My thoughts on Wes Clark.

[Renew Deal]

I think Clark should skip 2008. Let me lay it all out for you right here and now.

I like Wes Clark. I was part of the Draft Clark movement early. I walked around NYC handing out Clark bars the night he announced. I recruited an elected official to be a Clark delegate. I honestly like the guy. He would have made a great president in 2004. He's honest, genuine, passionate, and hard working. He's everything Bush isn't and more. I felt that he was light years better than the field in 2004 and was electable. I have fallen in love with Dean since, but that's another story.

So why do I think Clark should skip 2008?

1. He can't win because dems won't vote for a bona fide military guy. Democrats weren't smart enough to elect him in 2004, and I don't think 2008 will be any different. Dear Dems, we have a genuine liberal southern general. Please elect him! I'm telling you now. It ain't happening.

2. He can't win because he has no experience in governing. Don't quote me the running a command is like running a city stuff. I wrote that talking point. It came from me. Clark's experience and knowledge is a 10 of 10 on foreign and military policy. His knowledge on domestic issues was a 2 of 10 in 2004. His experience was a 0. He's probably a 5-6 now for knowledge. He's still a 0 when it comes to experience. People want to know about bread and butter issues and I think Clark struggles here.

3. I really worry that he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State. Clark should be in a Democratic cabinet. I think he can disqualify himself because of the bumps of a presidential campaign. The entire country loses if Clark isn't somewhere in gov't. Jai4WKC08 really summarizes it well in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3068069&mesg_id=3068069

Those are the primary reasons why I think Clark shouldn't run and won't win. BTW, one thing I can't stand on DU is cheerleading. There's tons of cheerleading for Clark. It's unnecessary. It's like no good comment about a candidate can go by without some sort of degradation of that candidate and/or promotion of Clark.

[Contrite]

1. What about Ike?

He was a general and he won. He was also a former NATO commander.

[Renew Deal]

2. He was a republican

during conscription just after an ultimately successful WW2 where most women didn't vote. It was a different time. BTW, there have been somewhere around 12 generals elected president. I wrote that one too.

[Contrite]

3. I know but even Democrats supported him.

I remember as a child wearing an "I like Ike" button and my parents were solid Dems.

[Renew Deal]

4. Most DUers like Ike.

He polls very well here. He's the favorite republican president of most DUers. That's not the point.

[Contrite]

6. That makes sense.

Lots of DUers like Clark, too. Even I like Clark, and I'm a Deaniac (remember, he was the "anti-Dean" in '04). The more I know about him, the more I like him.

[tsuki]

13. My father's first chance to vote. Set up quite a conflict for him.

A die-hard populist Democrat, but, as a military man, he liked Ike. Never said how he voted, but Mom swears that he voted Ike.

[shimmergal]

49. Wherever did you get the idea that

"most women didn't vote" in the post-WW2 period? I was a kid then and just as big a percentage of women voted, as far as I could see, as men did. Sorry to jump on you about this but I recently found out that my grandmother campaigned for women's suffrage, way back at the turn of the (last) century. I don't believe women _ever_ ignored their right to vote, once it was won.

[Jai4WKC08]

55. I second that

I'm only 50-something, but I don't remember a time that women didn't vote. I certainly remember my mother and grandmothers voting and making a big deal about it. I might be willing to accept that more women voted the way their husbands did. If nothing else, we know from recent headlines how many more women are living without husbands now than in the past.

Bleachers forgets how women were empowered during WWII, both in the military, in the factories, and in their communities. They had to be to win the war, and they were damn proud of the contributions they made. And they loved Ike as much if not more than the men.

As for Ike's being a Republican, he wasn't in either party before he ran. In fact, I seem to recall he said he didn't even vote (altho I may be confusing him with George Marshall). Ike was asked to run by both parties, and chose the Republican party just a few weeks before the NH primary. Funny how no one in the GOP held that against him.

[jen4clark]

5. Don't make me

pull out my cheer again! kidding, kidding

I disagree with you 100% but respect your opinion. And you laughed at me, so I like you! ;)

[Renew Deal]

7. You disagree that Clark is a great guy?

You can't disagree 100%. BTW, you are funny. :D

[Tatiana]

8. I understand your concerns. Actually, I have them too. But I'll still support Clark.

1) People (and voters) change as they become more knowledgeable and can make informed decisions. Consider the latest midterms where the public finally said NO to Republicans. Given our current situation in Iraq, if I was the Clark team, I'd be pressing the idea that because the region and situation is so destabilized and out-of-control, it only makes sense that someone with *successful* military experience be C-I-C. He can has the vision, fortitude, character, and leadership ability to get us out of Iraq. No one is going to accuse him of "not supporting the troops" when he puts forth a withdrawal plan. He has also made clear the U.S. will have NO PERMANENT BASES in Iraq. So, under Clark, those 14 constructions comprising a "modest city" (as McGovern stated on Olbermann's Countdown program) will be DOA for the neocons. This is a good talking point.

2) Clark's lack of governing experience is the weakest selling point. However, given the announced candidacy of Obama (also no governing experience) and the mostly positive reception he's received from many, I don't think this is a HUGE concern. Richardson and Vilsack are really the only ones with domestic governing experience. The main thing Clark needs to emphasize is that he does have a domestic plan for our country and if people actually HEAR his ideas, they'll find some of the issues they hold dear being addressed (i.e. the economy, education, senior citizens/medicare, etc.).

3) If a Democrat other than Clark wins the nomination and the general election, he/she would be a FOOL not to put Clark somewhere in their administration. This is really a no-brainer. I think if Hillary won, Clark would definitely be in her cabinet given Bill's favorable opinion of his service under his own administration. I think Obama would be sensible enough to want the best and highest expertise in his administration, given his lack of experience. The others, I'm not sure about, but I don't think this is an issue that would or should prevent Clark from running. Clark is a true patriot. He would make himself available in one way or another in terms of military/foreign policy if it was required. He doesn't need to be SOS to do that, though it would certainly help to have the direct ear of the President.

