Question about Gore, Edwards, Clark...

[CJCRANE]

All three of these are great potential presidential candidates
BUT none of them are currently serving politicians or public servants.

Does this make them more viable as VP candidates (as per Cheney stepping down from Halliburton in 2000)
or is there a precedent or possibility of a successful bid for President by a "private citizen" (i.e. retired politician/businessman)?

[NV1962]

1. Apples and oranges

Each has pros and cons.

I could give you my personal take on why I think non-elected office holders are preferable, but ultimately that's subjective. Personally, I value candidates with very substantial and extensive experience "up and out there" far more than members of Congress. Having said that, knowing how Congress operates (and therefore, how to operate it) is also important. It's nonsensical to present it as an absolute either/or proposition.

Besides, currently occupying a high-ranking position is neither a guarantee or substitute for having the qualifications necessary for the top job. And conversely, not presently having a high-ranking position doesn't mean or imply NOT having the experience of occupying that job and bearing that responsibility (e.g., Al Gore and Wes Clark).

I'd look for the beef, not the hype.

[CJCRANE]

2. I see what you mean

but I also wonder how this will play out in terms of political fund-raising and media exposure.

In terms of media hype I guess we're looking at a Clinton/Obama ticket. I wonder though if the netroots could affect the primaries and upset the MSM momentum...

[lojasmo]

3. Two of them HAVE held high elected office. That's why it's a false comparison. EOM

[earthlover]

4. Dwight Eisenhower

Is there a precedent for a private citizen having a successful bid for President? Eisenhower had no legislative experience, no experience in a state government, federal government or even a local government. A dog catcher had more government experience than Eisenhower! Yet he won--twice!

What was his job immediately before running for President? The same job Wes Clark has held....Supreme Commander over NATO.

Eisenhower was the dude who warned us against the dangers of the "military industrial complex" and was the first to use that phrase....

Not bad for a rookie.

[Jai4WKC08]

9. uhhh.... the military is part of the federal government

Eisenhower and Clark both have a whole life-time in government service. They were not "private citizens" until after they retired, but it both cases it was after 30-40 years of public service.

At the highest levels of command, there is no real difference between the military and any other high executive branch office except for how they got there. Many people know what a sergeant or captain does, or think they know, and assume a four-star general is just more of the same. But it ain't so. High-level commanders have to work with Congress, federal civilian departments, non-governmental agencies, labor unions, and either foreign governments and/or US state and local governments.

A four-star commander does not do his job just by giving orders any more than a governor does. He has a corps of subordinates who will usually do what he says (how completely depending on a number of factors), but outside that immediate span of control, it's comes down to leadership, vision, and enough organizational skills to bring all the various factions together toward a common objective.

[generaldemocrat]

5. Wesley Clark is actually a former head of state.....

The position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe is basically a head of state position, it is executive experience.

[venable]

6. well, I don't think that's accurate

I don't in any way diminish the importance of that role, in lots of important ways, but think, really, what being a Head of State means. Authority to negotiate (not negotiate on behalf of), set foreign policy (not execute military liaison and operations), the vast and complex web of social policies and trade agreements and tax programs, being the face to the world of a nation of businesses, citizens, children and elderly, and on and on.

It's a great, important job, but it's very little like a Head of State.

[generaldemocrat]

7. Uhhhhh....

Authority to negotiate (not negotiate on behalf of), set foreign policy (not execute military liaison and operations), the vast and complex web of social policies and trade agreements and tax programs, being the face to the world of a nation of businesses, citizens, children and elderly, and on and on.

Most of those that you listed were his effective responsibilities as SACEUR.

[earthlover]

8. right you are!

Calling him a head of state may or may not be the wrong use of words, but this does not negate that Clark had AMPLE experience in negotiating, he also helped advocate policy to Clinton on foreign matters, and also in his role as a general has great executive experience.

So, can a "private citizen" instead of an entrenched politician become President? A resounding YES! Everything about Clark's past would indicate that he would excell in this just as he has excelled in everything he has done. His successes didn't end with being a Rhodes Scholar and being First in his Class at West Point. He has courage, leadership ability, is perceived as a moderate so he is electable, and....he is a progressive in every sense of the word. It is no mistake that Michael Moore and George McGovern both endorsed him. They know a progressive when they see one.

[Cameron27]

10. lol

I agree.

[venable]

12. fine, if you want, your choice, obviously

and I don't think it diminishes him to say that he has never been a Head of State.

Frankly, I'm surprised you insist upon this.

[Jai4WKC08]

11. But the NATO treaty gives him "head of state" status

So by law, using the term is justified.

The main reasons the SACEUR has that status is so he can work and negotiate with other heads of state (theoretically even the President, altho of course, in reality not so) on a co-equal basis, and so he can represent NATO to international institutions. It may not be exactly the same as actually being a head of state, but there is a LOT of commonality in functions, as well as the experience gained from performing those functions.

[1932]

13. I believe Abe Lincoln had been out of politcs 10 years and lost a senate race before

winning his presidential race. And Eisenhower was never in politics and was a university president before winning.

So I don't think it matters what your most recent job was. What matters is whether you're what people are looking for.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. Abe Lincoln was elected in peacetime

I agree that "what matters is whether you're what people are looking for." But what they looked for in 1860, or 1992, is not necessarily what they'll be looking for in 2008.

Ike was incredibly popular, universally known and loved -- he might have won no matter when he ran. But the fact is that in 1952, we were in a war people weren't happy about and he promised to get us out. And delivered.

[1932]

18. The conflict with the south over slavery was creating tension that resulted

in the greatest threat to the United States since the Revolutionary War. I'm not sure 1860 felt all that peaceful.

[Apollo11]

14. Nobody is better qualified than Al Gore

The Washington Post -- Sunday, September 17, 2006

Gore's 2008 Plans May Become Clearer After Release of Book

By John F. Harris and Shailagh Murray

Although saying he has no plans to run for president in 2008, former vice president Al Gore has nonetheless left the door ever so slightly ajar. It's a good bet that door will swing open a good bit wider come next May.

That is when Gore is scheduled to publish his next book. With no fanfare, he signed a few weeks ago with Penguin Press to write "The Assault on Reason."

As described by editor Scott Moyers, the book is a meditation on how "the public arena has grown more hostile to reason," and how solving problems such as global warming is impeded by a political culture with a pervasive "unwillingness to let facts drive decisions."

While that may sound abstract, both the subject matter and the timing of the release have an unmistakable subtext. In 2004, Gore cheered liberals when he lashed at President Bush for allegedly falling captive to right-wing special interests and taking flight from "fact-based analysis." If the book strikes a chord, it will produce new momentum for Gore to make another bid for the White House, presumably fueled in large part by anti-Iraq-war Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I'm sticking with Clark, but thanks anyway

I see Gore's positives, and I think they way outweigh his negatives. If Clark doesn't run I would be happy to support Al Gore (if he does). Wes Clark just finished writing his next book also. It will be far broader in focus than his previous books. I think the public debate will benefit by both of these fine men's contributions to it.

[KingofNewOrleans]

17. Nixon, Reagan, Carter

All were not holding public office when they won the Presidency. Carter didn't run for reelection in 1974 and basically lived in Iowa for a year. Reagan left the California Gov job in 1974 and basically ran for President for 6 years. And of course Nixon had actually lost the Gov race in California before resurrecting himself in 1968.