officers I knew who would explode in tense moments, General Clark remained calm and efficiently took the necessary steps.

I don't think anyone else could have done what the General did at NATO. For anyone who thinks that was a small accomplishment, just get nineteen friends together for dinner and try to pick a restaurant as a group. General Clark took nineteen countries and built consensus through dialogue. He gave Milosevic a chance, and then took action only as a last resort.

General Clark is an extraordinary leader. People trusted him because they knew that he was honest and a straight shooter. And there was no mincing words with him. He always wanted to hear the truth. You didn't put things off. He wanted to know what had gone wrong so that he could make corrections and get back on the right track.

But most of all, General Clark is loyal -- loyal to his country and to the United States Army, the organization that brought him up from West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander. I have worked around a lot of generals, and I can say that the Boss is one of the best I've ever worked with. He cared deeply about the soldiers he led, treated all of us who worked for him with the highest respect, and served his country with dedication, courage and honor.
From the right front seat

Cris Hernandez Jr, Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)
Former Personal Security Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
Casa Grande, AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This one from interviews


As a junior Navy officer, Eric Massa had no choice the first time he went to work for Gen. Wesley Clark in 1996, as Clark's assistant in Panama. The Navy set up the interview, and Massa hoped to mangle it with blunt honesty.

"I didn't want the job, and I told him so," said Massa. "I was afraid of working for a pompous moron, of which there are several wearing stars. I had worked for senior officers who didn't care about people, and I didn't want to do that again."

It turned out Massa and Clark had something in common there, and Massa spent the next four years attached to Clark, first in Panama and then in Europe, during Clark's stint as supreme allied commander in Europe.

When Massa left Clark in 1999 it was under protest and only because Massa had been diagnosed with advanced cancer. Now, years later, Massa - recovered and retired from the Navy - is working for Clark's army again, this time as a campaign staffer trying to get Clark elected to the White House.

Massa wasn't looking for the job this time, either. Clark asked

him to come on board after learning a month ago that Massa had "involuntarily resigned" from his government job at the urging of Republican bosses. They were upset that Massa had visited Clark at a Democratic campaign event.

"They said I was a political liability and that if I liked Wes Clark so much I should go work for him," Massa said. A lifelong Republican, Massa just re-registered as a Democrat. Massa is the son of a Navy man, and as such grew up outside America and with a respect for the military. The family came to the United States when Massa was 16, and after graduating from high school in Louisiana, Massa attended the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

In all, Massa spent 25 years in the Navy, 16 of them on sea duty. In the mid-1990s, Massa's commanding officer told him it was time to decide how he wanted to fulfill his joint duty, a requirement for officers to spend part of their service with another branch of the military.

When Massa said he wanted to do something out of the ordinary, he was told an Army general by the name of Wes Clark was looking for a Navy aide. All he knew about Clark was that he had stars on his Army uniform, and that didn't carry much weight with Massa.

Their 50-minute interview, however, convinced Massa to withhold judgment.

"He had questions I didn't expect from a military man," Massa said. "He asked me if I was familiar with Greek literature, if I read Homer, what I thought about the Illiad.

"And the last 20 minutes were devoted to people questions," Massa said. "He asked me what I would do if a young soldier came to me and told me his wife had died. Or a homosexual soldier told me he was being harassed. His whole thing was treating people with dignity and respect."

Three hours later, Massa was on a plane with Clark to Panama, where Clark was commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command. Massa described his job as Clark's executive assistant and deputy chief of staff.

Once there, Massa asked Clark what the Homer question was about. Massa remembers the answer: "He said he was looking for someone who was well-rounded enough to talk about issues beyond military terms."

For about 13 months, Massa shadowed Clark, keeping notes of his meetings and drafting follow-up letters to the people Clark had met. Massa said Clark forbade his staff to begin any of his correspondence with "I" because Clark wanted the emphasis on the recipient, not himself.

A show of support
When Clark was promoted to supreme allied commander in Europe in 1997, he asked Massa to stay on and be his advance man. Massa agreed and moved his wife and kids, who had been waiting for him back in San Diego, to Brussels, Belgium. After Clark arrived, Massa was again a close assistant and became one of Clark's main liaisons to Washington, D.C.

Massa had every intention of staying in Europe as Clark's assistant until he got sick in late 1999. He hadn't recovered from running a half-marathon but chalked it up to the flu. He blew off a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, thinking he'd work it off.

On Nov. 9, 1999, Massa looked up from his desk to find Clark standing there. Clark told Massa that his wife had called worried about his health.

Clark had arranged another doctor's appointment for Massa, and when Massa protested, Clark gave him the only direct order Massa recalls receiving in four years. "I think we have lost the fundamental relationship between a four-star general and a Navy commander," Clark told him. "You will go to the doctor."

The doctor diagnosed Massa, who had never smoked, with advanced lung cancer and gave him four months to live. Clark cut through red tape to get Massa and his family back to the United States for treatment.

Just before Massa left, Clark convened the staff and tearfully awarded Massa the Legion of Merit medal for his work. Clark had received the same medal in the 1970s when he was a speech writer for the then-supreme allied commander.

It's one of the few times Massa saw Clark cry.

"Everyone thought that was goodbye, that I was dying," Massa said.

Back home in San Diego, doctors were more optimistic and diagnosed Massa with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, not lung cancer, and began aggressive treatment.

Unknown to Massa, Clark had a soldier tracking Massa's surgery. As soon as Massa came to in recovery, staff told him he had a call. It was Clark. At the time, he was overseeing the bombing of Kosovo.

A different kind of service
Massa retired about three years ago; he waited so that the last thing he did in uniform was attend Clark's retirement. Now he's living in a hotel in Manchester, trying to avoid a fast-food diet and bringing his family in from New York when he can.

He talks wistfully about the job he lost to get here. Massa was in Washington overseeing part of the Navy budget as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. His departure was reported by the press and has since become fodder for online political sites.

But he doesn't regret where it got him. On the trail, Massa is helping get Clark the veteran vote - and whatever else needs doing.

"If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in the summer or the winter," Massa said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Cuomo said,

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

Ken

I know education only counts for so much in public opinion, but his triad of advanced degrees in topics as varied as government, economics and philosophy always intrigued me so much.

I think Clark has much to offer the democratic party and America.

Wes Clark will be on CSPAN's Road to the Whitehouse at 6:30 and 9:30 May 16, 2004.

On Tuesday May 11, former Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley Clark (ret.) campaigned for Senator John Kerry. He spoke at the Alabama Democratic Party's annual Spring Dinner. Among the topics addressed were Senator Kerry's qualifications to be commander-in-chief and the proper definition of patriotism.

patriotism is. The bunch in the WH think it's only the people that swallow the propaganda.