Additionally, there are some other factors that I think may bode well for a Clark candidacy:

a) The large number of candidates. I'm certain a few are simply running for VP, so to speak. However, having such a large pool could benefit Clark. Really, the experience I have with those who support Clark is the only alternative acceptable would be a Gore candidacy. If Gore announces he'll run, then yeah, I think Clark will probably be fighting a losing battle. However, if you look at the potential candidates of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and Biden... I see the splitting up of a similar voting block. Richardson might also siphon off some votes from KEB(Kerry, Edwards, Biden). Those voting for Kucinich will definitely not vote for KEB. Obama and Kucinich may also split some votes. Where that leaves Clark, is pretty much in the middle. He can draw moderate voters who want a clear and feasible Iraq policy. He can pull in some far left voters who want out of Iraq but don't think Kucinich is viable in a national election. He can also attract conservative Dems who otherwise would never vote for KEB or Kucinich. I'm not 100% sure by any means, but I believe Clark would also attract many disenchanted 2004 Kerry voters as well as Gore supporters (again, if Gore chooses not to run).

To clarify, I believe the current group of candidates will split the vote enough to allow Clark to squeak in there (much like Perot siphoned off Bush I voters, thereby clearing the way for Bill Clinton in the early 90's).

b) Clark has formed relationships with more Democrats that may benefit him. In 2006, Clark and WesPAC participated in 42 victorious campaigns, flipping 25 seats from deeply Republican to Democratic, and lifted at least 6 veterans into Congress (http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9330). State and local Democratic Party organizations that invited Clark reported sold out audiences beyond their capacity to serve (http://www.thenewpolitics.com/2006/10/sold_out.html).

Really the two things Clark will need most are the endorsements of prominent Democrats and $$$. Wes has shown with his PAC that he can raise dollars, but I don't think he's near on the level of Hillary Clinton. He will need a blistering grassroots network (WesPAC is a good starting point) on the level of Gov. Dean's campaign in '04. Who Clark selects for his campaign team will also be telling. He'll need some experienced folks, no doubt, but some fresh blood (i.e. staffers not recycled from other unsuccessful campaigns) would be an asset.

In conclusion, I just want to say that hope isn't just a place in Arkansas. It's also a feeling those who support Clark have - who want a better life for themselves, their children, their grandchildren, their neighbors. We know Clark would be a fantastic national candidate. We know he's a man of integrity and character, who pays no heed to color, gender, or sexual orientation. He's a natural leader and someone who really cares about this country and the direction in which we are headed. If you believe in these things like I do, I *hope* you'll work just as hard as I will to help Wesley Clark win the Democratic nomination.

[Renew Deal]

30. Clarks party work.

I think that's a good point. He will have more recognition in the Democratic establishment. I don't know if he wil lbe able to break through considering the clutter, but it should help.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I think that you should go with your heart...and if that is what your heart tells you,

That's great.

However, there are those of us who believe that Clark is as qualified as so many who are running who also have never governed...and we know that he is far more qualified than those who have never done Foreign policy or national security.

You see, Rhodes scholars can learn and research the issues just as well as attorneys. In fact, some are better at it and they don't even use clerks and assistants. At least Clark as a military man lived almost his entire life in a socialistic modeled institution (because apart from being autocratic, the military is also socialistic).....while others never have experienced that. This means that Clark took away practical life lessons in reference to things like healthcare, housing, and education that the others have never even seen. He rebuilt a motor out of need when he was a grown man. Who else can make that claim? If you are saying that taking care of one's soldiers under one's charge is somehow different than taking care of one's contituency, I'm sure that it is. Officers can't really promise to their men and never deliver. Politicians do it all of the time.

You say that Americans "want" elections to be about Bread and Butter issues and that's what they want to know about, yet you underestimate that Wes Clark doesn't know that? He has been out there talking to the public for the last few years. You don't think he is bright and innovative enough to learn what is required to come up with some new ideas, instead of the same old shit that politicians keep giving us; tax credits and other tidbits of nothing? Also, I truly believe, as does Dennis Kucinich that foreign policy issues are about Bread and butter. Last time I looked, trillions were missing from our budget and our deficits were as high as the eyes could see. Maybe some Democrats don't connect the dots, but many do.

And please know that many Democrats are much more moderate than you would suspect, while others are much more openminded than you would imply. Me, I trust that many Democrats are not as shallow as you describe them. That many will not out of hand reject a military man who has proven his worth while panting for some "Rock Star". I realize that many will.....but that's only during the Primaries. During the general election, the notion of the "evil" military generic man will become a joke....kinda of like what Webb did to Allen in Virginia and now he's kicking ass and taking numbers.

If Wes does come out on top as the dark horse (cause you never know, even if you think you can guess), Democrats will in great numbers vote for this military man. And so will independents. And so will Republicans. And history will be made...just like some are saying that history will be made with the First Black President, and others hope it will be the first woman, and others are saying it will be the first Hispanic President, and so I say it will be the first Democratic retired General. Hope you don't mind?

meanwhile those same Democrats that harshly judge the only 4 Star Democratic General will be be "cheerleading" for the civilians who voted us into this war. I hope that you chastised them for that type of cheerleading just as much! just to be fair...I mean.

Me, I'm gonna continue to give Democrats more benefit of the doubt on that issue than you are willing to do. And I'm gonna try, if Clark runs, to let them see the light by providing them with as much information on the General so that they can separate the stereotype from the man. I have to believe that all liberals don't have that kind of stereotypical mindset that goes so against the principle of being enlightened, otherwise they really ain't not such thing as a fucking liberal, and it was all a joke...right?

Now, I'm just hoping that you are gonna make a case against all running who have no executive experience, ....which would leaves us with a field of Vilsack and Richardson.

Your criticism is taken and noted...and as as none of the candidates are perfect....including Wes Clark....I hope that you will be able to deal with criticism when they are directed at you imperfect candidate that you support. Cause me, I'll look at all of the candidates' warts and I'll ask myself which warts can I live with and which can't I tolerate? which warts are deadly, and which can be dealt with if you are dealing with someone who is honest, caring and has an open mind? Who's smart enough to "get it"? Who made good decisions on matters that have worked out well in the large scheme for human kind.

Edited to add.....BTW, you making that statement that "you came up" with the reasoning that Clark's command as Supreme Allied Commander was like dealing with a small city.....means what exactly? That you made the shit up, and it isn't really true? :wow: Cause if that's what you are saying, I will have to respond by saying that please spare us of your importance in a movement that was nationwide and that I was also involved in on the other side of the U.S.

