Clark, Clark, Clark...WHY???

[regnaD kciN]

I don't get it. Why the sudden mania for Wesley Clark? Can anyone give me one reason to support him, other than "he's a General" (and not a right-wing nut like so many of them)? I mean, Colin Powell was a General, too, with a record as a moderate, but I wasn't about to vote for him even before he joined the Bush junta.

Don't get me wrong...I want Bush out no matter what. But, from what I have read about Clark, the man is practically a political cypher -- Chauncey Gardner come to life. I mean, he says the right things (if generally and vaguely), but where is his experience? What has he achieved politically? If he didn't have the stars on his uniform, would there be any reason to give him any more consideration for the Presidency than the pharmecist at the corner store who happens to also be a Democrat?

As far as I can tell, the only reasons to support Clark are a) a dissatisfaction with every other announced Democratic candidate, and b) the thought that Democrats need a military man to give them a "tougher" image. But how sad is it that, apparently, large numbers of Democrats either think they need the military imprimateur to be taken seriously, want a "none of the above" choice, or both?

:-(

[Blue_Chill]

1. Because he isn't just another politician

He's a guy that we can all be proud of. A guy that has been involved first hadn in the international community. He isn't just another state gov or rep. If you want a fresh perspective perhaps you should stop supporting the same type of people.

Besides this election is going to be about national security, war on terra, and all sorts of BS. Chimpy can't touch this guy on any of that.

[Pastiche423]

14. "He's a guy that we can all be proud of"

Speak for yourself and do not include me in your "all".

I find nothing at all about the man to be proud of.

[Kahuna]

46. Touche, Pastiche. Touche.

Too bad you will be in the minority in your opinion. }(

[Pastiche423]

51. I have yet to be

in the minority of any DU polls.

[Blue_Chill]

85. DU is a minority

so I hope that works for ya.

[TheYellowDog]

71. I find nothing about

your obvious socialist leanings to be proud of, either, Pastiche. You're part of that 2.73% that voted for Nader, and you WILL be irrelevant in 2004. Enjoy. ;-)

[newsguyatl]

73. spoken like a true fascist

[Blue_Chill]

81. You need to look up fascist

Because you obviously don't have a clue as to what it means. Calling a Democrat liberal a fascist for not like a third party is moronic.

[Pastiche423]

75. I have been a registered Democrat

for over thirty years. In 2000, I voted for Gore.

Enjoy. ;-)

[Blue_Chill]

79. fair enough

A guy I can be proud of.

Happy now?

[sangh0]

22. What's to be proud of?

If I need "glittering generalities" I can read what the RNC says about Bush*. How about some details?

A guy that has been involved first hadn in the international community

The BFEE has also been involved 1st hand in the int'l community. Somehow, I suspect you meant something else.

[TLM]

23. That like saying that a pilot should do your heart surgery...

because he's not just another doctor.

Experience is important for a president, and not just experience blowing shit up. Don't get me wrong, I think Clark is a good guy and he'll make a great president after 8 years as president Dean's VP.

[dfong63]

60. i'm not proud of Clark

in my book he's a war criminal.

and, poll after poll shows that this election is going to be primarily on the economy. if the dems foolishly choose to make it about national security, they'll be taking an unnecessary risk, playing on Karl Rove's preferred turf.

[Dookus]

63. then

Clark's Masters in Economics from Oxford University will serve him well.

[Blue_Chill]

80. War Criminal?

A lot of DUers toss that term around. You best have some serious proof to back that up. If you are one of those "all US wars are war crimes" people don't waste my time.

[Pastiche423]

2. Other than who is behind him...

:shrug:

[XEON]

3. He will win.

Not like a Blowhard Coward.

[RetroLounge]

40. Are we playing with mommy's computer today?

Are we playing with mommy's computer today?

24 posts, so far, every one nasty and anti-Dean.

Not a single complete sentence or any substance in any of his posts.

Not to mention his 5th grade spelling level.

