Wes Clark Jr. - in case you didn't see it.

[chaska]

A post by Wesley Clark Jr. from the daily kos:

Just a couple of comments (and yes, I am who I say I am as Kos can attest),

I don't know if he will run but he'll make an announcement either way (my guess is at the very latest labor day). I understand that the wait might be frustrating for people in the DraftClark movement and the Democratic party - but if he runs, I assume that those who think he is a good candidate now will probably not hold it against him just because he waited a few extra weeks.

He won't be running as a Republican.

He IS NOT campaigning for a VP slot.

He is very progressive on every issue - he's stated that global warming is happening, that he's pro-choice, that he's pro-affirmative action, that he's pro-union, that the tax code should remain progressive, that multilateral solutions should be found for the world's security concerns, that he was against the decision to go to war in Iraq and that we need stronger social safety nets. I don't know what other positions people need to find out which direction he leans but it seems fairly clear to me.

He is most of all interested in the battle of ideas and not that of individuals (to include himself). I'm sure he'll help out whomever wins the nom for the Democrats when it comes time to bring down Bushco - whether he mounts a campaign himself or not.

I don't know if he would be able to win the Democratic nom but I believe he is the only one who can win the general election because it will be about one thing - national security. I wish it were about health care, the coming water crisis, the need for alternative energy or the economy but it won't be. National security is now personal security and that trumps every other issue.

As an unrelated aside, does anyone else out there believe that the real reason the Repubs are having the convention in NYC isn't to crow about 9/11 but to provoke a riot a la Chicago in '68?

Wesley Clark Jr. | 07.09.03 - 5:05 pm |

[Oracle]

1. I sent Wesley Clark a few bucks, though Kucinich is the one I am...

supporting. I like what I hear, every time I hear Clark speak.

[Kahuna]

3. Good for you Oracle!

I sent money too and made a pledge to donate money if he runs.

I feel like I did when we were waiting to find out if Gore was going to run. It sucks! :-(

For me, Clark is the next best thing to Gore, maybe as good as better. For me, that's saying a lot. I have the utmost confidence in Clark.

[dfong63]

5. good catch:

wishy-washiness was also a serious shortcoming of Gore's.

[Kahuna]

6. That settles it.

You don't like Gore or Clark. Speaks volumes.

I like smart, thoughtful, pragmatic men. But that's just me.

[Oracle]

8. I'm with you Kahuna.

I of course voted for Gore (and send bucks, worked the Demo headquarters here and did much more.) Although I do see Clark as a tough guy to attack, certainly not hispatriotism, a favorite Republic ploy to say their more patriotic simply because they where a flag on their lapel.)

And Eisenhower took care of any attempt to raise the never being elected and governing, since Ike was a Republican who served as Prez for eight.

And he backs labor unions, the working person’s only hope against the union busting rightwing fascist.

He’s as stated, pro-choice, affirmative action , environmentally aware and excellent speaker.

And best of all he’s not some lying Republican or a spineless Democrat.

[midnitemoleman]

2. I like Clark, and would probably vote for him!

I have not heard one bad thing about this guy!

[dfong63]

4. as a matter of fact, i do hold it against him

I don't know if he will run but he'll make an announcement either way (my guess is at the very latest labor day). I understand that the wait might be frustrating for people in the DraftClark movement and the Democratic party - but if he runs, I assume that those who think he is a good candidate now will probably not hold it against him just because he waited a few extra weeks.

this is ridiculous. a man who wants to be the nation's chief executive should be able to make up his mind by now. the "draft clark" bandwagon started rolling months ago. if he can't declare one way or the other at this time, at least he should publicly announce a firm deadline for making his decision. imho if he wants to be president, he should jump in and start pulling his weight like a real candidate. if he's not sure, then he should get out and stop distracting from the real candidates.

i do hold it against him, that his wishy-washiness, or coyness, or whatever the reason for his indecision, is hurting the other dems.

what IS the man's excuse? Clark Jr guesses "at the very latest labor day", but i don't see any explanation of why Clark Sr can't make up his mind, or what will happen between now and then to help him make up his mind.

fish or cut bait.

I don't know if he would be able to win the Democratic nom but I believe he is the only one who can win the general election because it will be about one thing - national security. I wish it were about health care, the coming water crisis, the need for alternative energy or the economy but it won't be. National security is now personal security and that trumps every other issue.

that's a nice self-serving assessment for a general (or his supporters) to make. i don't agree with it. i think jobs and the economy will be the number 1 issue. furthermore, i think a man who holds this warped assessment will not be a good candidate. running on the issue of "national security" will be a mistake imho: because the public probably feels that bush* is doing a good job in that area. it will be hard to convince them otherwise, without a clear, unambiguous failure in that area. whereas, it is undeniable that bush* has stumbled in his stewardship of the economy.

or maybe the number 1 issue will be bush*'s lies. but General Clark is no more qualified than anyone else to capitalize on that issue.

[chaska]

7. Answer:

Point 1: It's called strategy.

Point 2: If we focus on the economy, they will focus on national security. We will VERY likely (as in you can count on it - bet the farm, my friend - we're talking metaphysical certitude here) We will very likely have another event like 9/11, or a war, or god (Rove) knows what, and the electorate will be focused on national security again. The crowd roars "Save us, Mister President!" Clark is the only possible candidate that can win against this strategy.

Point 3: General Clark is the only serious contender that doesn't have to deal with the taint that comes with the term "politician", which as we all know means 'dishonest'. Clark has an air of unimpeachable integrity, which is appropriate because ... duh, he's earned it.

He is the best man for the job. He will be president in 2004.

His positions are available - google anyone.

[dfong63]

10. it's a cowardly strategy

... but i guess that's the way a good general thinks. let others be the cannon fodder, while you hang back and strategize.

imho it's dumb to make "national security" the major issue of the campaign. that's duhbya's strongest issue. the economy is his weakest. you're right that another 9/11 type of attack will help bush. but it'll also make it almost impossible for any other candidate to challenge him on "national security" grounds. the challenger will be put in the position of trying to "out-republican" the republican.

as far as "the taint of politics" goes, i disagree. i think history shows that the american people prefer politicians over generals - more politicians have been elected president than generals. General Clark has never held elected office - in my opinion, that makes him no more qualified than Ralph Nader or Al Sharpton.

where does the idea come from that being a general is a qualification for political office? a guy who becomes a general is a guy who has risen to the top of a very corrupt heap - an unaccountable institution where one plane costs hundreds of millions of dollars, a toilet seat costs $700, a hammer costs $100, waste is endemic, and trillions of dollars are unaccounted for. an institution where blind obedience is revered. dissent and independent thinking are punished. secrecy, rather than openness, is the norm. how does that qualify someone to be the leader of a democratic government?

[neuvocat]

9. Do you have a link for this?

I tried to find these on the site and didn't know where to look. Thanks.