You didn't make that up.....it was simply the truth that you learned and therefore used in your reasoning....and why would you not?
I'll leave you with this testimony that Wes Clark made on subject of Base and Outside Base educational funding disparities in 2001, and please don't tell me that you came up with the facts that he had on hand! :eyes: Of course, I'm only posting his opening statement, not the lengthy Q&A that followed!

Impact Aid: Making the Commitment to our Military Family
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform
Committee on Education and the Workforce
United States House of Representatives
November 8, 2001

General Wesley K. Clark
United States Army, Retired

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the critically important subject of impact aid and the education of the young people in the military family. Let me commend you for holding this hearing, and for your willingness to address this issue.

Put simply, the quality of youth education remains a key factor in the retention and recruitment of personnel in the Armed Forces. Beyond mere expedience, our nation must assure that the children of its Armed Forces personnel are provided a top quality education. The United States' military force is highly educated and its members hold the same expectations for their children's education. More of our men and women are basing their decisions to enter or leave the military on perceptions of the quality of education their children will receive. It is significant that as the ranks of our Armed Services have fallen, funding for impact aid has fallen short of the level needed by our children's schools. If we want strong, educated, committed men and women in our Armed Services, then we must provide for their families well being.

Currently, there are approximately a half million military dependants who attend school in districts surrounding military bases. Less than 15% of military children are in DoD schools; the rest attend public and private schools off-post. In my home state of Arkansas, in the vicinity of Little Rock Air Force Base, there are approximately 2500 students who attend school off post. The three school districts are eligible to receive assistance under the federal impact aid program. However, the impact aid program is funded nationally at only around the 60% level. What does this mean for Little Rock? This means that the three school districts in Little Rock bear a great burden in meeting the educational requirements of each child, both military and civilian. Currently, the three districts receive $575,000 in federal impact aid. If the program were fully funded, the school districts would receive somewhere around $3.8 million.

This significant shortfall translates into a decrease in the number and quality of academic and extracurricular programs the schools can provide to its military and civilian children. It also means a decrease in armed forces retention and recruitment, which is cause for great concern. We do not want to see our military children losing out on the quality education they deserve and their parents expect. Impact aid was designed to reimburse public school districts the full cost of educating the military child attending public or private school off post. In 1950, the Congress recognized that the loss of traditional revenue sources like property and personal income taxes negatively impacted the local school districts. Traditionally these types of taxes have accounted for a significant portion of the local school district's annual budget. However, military students can negatively impact the district's financial resources because their parents do not pay such things as income taxes, license fees, and property taxes. While the nominal cost of educating one student varies from district to district across the United States, one thing remains clear, the federal government must do more to fund the education of our military children. The federal government must live up to its promise to care for its military family by fully funding the impact aid program. If we want to retain and recruit the best men and women, we must provide for their families and this means making an extra effort.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while much has been done in recent years to strengthen accountability and decentralize responsibility and authority in the DoD school system, off-post schools remain beyond the control of the military and DoD leadership. However well-meaning the off post school leadership and staff may be, these schools face particular challenges as I observed in my assignments at Ft. Irwin, Ft. Carson, CO and Ft. Hood, TX. Such schools tend to suffer from restricted funding and higher than average per pupil cost due to the turnover of students associated with military reassignments. In normal communities, the public schools draw on a diverse tax base and enjoy a relatively stable student population. This stability reduces school stress, disciplinary problems, and the general frictions that are inevitable at the beginning of each school year. Civilian schools with substantial population of military families often suffer from reduced tax base as well as extraordinarily high turn over of students even during the school year.

Federal impact aid was created to address these problems. It is a matter of money but it is not a hand out. These additional resources are very much needed. The federal government impacts school districts and our government should do its part. I know that the Committee has worked hard on behalf of our military family to provide the best possible education for our children. This is an important issue to me and I commend the Committee for it.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/impaid110801/clark.htm

[FrenchieCat]

11. Gave you a bad link on that testmony cause it has expired....

Here's a good one! ;)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr797&dbname=107&

[Renew Deal]

31. Fanboyism

The budget is the last big part of this war that I think people aren't getting. It's a rediculous amount of money and I'm not sure if people get it yet. I agree that Clark's biggest problem would be in the primary. That's why he was such a threat to Bush in 2004.

Is there any chance of you changing your mind on 2008 and not supporting Clark. You're going to look at any warts not on Clark and attack while ignoring Clark's warts. Don't worry, you won't be the only one. But lets be honest here. There's no chance of you not supporting Clark in 2008 and that's not a bad thing. I can deal with the criticism when the time comes. Remember, I supported Clark in 2004 and you know how exciting that was. I agree that none of the candidates are perfect. Richardson has the best resume. There's a big drop off after that.

I don't think most DUers have gotten to the cheerleading state yet. There are pockets of support for a number of candidates, but Clark is the only one that seems to have organized grass roots support. BTW, it can also be called fanboyism. I learned that on the gamer boards.

I have a funny history with the small city thing. I was working with other Draft Clark people to get as much information about Clark out there. We were looking for positive information and proof that he could govern. The small city thing comes from Clark's book about Kosovo (which I read cover to cover). I included it in a list of talking points that I assembled and it spread like wildfire to the point that it is still being used today. I'm sure someone else would have found it eventually, but I take credit for that one. It's a fair point by Clark. I think it's a stretch for a political campaign, but it's fair.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Well actually, you don't know me well enough to know what I would and would not do....

If you are asking me if I would support someone else if Clark didn't run, the answer is yes, and I'm starting to get an idea, but I would need to do some research before making a firm committement..

If you are asking if I would switch candidates even Clark ran, the answer is show me why I should....cause to date, I ain't seen nobody that compelling enough.

[NV1962]

10. Some things I recognize, some I don't

Very good points, all. Important ones too.

So, here goes my annotated $0.02:

1. He can't win because dems won't vote for a bona fide military guy. Democrats weren't smart enough to elect him in 2004, and I don't think 2008 will be any different. Dear Dems, we have a genuine liberal southern general. Please elect him! I'm telling you now. It ain't happening.