[neuvocat]

4. Why not?

[synthia]

5. i bet Dean is muttering Clark Clark Clark Clark Clark

as Kerry murrwers Dean Dean Dean Dean Dean

[StopTheMorans]

8. what's Clark's economic policy?

how's his record on the economy again? How's he going to get us out of this mess?

[Avalux]

11. Clark has no platform because he's not a candidate yet

once he announces, we will hear specifics. Patience.

[Pepperbelly]

39. probably more gracefully than any of the others ...

I would be very pleased to have an Oxford-trained economist calling the shots for a change.

[Kahuna]

48. He's gonna keep us out of world war three and try to

head off the necessity of a draft. He's gonna restore our international relationships with our allies.

[TLM]

18. Doubt it.... as Clark is way more of a threat to Kerry.

Kerry the war hero who voted for the Iraq war.

Clark the much more accomplshed war hero who was against the war in Iraq.


Clark is the biggest threat to Kerry, Lieberman and Graham. If he enters the race they won't have a chance.

[Kahuna]

50. Clark is a big threat to Lieberman too. Face it...

Clark will peel off support from everybody.

[w4rma]

82. "doesn’t eat into Dean’s lead…Dean is the only one who could hold his own"

…
Under the Clinton scenario, Kerry would fall into the second tier of Democratic hopefuls, favored by just 16 percent of voters. All the other Democratic candidates would be relegated to the single digits.

Dean’s support among independent- and reform-minded voters seems intact with or without Clinton in the race while Kerry would find his base of support among traditional Democratic voters threatened, according to Herald pollster R. Kelly Myers.

"If Hillary Clinton suddenly expressed some interest in the race, the biggest potential loser is Kerry," Myers told the Herald. "She doesn’t eat into Dean’s lead at all ... As of today, Dean is the only one who could hold his own (against Clinton)."
…
http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/July2003/July_28/News/reg_pol_0728a.asp

A new Prez Preferece poll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=190456

Clark V Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=196331

[TacticalPeek]

31. ROFL

[Cocoa]

6. he's refreshingly vague

he's not like all the other candidates with their boringly specific plans on boring topics like health care and taxes.

[StopTheMorans]

13. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yeah, refreshingly vague like the chimp, and big on natl. security to boot. He'd better come out with some real stances (his own, not what his supporters infer them to be) soon or he's gonna enter the race just like Arnold did, and then drop when people find he hasn't enunciated a clear policy on many issues. Not saying it will happen, just that if he announces, he'd better make some CLEAR policy pronouncements, and soon. btw: leaving work now, not trolling, just have to leave:)

[Dookus]

16. Clark on the issues

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

It's really easy to find this stuff. Not quite as easy as just pulling stuff out of your ass, but pretty easy nonetheless.

[Cocoa]

20. just because it says "on the issues" means nothing

that section is a joke.

The first part talks about his "distinguished record of service". What the hell is that doing on the "on the issues" page.

This is the entirety of that page's part on health care:


Health Care and Education: Clark is a strong supporter of a social safety net, including effective and well-supported systems of education and health care:

* "I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work." (Source: Waging Modern War)

That's it????

THIS is you answer to the charge that Clark is vague?????

[sangh0]

25. It's not even Clark's website

It's a website by someone who likes Clark.

[Dookus]

27. let's read it carefully

FOR affirmative action
AGAINST drilling in the arctic
FOR gays in the military
AGAINST the patriot act
FOR Progressive taxation
AGAINST Bush tax cuts
FOR women's right to choice


Those are the specific positions on the page, along with other "bigger picture" positions.

Considering he's not running yet, I don't fault him for not having published position papers on everything.

But if he runs, you can be assured that he will make his positions known.

[Cocoa]

34. I don't call those positions

I call it positionING.

He could have had his buddies at Acxiom put all their citizen data through an algorithm that gave the optimal profile.

Acxiom, by the way, is big into the Patriot Act, they offer "Patriot Act Services" and Clark was taken on to get government contracts for them. He is not "against the Patriot Act" whatever that means.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

41. Ahh, the Return of the "Clark Is Lying/a Tool of Some Dark Power" Meme

Burden's on you to establish he doesn't mean what he's saying. I am -- and IMO most of the rest of America is -- perfectly willing to take him at his word.

