Does it matter that Clark is not a career politician

[Bread and Circus]

This is a post elsewhere which really deserves
to be a thread:

I think you folks put way too much
emphasis on the "elected office" phrase,
as if that were ultimate measure of a potential
leader.

What matters to me is leadership, courage, people
management skills, intelligence, vision, persistence,
durability, and self-sacrifice. Clark has all of
those attributes and no one can argue otherwise.
He has a long professional career to prove it, ending
in the liberation of the Kosovars from the murderous
genocide of Slobodon.

Whether or not someone is an "excellent campaigner"
has no bearing on whether they would make a good
president. Bush was an excellent campaigner and fund
raiser but is a terrible president.
He went from being a booser and somewhat of
a coke user to being a governor and then president within
a short period of time. This proves two things. One,
you can win office with very little prior political experience
and two, even if you are good at getting elected (as Bush has
proven himself to be), you are not necessarily a good leader.

So, if the only argument against Clark is that he
is relatively new to politics and has never "run a
campaign" then I would ask you to remember Bush as
someone who has done both and decide whether those
are the real yardsticks of a leader.

Clark is electable. I base this upon the fact that
this country is more conservative than you or I would
like it to be. They will not cross party
lines in appreciable numbers for Dean but they might for Clark,
even if Clark is probably more progressive than Dean.

Aside from Clark's foreign diplomacy/policy strengths, Clark's
electability stems from the very fact that he is a
non-partisan political outsider and is not a
"career politician".

In case you are not aware, a great number of people don't like
politicians -- Do you remember Perot? -- the guy was a bit goofy,
his policies were not rock solid, and his running mate
appeared incompetent. But you know what, he got 19% of the vote,
nearly half of Clinton's total.
Basically, he was a "non-politician" and ran on that
premise alone -- "let's throw the bums out and try something new"
-- people liked that.

Ultimately, you have to realize that a large plurality of
America doesn't like the bickering two-party system we have
now. They also tend to be the swing voters.
What some of you say is Clark's weakness may actually be
what rescues you from the clutches of the Republican right.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. No

It matters he's an honorable man

[LynneSin]

2. Wasn't that the original intent from our founding fathers?

That average Joes and Janes would come out and be part of our government??!!!

I had posted once earlier about Charlie crystle, who is announcing today that he is running for US Senate in Pennsylvania. One of the repliers asked "But what kind of political experience does he have?".

Seriously, do we need more career politicians running for more offices? What we need is fresh blood to stir up the pot!

[Kahuna]

3. No. His experience as NATO Commander ..

equally qualifies him to to run for president, IMHO.

[TheBigGuy]

4. It does matter

It matters as the traditional route to high office has been via a "farm team" career in elected politics...usually winning elections from to higher & higher office.

In many cases w well-financed or well-connected candidate will jump chain and get elected to a statewide office..say Senator or Governor.

This "poliitical career" means the office-seeker has a track record and experience in running and winning elections, and it also means the office-seeker is connected to a network of donors, operatives, and fellow politicians, all of whom can contribute support to his or her campaign. The office seeker also has a "record"...of votes and endorsements and statements in the public record.

Clark has none of this. so it makes his bid very questionable.

[Bread and Circus]

8. BigGuy, you make some excellent points.

Your post is well said and appreciated. I can't argue with it but I will suggest that Clark has enough tangible and intangible qualities that may help him overcome the lack of "connectedness" of some of the also-rans. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Clark web activity is #2 and his meetups are #3 among potential presidential contenders, all without him running a single ad or asking for a single donation? He is not even running yet, and people are dying to elect him. I am not saying Clark can win it hands down no matter what. But if he gets the democratic nomination, he will just as connected as any other candidate out there. Coupling that with his intrinsic appeal, he will be unstoppable.

Finally, don't put all the eggs in the connectedness and campaign funds" basket. Bush owns this basket. We need something special this election. We have to offer something more than just fancy commercials and campaign slogans. Does Clark have the quality to capture the imagination of the American people? I'd like to to think so. Does Dean? I don't know.

Whoever beats Bush will need to run on inspiration and will need to inspire the American people. I think Clark will provide that.

[RogueTrooper]

5. Seeing as you are reheating a previous post I will do the same

George W. Bush is a very experienced campaigner. He was centeral to Poppy's 88 election bid. He was the originator of "Willie Horton" campaign. In Karl Rove he has one of the most talented political consultants in the modern political arena. Now, Karl Rove is scum, but he is scum with a talent. And, contrary to the wished of the left, George W. Bush is not fool either.

Clark has no campaigning experience. Fair enough, he will have to hire some. Who is he going to hire. The people behind last year's eleciton debacle? The new thinking is in the Dean campaign and he is not going to get any of them. What is he going to do when the "Might Wurlitzer" comes a calling? I think you have an overly optimistic view of how he is going to deal with them. Go over to freerepublic and see what they write about Clark. It is nasty stuff, be warned.

Now, seeing as this post is clearly meant to needle Dean supporters...

America is not as conservative a country as you think. If America was a conservative country why did Bush loose the 2000 election to a candidate who ran a mediocre campaign? If America is a conservative country why does Bush have to depress voter turnout to win? Howard Dean is not the wild-eyed "librul" you desperatly want him to be. He is from the political center. He never "ran left" earlier this year. His anti-war stance attracted a great deal of attention but he made clear the central tenants of his domestic politcs.

Compared to the rest of the country Vermont is in excellent financial shape. Whilst there will be attempts to deligitimize this success because of Vermont' size it will not stick. It will not stick because American's will look at Vermont and see it as something they want to be part of as well.

In the last election Howard Dean fought he faced down the Religious Right. He has the kind of positions, and a record of acheivement on these positions that will appeal to many who have not voted for us before.

[TheBigGuy]

6. Your wrong.

America is not as conservative a country as you think. If America was a conservative country why did Bush loose the 2000 election to a candidate who ran a mediocre campaign?

America is moderate to conservative. More people self-identify as conservatives than as liberals, but even more self-identify as moderates.

The 2000 election was more or less a draw, with a slight edge in popular votes to Gore. What does this say? Among other things, that Americans do like a moderate-to-conservative message as much as they like a moderate-to-liberal message.

The real left-liberal canidate, Nader, got less than 5% of the vote.

Also
What is he going to do when the "Might Wurlitzer" comes a calling?

Thats a real good question for Dean, too, as we already have heard a few faint strains of that "Hes too liberal" fugue.

[RogueTrooper]

7. All Democratic Candidates

will be tarred with the "too liberal". It is the first thing that comes out of a Republican's mouth when told about a new Democratic candidate. Clinton was tarred with this moniker. It did not stick to the big dog and, for the same reasons, I doubt it will stick to Dean.