I'm not too sure I'd use such a positive assertion that "dems won't vote for a bona fide military guy", period. I think it much rather depends on what people (i.e., Democrats) perceive as "a bona fide guy". In fact, I see no electability issue whatsoever for the primaries if the proposition is "a bona fide and competent guy (who happens to have had a career in the military)".

I'm a bit more troubled by your elevation of "Southern" combined with "liberal" as a no-no factor, though. Somehow, I recall a Southern guy -- if memory serves me well, from the same state as Wes Clark -- who didn't do too bad in the primaries, and even had some success the 1992 elections.

As to "genuine liberal", well... I go back to "perception", because whether I like it or not, that is a big part. His "flat" $50,000 federal income tax threshold plan, his pro-union stance, his pro-choice stance, on and on I could go; I don't think it's about anything but perception, in fact. And since we're talking about 2008 and 2004, I believe that the "fear factor" in the 2004 contest of being painted as "liberal" by many candidates that was present right up to the grand finale ticket of Kerry/Edwards will have dissipated substantially in these next primaries and elections. Besides, I believe that Cheney and Bush will both be much less visible, to not ruin the GOP candidate(s) by association with the ever increasingly clear disaster area that is the Bush administration.

So, I think "liberal" won't be such a red button, either way: not as a defining trait of a Democratic candidate (I think it'll be "merely" a required qualification, not a discriminating factor) and not as an effective wedge from the GOP, because their chances will very likely depend on the degree of success as coming across as "reasonable" and "moderate" - which in effect will be a step to the left. At least, that's how I see it at this point - while we haven't invaded Iran yet (!)

But most importantly, and unlike his starting situation in the by all means very, very short run in the 2004 campaign, Wes Clark has had ample opportunity to build up his credibility as a "genuine" Democrat over the past years, especially during the midterm elections last year. I've come across quite a lot of people here in Northwest NV who have come to "reconsider" their instinctive but understandable wariness borne from little exposure, after hearing / reading about and of course, seeing him campaign. I'll be the last to hold up this state as "representative" but I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a battle state, where Democrats trend more toward Blue Dogs than Yellow Dogs.

In conclusion, I think Wes Clark has matured long enough to overcome the "scary, hardly-known ex-military guy" quite effectively.

2. He can't win because he has no experience in governing. Don't quote me the running a command is like running a city stuff. I wrote that talking point. It came from me. Clark's experience and knowledge is a 10 of 10 on foreign and military policy. His knowledge on domestic issues was a 2 of 10 in 2004. His experience was a 0. He's probably a 5-6 now for knowledge. He's still a 0 when it comes to experience. People want to know about bread and butter issues and I think Clark struggles here.

Harking back to that other guy from Arkansas, who had a lot of political energy and capital invested in the really monumental domestic policy issue of social security and health care, my memory insists that he had to let go, and water ambitions down to finally deliver the much less palatable version we all know or at least remember - until the current White House occupant moved in.

Now, I'll be the first to assert that domestic policy is very important; if only as a litmus test of the candidate's profile in elections. But I think it's just as fair to assert that, out there in the cold reality, domestic policy is extremely sensitive to the whims of the moment, where fickle Congressional maneuvering plays a massive part, where public opinion can move all about the map due to quite unforeseeable circumstances, etc. etc. That leads me to observe that a President's "grip" on a "key" domestic policy issue is mostly defined by the quality of his (her) staff, including the VP, rather than the "depth" of experience or even expertise in that peculiar domestic issue.

As I see it, it's a management issue, and as with many things in life: experts are more prone to screwing up with micromanagement than Big Idea people, more result-oriented and driving toward ultimate success.

And finally, having a rock-solid domestic policy plan doesn't take a genius, frankly. Once more, staff and advisers determine the quality and feasibility of the plan - the credibility is a matter of perception. As long as there's a substantial basis for credibility (again, harking back to the 2004 campaign, I see little lacking in his domestic policy package then) I see no problem, let alone a no-no factor for Wes Clark as a rock solid domestic policy proponent.

3. I really worry that he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State. Clark should be in a Democratic cabinet. I think he can disqualify himself because of the bumps of a presidential campaign. The entire country loses if Clark isn't somewhere in gov't. Jai4WKC08 really summarizes it well in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3068069&mesg_id=3068069

Well... Here I think that you're really underestimating Wes Clark. I think there's no such problem today. The biggest "panic moment" in his 2004 campaign took place very early on, when he came across as "waffling" on Iraq. That was, without doubt, attributable to his lack of "professional" campaign experience; I don't think he'll be easily placed in such a tactical bind, again.

But most importantly, I can't recall a "gaffe" that would have precluded him from acceding to a hypothetical Kerry cabinet. I can't recall -- not even in the silly "lieutenant moment" (instigated by the ever snarky Bob Dole) -- anything that transpired in the 2004 campaign that would have made a cabinet position politically imprudent. So why project fear of the mere possibility of a serious accident as in inhibitor for Clark's ability to serve at the pleasure of the President? I honestly don't see that.

Anyhow... More than looking forward to it, I'll be ready when he announces; I think he should, precisely because -- as Jai4WKC08 also says -- he's so focused on delivering the best policies, the ones this country needs, instead of the most marketable, that he's hands down the best guy for the job.

He should run - especially this time. Because he's ready, willing, and able.

(P.S.: Watch Battlestar Galactica much? I'm thinking a loud "And so say we all!" here - :D I just couldn't let an opportunity for cheesy cheer slip by, could I...)

[Renew Deal]

33. Clark didn't just happen to have a career in the military

He was a 4 star general and it's the foundation of his campaign. Also, when I say bump, I mean the dirtiness, not a gaffe.

[Clark2008]

12. Yeah - but the problem is that everyone else running

cannot meet all my other critera - unless Al Gore drops his hat in the ring.

All the others pale in comparison to what Clark can offer.

[Renew Deal]

34. And there's nothing wrong with that.

He deserves a shot if he wants it. My thoughts on his electability have nothing to do with his ability or the need for someone like him.