If you really want to worry about electing a liar/tool of some dark power to the White House, feel free to vote for Shrub or Nader rather than Clark if he gets the Dem nod.

DTH

[Cocoa]

49. no, what I mean is this

what the hell does "against the Patriot Act" mean, other than a position that sounds good? I have no idea what this means.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Here's a Little More

Thanks to Will for posting this quote from Salon and DWC.com in his excellent Clark post:

"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus, which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review. And it should be done."

DTH

[Dookus]

47. then...

you've framed the debate in a way that disallows for any substantive discussion.

You ask for links on his positions. I provide direct quotes from him on a variety of issues, but you reject them as "positining".

If you consider that honest debate, then there are other boards where such tactics are considered de rigeur.

[Darranar]

56. Look...

Arnold Swartzenegger has said that he is "for the people." From that statement, we could foster a picture of him as a radical libertarian socialist. But, as we well know, he's not. that's the problem I have with these Clark quotes.

[Dookus]

58. Then

in order to back your position, we must believe that Clark is lying when he says those things.

I don't believe that.

But just wait a week or so. If he runs, he'll make all his positions very very clear.

Honestly, guys, I think it's silly to attack a man for not having published detailed position papers on every topic of importance BEFORE he decides whether to run.

The positions WILL be clear, and you can judge them then. But attacking him now for this is just childish.

He HAS expressed views on a variety of issues already, and I find none of them even remotely objectionable.

[NashVegas]

86. Clark Is So Perfect I Bet He Shits Apple Butter

Oh so articulate. Oh so telegenic.

Could one ask for a better candidate? A NATO commander w/an economics degree?

Step back for a moment: he has a resumé a global capitalist would LOVE.

[TahitiNut]

66. Well, practice makes perfect.

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

19. And he has a remarkable lack of passion.

I tend to wonder whether he much cares. Has he ever volunteered to help the less advantaged? Has he ever marched to support the civil liberties of others? What kinds of legislation has he proposed? When I see him, I'm reminded most of ... general ennui.

[Cocoa]

28. ha ha , pun intended?

"General Ennui" :-)

[TahitiNut]

65. Yup. Also as in ....

... ennui the people. :silly:

[KoKo]

77. Well, our little group "over here in the corner" enjoyed the general ennui

:D

[Bertrand]

7. Its an organized conspiracy by the Clark campaign

to meme DU with pro-clark infopackets</Tinoire>

[tkmorris]

26. Ding ding ding ding

We have a winner folks, may as well lock this thread now :)

[CMT]

9. I think much of Clark's appeal is

because he is moderate enough on the issues (as vauge as he has been, but I assume he will expand on them during the campaign)and because he can neutralize Bush on the national defense issue. So many democrats are so afraid of Bush and company questioning their patriotism or being soft on national defense that the idea of nominating a military man--and one who has been wounded in combat--is appealing.

I agree with you I wasn't about to embrace Colin Powell just because he was a military man who formulated the first Bush administrations Desert Storm policy--just like i'm not taken with Clark just because he has been a military man. He seems like a good guy and I'll vote for him if he is the nominee, but other than the military experience and being a talking head on CNN--what else is there?

[La Resistance]

10. he brings an element all other candidates are lacking

he won't be perceived as weak on national security and anti-terrorism, especially considering he actually served in the military unlike our "warrior king" deserter president. Even if he drops out of the presidential race, his presence on another candidate's ticket immediately bolsters Democratic hopes of winning the WH. Dean knows this, which is why he extended the invitation. the media will spend all of their time trying to discredit Dem candidates on the nat'l security issue, and Clark is pretty much immune to that strategy.

