I agree with PeteNYC about 2004....

[Postman]

We can't run on the economy, it has to be national defense. And if that is the way to attack the Reukes then our candidate has to be General Wesley Clark. What better candidate to defeat Bush with than an ex-general, and a wip-smart one at that?

I was leaning towards Howard Dean. In fact I have promoted voteing for him on this website but I'm beginning to have a change of direction here.

Bush cannot be allowed a legitimate term in office. It will destroy the country. Although I really like Howard Dean, General Wesley Clark, I beleive has the charm, intellect, speaking skills and the goods on this criminal administration.

Again, we win on the economy issue hands down but is that enough for us to win the White House? I don't think so. You know the scumbag neo-nazicans will play up the national defense card because that's all they have. Let's take it away from them.

[Frances]

1. As I wrote on another thread

it has not been my experience that Americans vote for a decent military man. Max Cleland, a real hero, lost to a chicken hawk in the Georgia senatorial contest. McCain, another hero, lost to Bush in the presidential primary in South Carolina. And Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and her retired admiral lost to a non-veteran in the governor's race in Maryland.

[spanone]

2. I would certainly love to see a Clark/Bu$h debate.

[mdmc]

4. rock stars and soldiers

can help a politician to win elections, but they don't often get votes for themselves.

[dfong63]

3. you must be kidding

not run on the economy? recent polls, including one reported here, say that twice as many people think jobs and the economy are the number one issue for 2004.

of course a general WOULD tend to see "national security" as the number one issue, but that just shows how out of touch he is and why he should NOT be the dem nominee.

clark isn't even officially running. i for one can't get too excited about a "national security" candidate who's too wishy-washy (either that, or cowardly) to openly declare his candidacy.

[mdmc]

5. Yeah, lets see Clark campaign!

Take your soldiers message to the people! I'll vote for him if he wins he primary. He has to announce and campaign to win.

[Postman]

6. that's a fair assessment..

you may be right, but I still think Clark would undress Bush in a debate.

[dfong63]

13. dean would also demolish bush*

so would edwards, kucinich, or even sharpton.

but let's also remember that there may not even be a debate.

[Orangepeel]

7. I want to vote for a Democrat

(and, I want to vote for someone who is running).

I have nothing against Clark, and keeping his affiliation close to his chest might be a smart political move. But the coyness is very unappealing.

[Eloriel]

8. I'm not that impressed by Clark

I don't know much about his positions, and I don't know much about his military record. I've seen him repeatedly on TV. I didn't like the way he supported the war as an analyst during the war. I didn't like how he wouldn't say, for the longest time, whether he was a Dem or Repug, or whether he would run as a Dem or Repug if he won.

I wouldn't have a problem with him as Veep for the nominee, but I sure don't think that he's so far demonstrated ANYthing other than his "general-ness" as a qualification (and that isn't IMO in and of itself a qualification).

Further, and I'm surprised at DUers repeatedly failing to see this. Bush is EXTRAORDINARILY weak on defense. From any angle, except his willingness to send men and women to war, of course, and illegal, immoral pre-emptive war at that.

* He's done NOTHING to educate or inform the public about what to look for or do in the case of possible terrorist threats;

* He's done NOTHING to secure ports;

* He's done NOTHING to clean up immigration;

* He's NOT properly funded the first responders like he promised (and he sent bunches of them to war);

* His whole Homeland Security plan amounts to: color-coded alerts plus duct tape and plastic (and of course repression of citizens via PATRIOT, increased surveillance, etc.);

* His little war has made us LESS safe, as our own CIA warned in advance.

Just because the perception has been that Dems are "weak" on defense doesn't mean they don't have plenty of ammunition to prove they are way stronger than Bush.

Eloriel

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

10. Kerry is already a war hero

Why bother with Clark? Why not Gephardt or Dean as vp under Kerry? You can always replace Rummy with Clark, right?

[dfong63]

12. a smart general attacks where the enemy is weakest

... in preference to his strong points. you may think bush is weak on national security, but it is still his strongest area.

the dems can campaign on national security, but should not make it their major thrust. the danger as i see things, is that bush* does have a record of gigantic military expenditures - and i don't want the dems to be put in the situation of trying to "out-republican" the republican by promoting a bigger military budget. also, it will be hard to capitalize on bush*'s mistakes in the national security arena. the issues are too complex and subject to spin doctoring. whereas bush*'s economic stewardship has been a disaster by many objective measures.

[ibegurpard]

11. They can't IGNORE national security and foreign affairs to be sure

In fact, I agree that bush is very vulnerable on the security front...I can't understand why some dems don't think they can challenge him there. I can't be excited about Clark, however. What are his positions on a number of other issues? Has he even declared whether he is going to run? If not, what is he waiting for?

[dfong63]

14. good question

what is he waiting for?

Clark's supporters seem to think the guy is Moses. maybe he's waiting for the burning bush. :)