[Adelante]

14. So who are you liking for 08, Bleachers?

I disagree with this:

2. He can't win because he has no experience in governing. Don't quote me the running a command is like running a city stuff. I wrote that talking point. It came from me. Clark's experience and knowledge is a 10 of 10 on foreign and military policy. His knowledge on domestic issues was a 2 of 10 in 2004. His experience was a 0. He's probably a 5-6 now for knowledge. He's still a 0 when it comes to experience. People want to know about bread and butter issues and I think Clark struggles here.

Clark knows more than almost all of the other candidates, with the notable exception of Kucinich, what it is to struggle financially. His domestic policy ideas are creative and important. Aside from his foreign policy creds, which are unimpeachable, as you know, many of his 2004 supporters came in because of his domestic platform, which is extraordinarily progressive and fair to all. His vision for national goals programs, such as energy independence and sustainability through science, engineering and technology, or universal health care that factors in life-long body health analysis and diagnosis and treatment, both of which bring labor unions into the picture in retraining, matching workers to jobs and relocation, where necessary, in all sectors of the economy--this type of holistic and strategic approach to domestic problems is exactly what we are missing.

We do not necessarily need someone whose job experience is law-making, which is what seems to be the common belief here on DU, although this isn't to say a senator or representative wouldn't, in many cases, make a good president. But at this point in our history what we need is a president who is experienced in analysis, strategizing and problem-solving. We need an experienced executive for the Executive branch and we need an experienced CinC and we need an experienced and imaginative leader. Clark meets those qualifications.

As for cheer leading, tell it to the Edwards supporters, the Gore supporters, the Obama supporters, the whoever supporters, ya know, Bleach?

In closing, I say to you, with :loveya:

[Renew Deal]

35. That's a great question.

I haven't picked yet and I kind of don't want to until the summer. I think my top 2 were Feingold and Warner in no particular order. There were things I liked about both of them. Unfortunately neither ran (I still can't believe it). I know who I am willing to consider and who I am not willing to consider. I will not consider any DLC types or ardent war supporters.

[Jai4WKC08]

15. You raise some important points, BUT

I think I'm rather offended by your repeated insistence that YOU "wrote the talking points" of Clark's various qualifications. You may have addressed the questions at some point; the rest of us may or may not have seen them and assimilated your better ideas -- I honest don't remember. But we also think for ourselves and bring our own experiences and perspective to what we write. You ascribe too much importance to your participation in the earlier Clark campaign. MANY of us have made our own contributions and will continue to.

For example, I am one who has argued that military command is not that different from civilian governance. I say that as a 20+ year veteran who spent a lot of time in higher headquarters (owing to Reagan reversals of policy that let women serve at more tactical echelons). I have also attended a number of military schools which groom officers for higher-level command, and myself commanded a remote site which is very much like its own distinct community, and where I spent more time working with the local civilians, private citizens and government officials, than with my own military chain of command. So don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Running a military base is very much like running a city in every way that matters, and running a regional command is like being a governor of a state. Period.

I'm also a little offended by your remarks on cheerleading. I think if you count the threads, you'll find that every candidate's supporters do their share of both cheering their own guy/gal and attacking the others, and many do more of it than any Clarkie.

Ok, so now you know why I'm offended. Let me also tell you I'm flattered that you would refer to my other thread. But that said, I don't understand how what I wrote buttresses the idea that running for President will somehow hurt Clark's chances for an important cabinet role. Maybe I'm missing your point here, but I was only talking about Clark's priorities, and what he sees as an immediate need vs a longer term goal. Personally, I think all of the people who are currently running already know Clark's qualifications and have their opinions formed as to whether they would want him on their team. I'm not so sure Clark would be interested in carrying out someone else's vision of where the country need to go. He's sort of been there, done that for a very long time. But I could be wrong. It's hard to imagine him sitting out when he knows his expertise is needed.

I certainly agree with you that Clark's military background is a major hurdle to getting the nomination. That's no surprise to anyone. There are a certain percentage of Democrats who either don't like or don't understand the military (or both) who will never ever vote for a career officer. I've run into the prejudice myself too many times, and I know other retired military who call themselves Republicans more because they believe that Democrats hate them than for actually being all that conservative.

But I also think that every candidate starts out with a set number of people who are not gonna vote for them no matter what. Could be for career choice (no general, no senator, no trial lawyer), geography (no northerner, no southerner), religion (just about any will piss off someone), color, gender, marital status. Look at Clinton, for gosh sakes. We KNOW that a VERY large portion of the electorate, even within our party rank and file, hate her. Her unfavorable ratings bang around 50%, and the very hard core haters around 30%. It hurts her chances of course, but no one seems to think that makes it impossible for her to win the nomination.

Clark failed last time because he was unable to make enough people hear his message and get to know him as a person. Part of that was because of rookie mistakes he made early on, some of it was a crappy communications staff, part of it was the media and party establishment cutting him out. Most of it was getting in too late, for all the reasons I'm sure you are familiar with.

But this time around, things are different.

Clark still has plenty of time to make his case directly to the people. Most people who hear Clark are very impressed. What he needs to do is talk to enough of 'em that his numbers start to rise in Iowa, NV and maybe NH. Not necessarily to first or second place, but high enough that he reaches a point where people think he has a chance. Then more will come to listen, and the results will snowball.

Clark also has a lot more friends within the party hierarchy. Maybe not at the national level where people are in such a hurry to get in on the ground floor with a front-runner. But in state parties, and among elected officials, they know who they can bring in to campaign with and who they can't. Believe me, if you're running for office in any district that so much as leans red, you DON'T want to depend on any of the current top three for coattails.

But mostly, Clark himself is different. He's so much more prepared this time around, for his own performance in front of people, for what he needs and should expect in a staff, for his domestic policy, for how to handle the media, for just about any failing real or imagines you can come up with. He won't be the same candidate he was in 2004. I thought he was good enough then, or had gotten good enough by about December 03, and I still think if he'd have been able to compete in Iowa we'd have a President Clark today. But whatever he was in 2004, he's a thousand times better today. That in itself could become the media story of 2008.

[Renew Deal]

36. Are you kidding?

Military command is no different that civilian governance? Military command is a one way relationship. What Clark says goes. Governance requires tons of compromise and working with people. You can't just tell congress what to do.