[diplomats]

17. Bush is vulnerable on security issues

and Clark is the best candidate to exploit that. Think about it: a general with experience working with a coalition (NATO) attacking Bush for his to-hell-with-the-rest-of-the-world Iraq policy. And we can't win this election with just Democrats. Clark seems to have the potential to bring along plenty of moderates, including some Repukes. He seems to be a progressive on the issues but with a military background. I like that combination.

[sangh0]

29. Is that it?

He's got military experience? Is that all it takes these days to win the support of Democrats?

How sad.

[Dookus]

35. yes... that's it

we just love the uniform. Makes him look hot.

It has NOTHING to do with his liberal/progressive stand on many issues, nothing to do with his vast foreign affairs experience, nothing to do with his opposition to the war in iraq, nothing to do with lifelong record of accomplishment, nothing to do with the four languages he speaks or the masters degrees in Politics, Economics and Philosophy from Oxford, nothing to do with his eloquence, nothing to do with his ability to fight Bush on Bush's best issue....

it's the uniform.

[sangh0]

44. Ummm, did you read the posts I was responding to?

My post was not addressed to every single Clark supporter. It was addressed to the two posters, both of whose responses indicated only one qualification for his candidacy - his military experience.

But thank you for showing me one thing Clark shares with Dean - obnoxious supporters who over-react to any post that isn't laudatory.

[HootieMcBoob]

83. he's more than a democrat

he's talked a lot about LIBERAL values and LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. Clark is a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

[TLM]

33. That's what makes him a great VP pick, but not president.

"and Clark is the best candidate to exploit that."

Yes as VP he could do that easily... but if he runs for president, when he tries that, he'll be hit with the fact he has no experience.

[Disandra]

12. IMO...

Many Repubs are upset with Dubya and company. The Dems see Clark as a hope to get those angry Repubs to vote for them. Yeah, on the face, it may be silly to vote for Clark because he is a General. But remember, we will still be stuck in a war even if Bush is voted out. After all, just because Bush is out of office doesn't mean the war will disappear. Many people feel that someone with a military background is our best chance to clean up the mess Dubya and his co-horts have gotten ourselves into.

The bottom line is this (again, my own opinion): we should support Clark on the ticket somewhere, simply because he is our best chance to get Dubya out of office. If Sharpton, Liberman, or anyone else had that kind of power, I probably would vote for them too. I know this sounds messed up, but I see the upcoming election as a choice between the lesser of two evils.

PS--I always vote third party (usually Green), and in Georgia, my vote usually wouldn't count for much no matter how I vote (in a federal election). This up-coming election, I will be voting Dem. Clark may be the best chance for Georgia and other Republican dominated states to swing the other way.

[La Resistance]

37. good point

we will still have work to do. Bush leaving office won't just allow us to end the "war" on terra the day after inauguration. We will still have that mess to fight as well as Iraq and whomever else Bush decides to bomb to push up his poll numbers. As someone else said above, Clark can make * look vulnerable on Nat'l Security. while Clark can speak clearly and concisely about an exit strategy for Iraq and formulate a comprehensive strategy for the War on Terra, * will have nothing to spout but his tired cowboy talk. I think Clark could be an intirguing candidate who has the ability to drive the stake into the hearts of the Republicans. I don't know enough about him to say I'm a supporter, but he definitely brings something to the table.

[tjdee]

15. He gives anti-war folks an alternative.

An alternative in the form of someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials.

I used to say that Gore was the only one who could run as being against the Iraq war and win--I now expand that to Clark.

Clark is not my candidate, for the reasons that some have said--I don't know what he wants to do about education, etc. I'm just throwing that idea out there. Plus, I wish I could find that article that talked about Clark having and raising up a notch the positive attributes of the other candidates--very interesting.

But I certainly welcome his entry and already like him very much.

[alarimer]

21. saw him on the Bill Maher show

And I was favorably impressed. Although no specific issues were addressed, he seemed very personable and engaging, unlike most of the Dems running. I have to admit though that I have not paid too much attention to the race so far. I do know that Lieberman and Kerry put me to sleep when they speak. I am speaking of general impressions, not specifics on any issue so my impression of any of these people will change once I learn more of any of them. I would lean towards Dean in the primary though, so far at least but I am like most people, I don't care who the nominee is as long as they can defeat Bush.