Here's why Clark can hurt his chances of getting SoS or better. You pointed out the reasons why Clark should be part of the next Democratic administration. He's a hard working, honest guy who does the right things for the right reasons. Political campaigns are brutal in a bad way. Feelings are hurt. Friendships are broken. People say things about each other that are difficult to reconcile when the campaign ends. I think Clark has very little chance of winning a presidential election, and I would bet against it right now. I believe that he can damage chances of becoming SoS or better because of the brutality of a presidential run. I would rather have him as SoS than not at all, and I feel he is not going to win a presidential election.

Most of Clark's problems in 2004 came from getting in too late. Kerry knew Iowa was important and he turned out to be correct. Clark made himself irrelevant the second day of his campaign by saying he would have voted for the IWR. Dumb rookie mistake. He did get better as Jan. and Feb. went on, but it was too little too late.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Clark certainly demonstrated his ability to work with people and compromise

His NATO command required him to hold together an alliance of Nations in a consensus decision making process. The fact that Clark had to have a very hands on role in doing so was reflected by the fact that he was given Head of State status while at NATO. A CEO of a large corporation can be said to command a one way relationship with employees also, but that is a two dimensional read. It depends a lot of the specific human being who holds that position how much of a collaborative team work structure they actually fostered. Same for a President. A command structure mentality doesn't work in negotiations and diplomacy. That proves to be a non starter. In fact that is the Bush "style" of diplomacy, and it doesn't work. Richard Holbrook and Wes Clark led a successful diplomatic effort to restore peace to Bosnia. Since Clark ran in 2004 he worked closely with Democrats in Congress to develop a policy framework on National Security issues that provided a basic unity position that virtually all Democrats running for Congress could embrace, and Clark was picked to be a spokesperson by our Party for that position.

I am writing all this less to dispute anything you believe about Wes Clark, because you do think he would make a good president if elected, than to make the larger case for the record that Wes Clark does have the experience and skills set needed to be an effective President. I know your concerns are primarily over whether Clark can get the Democratic nomination, and I think we all are about to find out whether or not he can. But I do dispute that Clark will hurt his chances to be Secretary of State if he ran.

Bruce Babbit ran for President once, and he impressed some thoughtful people while doing so but didn't win anywhere near enough popular support to get the nomination. He still ended up in Bill Clinton's cabinet as Secretary of the Interior and was on a very short list to be named to the Supreme Court and likely would have been had Democrats retained a majority in the Senate. Meanwhile the inside reports were that even though Wes Clark became a key surrogate for John Kerry during Kerry's Presidential run, Kerry was going to give the Secretary of State appointment to another skilled man, Richard Holbrook.

Clark's voice and leadership is needed in the public debate now, and the only way he will be heard clearly over the next year and a half is if he announces a run for President. No other Democrats will receive any coverage or attention to their ideas, only the candidates and our Congressional leadership. Giving that candidate platform up in the hope that it will increase the chances of Clark getting appointed Secretary of State by whoever happens to become the nominee has a serious down side, and seems to me at least as long a shot as Clark winning the nomination himself.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. Sigh... Think about what you wrote

"Military command is a one way relationship. What Clark says goes. Governance requires tons of compromise and working with people. You can't just tell congress what to do."

Where do you think Clark got his money for the war effort? From the Congress. "You can't just tell Congress what to do."

You share the misconception of most people who have not served in the military, especially at the higher levels. Command is NOT a one way relationship any more than governorship is. In fact, I'd estimate better than 90% of a commander's time is spent in relationships that are NOT one-way, because those that are one-way are relatively easy.

First, look at the structure within the command. A military commander has a dozen or so immediate subordinates, most of whom will do what he says to the best of their ability. So does a governor. The military subordinates run either staff offices or subordinate commands, much as a governor has staff and directorates who respond to his orders. In both cases, the farther you get from the flag pole, the harder it becomes to make things happen the way you want, and the higher the chance that what you want to see happen will become subverted by incompetence or malfeasance. If there's a difference between the military and civilian government, it's that the military is a meritocracy so you're less likely to find incompetence (not that it doesn't exist, Lord knows). But I assure you there are as many military people with loyalties and agendas different from their commander as in any civilian organization. People are people. And believe it or not, it's MUCH easier for a governor to fire a political appointee than it is for a military commander to fire a high-ranking subordinate.

You said elsewhere you read Clark's book (I assume you mean the first, Waging Modern War). You know the story of LTG Jackson who was openly insubordinate at Pristina. But consider also how Air Force LTG Mike Short, Clark's air component commander, didn't like sending his pilots on "tank plinking" missions. He spoke directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff back in Washington, who as a member of the Joint Chiefs put pressure on the Sec of Defense to change the policy. Or the Mediterranean fleet commander (I don't remember the admiral's name) -- he also resisted following Clark's orders, and kept him from getting the carrier support when he wanted it. Think about the whole rigmarole of getting the Apaches, how the Army Chief of Staff refused to release them, how long it took to go over his head, how Clark finally had to go public about it, and ultimately how he never was allowed to use them. Does any of that sound like, "What Clark says goes"?

But that's not half of it. You also have to look outside the command. A four-star regional commander isn't just responsible for what his troops are doing. He is a REGIONAL commander. He answers to "the National Command Authority" (president and sec of def) for EVERYthing that happens in his area of responsibility. That means family members. It means the community agencies who support the families (like schools, hospitals, housing engineers, etc). In fact, it means at least as many civilian employees as troops. It means the unions those civilians belong to. It means elements of other federal agencies operating in the area, some in support of the commander, some doing completely unrelated things but which can affect what the commander is trying to accomplish, some actually intentionally working at cross purposes. And in the case of a foreign command, it means the host nation governments (there were over 90 in Clark's EUCOM area of responsibility), international institutions like the many different parts of the UN, and non-governmental organizations like Doctors with Borders who work for no one but themselves. It also means the media. Not a single one of these respond to orders from a military commander; every interaction between them is a negotiation.

If I can digress, I remember when I worked at NSA and we were sending a team over to Bosnia to support the peacekeeping force. It would have been 1996 or so. NSA is a Dept of Defense organization, but its personnel are mostly civilian. The command didn't want the team members to carry weapons. The team chief said if he and his people couldn't bring their sidearms, they wouldn't go. They got to take their guns.