[tjdee]

32. That Real Time interview was a gem.

He was indeed engaging and energetic even. He plays well on television, which is important (sorry, but it is unless you're George W. Bush--he's some freak of nature).

[JVS]

42. What policy credentials has he that are not specifically foreign policy?

Does he have any experience getting legislation passed? Does he have any experience enforcing legislation? Does he have any experience gaining public support for his ideas?

[tjdee]

54. He does have diplomatic experience...

I'm not going to argue much with you because that is a minor concern of mine as well, but at present I believe that his existing skills don't run contrary to what you mentioned.

As for whether he has experience gaining public support for his ideas, that's what the primaries are for.

[ProudGerman]

70. I really don't like that kind of thinking

It makes me think that people expect to be represented by a career politician, an elite class so to speak. Do you forego the founders dream of a citizen government, or just those that are "in the game".

Oh, and experience in what exactly? Experience in accepting bribes from lobbyists? Experience in trading votes so a pet project that'll garner re-election votes passes instead of voting your conscious and your constituents? Experience in being a PR pitchman throwing out soundbites to gain public support? Experience in what exactly that automatically dismisses 99 percent of the population....something that is anathema to what this country is supposed to be?

Hell, Bush is a complete dipshit, and that hasn't hurt him in any of the things you claim Clark's lack of experience would hurt Clark.

Lack of experience is a non-issue with Clark. The man is not stupid. He won't be "bamboozled" by the big bad wolves in Washington. Presidents do not govern alone, and they should not be expected to fix everything all by themselves.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Why not? That's a better question.

Frankly, political insiders are so poisoned by their alliances with PACS that I think a more independent person with leadership skills is a plus.

If you don't think one needs to advance with some political accumen in the military, you are sorely mistaken.

I personally WANT a president who understands the world and other cultures..one who has had to DEAL with them in order to achieve.

There may be a learning curve in Washington but that is the LEAST of my concerns.

[regnaD kciN]

74. No, it isn't...

By those standards, pick someone at random on the street. After all, why should they be qualified to be president? "Why not?"

I'm not dead set anti-Clark...I just fail to see what's exciting about him. Kucinich I can understand, since he was vocal against the Iraq resolution at a point when everyone was lining up to kiss Bush's ring in Congress. Dean I can understand, since he's both had a good track record as governor, and offers a pretty appealing platform. But I just can't see anything so far to make me excited about an unannounced candidate who only let us know a few days ago that he was even a Democrat. Perhaps time may tell. But, at the moment, I can only see the Clark stampede as equivalent to the enthusiasm for Ross Perot in mid-1992...as a sign more of lack of enthusiasm for any of the other candidates, rather than anything specific in favor of that candidate.

[Democrats unite]

30. Why not?

eom

[Pepperbelly]

36. if you think that the "military imprimateur" is all this is about ...

you haven't been paying very good attention.

[Kahuna]

38. "Wesley-mania." I coined the phrase months ago...

Bush is going to run on national security. bush has the bully pulpit. Ashcroft, Ridge, Powell and Rice will be in our faces 24/7 to remind us that 'we're at war.' <sic> And what a brilliant job "this president" is doing on the war on terrorism. And wasn't it so smart of them to invite the terrorists to wage the fight in Iraq instead of on America soil? :puke:

The most important reason is, voters do not displace a "wartime president" for one with zero (in the case of Dean) national security bona fides. It just isn't done. Not matter how much you try to will it to happen it won't. Wesley has the national security bona fides. He's classy as hell, charismatic, handsome (even sexy), brilliant, well spoken, progressive, witty and fast on his feet (ala Sharpton). What more do you want?