And finally, consider the relationship between the regional commander and the DC crowd, both in Congress and the executive branch. Do you think the National Security Council took orders from Clark? How about the State Dept? The CIA? Energy, Transportation, Commerce? They all had missions in the European area of operations... you think they got Clark's approval for their activities? And then there's Congress. Not only does Congress provide the commander his money, in most cases they're visiting, investigating, issuing statements, passing resolutions on operations, outlawing programs that supported the overall effort, manipulating the media to get the kind of coverage that helps them politically, even if it hurts the military commander. When Clark was running the Kosovo war, Republicans controlled the House and most of them, DeLay especially, would have done anything to make Clinton's war go wrong. They sure as hell didn't take orders from Clark, but they sure as hell made it harder for him to function, and he sure as hell had to work with them, whether he liked it or not.

I have never worked for a state government, but I know our governor here in KS has loyal subordinates who take her orders and try always to act in her best interests. Just as a military commander has. I also know she has a devil of a time getting our Republican legislature to do anything the way she wants it, and doesn't get a whole lot of support from the Republican federal administration. But those politics are often part of four-star level military command as well. Even when there are men and women in harm's way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I appreciate seeing you post more of your full thoughts

I used to get annoyed with your one liner fly bys until I saw your sense of humor sneaking through and then I got over it, but this is better. You raise a large number of points in not so many sentances, good writing. First thing that comes to my mind is never underestimate the importance of respecting the core positive qualities that a leader brings to the table. With Clark, we can break down discussion of him into three interelated aspects; Character, Ability, and Experience. Of those three I see you having significan reservations about only one of those three, Experience related to governing and familiarity with domestic issues, while you essentially Ace him on International Relations and National Security, and say nothing negative about Clark in regards to the other two key elements of leadership.

Personally I score Wes Clark extremely high on personal character (honesty, independence, devotion to service, willingness to make personal sacrifices for the good of our nation, strong work ethic, grasp of personal honor, respect for the will of the people etc.) and ability (intelligence, judgment, competency etc.) and I agree with you regarding his experience on International Relations and National Security. So right off the bat, roughly speaking Clark is already scoring say 2.4 out of a possible 3 in my book IF I give him no credit for experience with governing, or familiartiy with Domestic issues. But I do think Clark scores points there also, even you gave him a stingy 2 out of 10 on knowledge of domestic issues, but I give him more which I will explain in a seperate post below. And of course that is only a mechanical ranking, it assigns equal value to every aspect of Presidential leadership. But I don't think all aspects are equal at all times, circumstances vary and that puts different premiums on different qualities, and in the current situation I think the areas that Wes Clark is strongest in cumulatively carry greater weight. So in my mark that adjusts Clark's overall grade up (and conversely I believe it lowers the overall grade of most of Clark's potential competitors for the Presidency).

Then there is what can loosely be called the issue of electability, and whether Dems will vote for a bona fide military man. For most of the history of the Democratic Party that never was an issue. Many credit War hero and General Andrew Jackson as being one of our earliest Democratic leaders, and until the Viet Nam war, there was no more of a real divide between rank and file Democratic Party members and those who had a career in the military than between Republican rank and file members and those who had a career in the military. Personally I think that worm has started to turn already.

Feelings toward a given war and those who are required by our system of civilian control over the military to fight it if called upon, are more and more kept seperate by Democrats now compared to the heat of the anti Viet Nam War era. Even since the 2004 election, many Democratic activists took careful note of the revolt of the Generals against Donald Rumsfeld, which of course Wes Clark was the pre-cursor to. More and more Democrats have noticed that the Bush Administration routinely ignored military advice concerning Iraq, most recently when Bush re shuffled military leadership because those in place would not back his ill conceived "surge" escalation. More and more Democrats have come to the conclusion that Chicken Hawks breed in the ranks of those who never served their nation in time of war.

And then there is the matter of Wes Clark the man, not the Four Star General. When Clark was competing in his first Presidential Primary four months after he first declared himself a candidate for public office, almost all Democratic voters knew far less about him then than they do now. And even those who still know almost nothing about Wes Clark other than the fact that he is a General can now be shown a record of hard work that Wes Clark has done for the Democratic Party in the intervening years since he first declared for the Presidency. What was known about Wes Clark for 2004 was rather two dimensional for most, it was hard to flesh out that sense of who he really was at a time when his Democratic opponents were literally accusing him of being a Republican. That lack of information combined with a perhaps latent distrust for the military, and it was a difficult mix for Clark to deal with as a rookie politician newly identified with the Democratic Party.

We are no longer in that situation. Wes Clark is no longer in that situation. I still remember the ovations that the delegates gave the assemblage of senior flag officers who stood up for John Kerry at the Democratic National convention in 2004. Wes Clark was an agent of change within the Democratic Party back then, and the changes he was part of will now come back to help him if he decides to run again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Clark and his relevent Domestic experience and positions

Are there elected officials with more direct experience in governing than Wes Clark? Yes, certainly. Are there elected officials with less experience in governing than Wes Clark? I think that second statement also is true, because Wes Clark is not running for a legislative position, he is running for an Executive position, and the skills sets needed for each are not the same. And Americans intuitively understand that, which is one of the reasons why there have been just as many Generals elected President since 1952 as legislators (Senators and Congressional Representitives combined).

Legislators draft and vote on legislation, they give or withold approval for certain exectutive actions, such as confirming appointments to various positions, but they do not run the actual machinery of the government that implements the results of their legislation. That is an executive function. And when it comes to being the President of the United States, there is absolutely no day to day equivalent responsibility to being the Commander in Chief. Only the President of the United States transmits routine communications throught the Departments of State and Defense to other sovereign nations.

So I will certainly concede the point that most American Governors come to the table with more relevent experience governing than Wes Clark can demonstrate on domestic matters (George W. Bush was an exception because the role of Governor in Texas is limited). But then again, it is an exception to the rule for a Governor to bring to the table relevent experience related to International affairs and national security, so usually there is a trade off involved (in the way of exceptions Graham in 2004 was both an ex-Governor and a Senator, and Richardson is a governor with International experience).