[Bake]

53. LIke it or not,

the Pukes have apparently successfully branded the Democratic Party as being soft on the military and soft on national security. (Footnote: That Dukakis image is still out there, even though some DUers aren't old enough to remember it). You can bitch about it not being the truth, but that perception is out there. Smirk is going to run like a motherfucker on the national security, "we're at war," "I'm a wartime President" theme. Clark neutralizes that argument INSTANTLY. You may not like it, and the perception may be false, but like they say in marketing, "perception is reality." It's high time the Dems stopped ceding the issue of national security to the Pukes.

The Deanies are just too pissed off about this, because they KNOW their guy has no military record at all (where WAS he during Vietnam?).

The Kerry-ites are just terrified of it, because it takes away one of their guy's advantages.

Bake

[Kahuna]

62. I like the way you put it even better, Bake.

:hi:

[robbedvoter]

43. See the Will Pitt thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=321720
Also, in these days when US is so despised abroad, wouldn't it be nice having a guy who has been decorated by countries W didn't even hear of?


Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards),
Distinguished Service Medal (two awards), Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star
Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards) and the Army
Commendation Medal (two awards), NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation
to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of
Yugoslavia.

His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the
British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the
Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of
Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic
of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star
of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of
the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech
Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of
Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of
the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of
Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The
Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade
of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.

[LoneStarLiberal]

45. I Think You Hit On One Of The Most Important Reasons

People like myself are hoping for a Clark candidacy: None of the existing candidates does it for me. That doesn't mean they are not good candidates or that their followers are somehow wrong; it simply means Kerry, Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich, Braun, Graham, Edwards, Sharpton, and Lieberman don't make me believe in them. I think we, as different shades of liberals, ought to be tolerant enough of one another's choices where we don't need to act like Republicans and only focus on the negatives of others' candidates.

Before I get flamed here, realize I am not saying ALL the other candidates are "unelectable," lousy, wrong, "too progressive," or whatever you want to choose. I simply like Clark, even the idea of Clark, better than the reality of the current field of candidates.

I'm sure this round of Clarkmania is going to kick off some more great flamewars around here for the weekend, which is too damn bad. Where along the way did we forget that you can have your opinion and I can have my opinion and we don't have to share the same one? Me attacking you for your choice in candidate and you attacking me for my choice in candidate is, to be blunt, fucking pointless.

I don't know of anyone who has changed his or her mind after being endlessly badgered and having their candidate (and, by virtue, their choice)insulted. If you want to win people over at the grassroots level, you need to sing virtues and not sling mud. Candidates can get away with mud-slinging; activists who need to build support do not.

If you want to change peoples' minds about your candidate, the first thing you need to do is leave the going negative stuff to the candidate debates.

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. Chauncey Gardner come to life

LOL! What had Whistle ass achieved politically before running for Pres? Being Gov of Texas which is a weak role to put it mildly, didn't exactly prepare him for his current role but that didn't stop the GOP from promoting him nor repubs from voting for him. Personally I don't care WHO gets the Democratic Nomination including Lieberman, I'll even vote for him if need be. I simply want the MISERABLE FAILURE out of office and last week would not have been soon enough!

[elfin]

57. Because - as Pat Moynihan stated

when asked why he supported Bradley over Gore - "Because he can win."

I still have my Bradley button - and have come to the conclusion after giving support to both Dean and Kerry - that Dean is too "hot" and Kerry is too "cold" and Clark is just right.

I do not care if he is as liberal as I, I do not care if he has never had an elelcted office, I do not care if his wife is "reluctant", I do not care if he is not specific.

The broad outlines of his philosophy are enough to give me comfort and and I finally feel a surge of real hope that we can send flyboy back to Crawford with a real trouncing.

[TacticalPeek]

59. And restore the Houses of Congress.

Pivotal.

[Lefty48197]

61. Right or Wrong, the Republicans have...

...labeled we Democrats as, 'soft on defense'. It's a baseless accusation, but the mud has stuck for several years now. There are even Republicans today claiming that President Clinton did NOTHING to fight Osama Bomb Laden, inspite of the cruise missile attack he launched at Osama's training camp in Afghanistan.
The 'soft on defense' charge has never really hurt us politically, until the 2002 midterm elections. All of the data showed that we lost during the midterm elections, because the voters viewed us as 'soft on defense'. And it wasn't the usual wealthy middle-aged white males who voted against us. This time it was the women who kept us from taking the Congress. Suburban women. Catholic women. Young women. We lost all of them.
Terrorism and national defense will quite possibly be the one issue that most determines the winner of the 2004 Presidential election. Clark would take the issue away from the right-wingers, and gives it to us, like no other Democratic candidate can.
Clark could very well be our BEST candidate on the ONE ISSUE that is most important to voters in 2004. That's the reason, I hope Clark will run.

[Kahuna]

64. Best reason... If Clark wins, it won't be a sqeaker like

in 2000 where bush can have a margin to steal it. If Clark wins, it would be by a strong enough margin to keep the repukes from stealing it again. God knows, they are already planning on how to "maximize" their chances. Clark has the greatest profile to take some of those red states and keep most of the blue states. If Clark sweeps it, congressional dems will ride his coattails and have an opportunity to win back at least one of the houses.

[Jose Diablo]

67. Voters will respond to 2 issues in '04

The economy and security.

Whatever Democrat team is placed before the voters, these 2 issues must be addressed.

IMO Clark can supply solutions to the security issue.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

68. He Also Has a Masters Degree in Economics from Oxford (!!!)

No other candidate has an economic pedigree like that.

DTH

[HootieMcBoob]

84. He also taught economics

at West Point, if I'm not mistaken.

He's the whole package. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans have had a more wothy or qualified candidate in my lifetime.

We're talking landslide people.

[Kahuna]

69. Jobs and security. The jobs issue will be very big.

But the bushies will resort to scare tactics. If we have a candidate with weak national security experience, the bushies will have a field day scaring the bejeesus out of 'murikans. As we know, the bushies have no shame at all. They will pull out all of the stops to win.

[TreasonousBastard]

72. Why anybody?

Kucinich is the soul of old liberal Democrats, Dean is the fighting spirit, Kerry is the patrician holding things together, and Clark may just be the guy to win it.

Winning may not be everything, but...

On second thought, in politics winning IS everything.

'specially next year.

[Julien Sorel]

76. He caught my interest by being a 4 star with intelligent views.

His anti-war stance made him worth a second look. His ability to speak intelligently, yet straightforwardly, while dismantling Bush time after time, made me look closely. I bought and read his book. I liked it -- liked the person I saw behind the words (the book itself is a rather pedestrian effort). I've read maybe a dozen military biographies similar to this one, but most of them were more about image polishing or simply cashing in. Clark clearly had a passion for what he was writing about, the nuances, the politics that rule high-level military decision making. He likes the game, and that's what politics is -- played, albeit, for high stakes. He's a highly intelligent man, and I suspect he will excel at the game once he starts playing. People who enjoy what they're doing tend to do better than people who do not.
I like the politics he has thus far articulated.

Now, there's another reason that only a fool would not take into account: the opportunity cost. If not Clark, what will I spend my precious political support on? Dean? He remains Bush's best chance to get re-elected. Kerry? Close to Dean at this point, plus I'm not thrilled with his war vote, or lackluster campaign to date. Gephardt? Never met a special interest he wouldn't coddle to. Lieberman? Too conservative for my taste, and Bush would beat him simply because Lieberman doesn't present a compelling case notto vote for Bush. Edwards? Well, I come from a poor background, worse than his. Why aren't I up there running for president?


To sum up:

1) I like Clark

2) I'm not thrilled with the alternatives.

In other words, exactly why anyone at any time in history would support a candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

78. Well let me ask you this...

Would anybody know about Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Graham if they weren't US Senators. Would anybody know about Howard Dean if he wasn't the former governor of Vermont? Would anybody know about Gephardt if he wasn't House minority leader for several years... Being a General is just another position, but one that is somewhat less political. So your logic behind people caring about Clark "Just because he is a general" is the same as we care about Howard Dean "only because he was governor of Vermont" which is really not the reason why most people do care about him.