I think a lot of people confuse two matters; demonstrating an ability to get elected by the public, and demonstrating having sufficient experience needed to govern once elected. Obviously Clark can't say that he has already been elected to anything (although he did win a primary election), so if that is what really floats someone's boat, Clark probably won't float to the top of the list for anyone who thinks that is all important. But in order to become the Democratic nominee, Clark will have to show great political skills and an ability to connect with voters in order to win a sufficient number of primaries, so any question regarding Clark about that will be self answering, long before he is our nominee.

And I add this paragraph on immediate edit: No one seems to give much of a damn about the importance of a politician getting reelected before seeking the Presidency. John Edwards ran for one prior office, and won, before seeking the Presidency, but he never faced the voters in his State again to receive a verdict on how well they feel he represented him. Barack Obama has only been reelected to a local legislative seat, he ran for the United States Senate in a campaign during which he said he would not run for President (against a joke of an opponent), and two years later he is running for President without returning to the voters who installed him in the Senate for their judgement on his performance after one third of a term spent in the office they elected him to. That doesn't mean either or both of these men can't make fine Presidents, but it waters down the argument that getting elected to something is so terribly important if we don't get to see the final judgement of those who elected them in the first place to their elected office, regarding how well they lived up to the expectations of those who actually voted for them.

But I agree with Jai's comments above, even if you think some have oversold Clark's governmental responsibilities inherent in running a large military command with responsiblitiy for hundreds of thousands of military personel and their dependents, I think you now under sell it. Amnd Genearl Clark in the course of his career, first as a General, then as an expert witness, and later as a politician, has extensive personal experience working with members of the United States Congress, I believe more experience in that regard than many American Governors bring to the table. Clark already has a very close working relationship with the Speaker of the House and with the Senate Majority Leader for instance, that is something Jimmy Carter for example lacked when he became President.

As to knowledge of domestic issues, I think you harshly undersell Wes Clark. No potential Presidential candidate has a better grasp on the nature of Global Warming and the threat it poses than Wes Clark, with the only exception being Al Gore. Global warming of course is a globa issue, but Wes Clark has studied the options facing the United States concerning it. He is a strong and committed environmentalist, and most will agree to call that a domestic issue. On issues involving Race relations, including but not limited to affirmative action, Clark comes from a life time of service in the most integrated of American institutions, the U.S. Army. Clark had day to day responsibility for molding cohesive units out of soldiers with wildly divergent backgrounds, which included but was not limited to racial differences. He worked with a highly integrated chain of command, and was a leader at supporting and encouraging affirmative action with minorities as well as women. That counts a lot to me.

All of the men and women who Clark served with had government provided health care in the service. It is a bedrock of Clark's convictions that health care must be universal and affordable, and he believes in a single payer solution. It reflects his personal experience and priorities. One thing that Wes Clark did in helping rebuild a volunteer U.S. Army is instill a culture and committment to helping each member of the service be all that they can be. It is a slogan but it was also a philosophy and a goal. And Clark had hands on responsibility for working to make that a reality as much as possible. That is a philosophy of governance on the most important of all domestic issues; the relationship between the citizens and our government. Clark is a bedrock Liberal who has walked the walk not just talked it. I call that a fundemental understanding of a core domestic issue.

And because WeS Clark voluntarily stayed in a career that did not reward him with wealth until near the end of his service when his top pay peaked below the salary paid to U.S. Senators, Clark understands the hardships of actually having to stretch a pay check to meet basic living expenses. I call that relevent understanding of a central domestic issue. Wes Clark fully and openly embraced the need for and importance of progressive taxation during his 2004 campaign, and the detailed tax plan he presented and ran on was well reviewed and received by most non partisan experts. Surely that is a domestic issue.

Wes Clark also has a fundemental understanding of the need for constituional checks and balences and the importance of protecting the integrity of our constitutional system of government. He has a Masters in political science, he taught it at West Point, he spoke out often and strongly on the importance of dissent in a Democracy. Clark scores points with me on that one. And Wes Clark has a keen understanding of the threat to our electoral system caused by manipulation of the voting rolls, obstructions placed on minorities seeking to vote, and the critical inherent flaws in our electoral machinery. You only have to look at the pod cast series he sponsered on those issues to understand that. Surely that is an important domestic issue.

Wes Clark is a firm supporter of public education. He also has a vision for economic competitiveness for America that calls for a recommittment of governmental support to technological advances in fields ranging from medicine to clean energy. And what about domestic emergency preparedness? Clark worked closely after his 2004 presidential run with James Lee Witt, Clinton's former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Witt ran FEMA when FEMA really worked.

I urge you and anyone else to view this video of Wes Clark describing, in painstaking detail (totally off the cuff) exactly how Katrina could have and should have been handled. I think it demonstrates well the intersection of competency with experience that Clark has to offer in managing challanges to America, domestic and international:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS1reFQGGw


This Kos Diary also has a screen where that can be viewed, along with the transcript from Clark talking:

Wes Clark - 192 Steps to Disaster Preparedness
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/2/15349/24795

Here is a short taste:

"So those were some of the organizational mistakes, and leadership mistakes and.. choices. But when you get right down to it, to make something like this work you have to do a lot of rehearsal. People have to think through the problem. Somebody has to say "Well, gee we're gonna have eighty thousand people with no transportation. Uh, let's see eighty thousand, now, how many per bus? What's our planning figure per bus? Forty. Forty, if you can get a big bus, forty. Ok, so let's see, forty into eighty thousand. You need two thousand buses? Uh, but, uh, what's the readiness rate on buses? Well, like one in ten won't work. And one in ten might break down, how far they gotta go? I dunno, where we gonna put the refugees?". So then you start, you know, trying to work your way backwards through this thing. Turns out you might need three thousand buses, with three thousand five hundred drivers, with extra tanker trucks, refueling stations because, what if it's the middle of the night and the bus is out in the middle of Louisiana, you know, it gets, drove a hundred and fifty miles down, drove a hundred and fifty miles back, it's got a two hundred mile range. It needs more fuel. So somebody has to think of all this, and to plan it. "Ok, what community, you got twenty buses, you got fifty buses, you got a hundred buses but you're three hundred miles away." So, I mean all that had to have been worked out. Where're they gonna meet the buses? What neighborhood? What roads are gonna be flooded? Somebody has to do all that. None of that was done."

And then there is the bottom line. A President doesn't need to know how to solve every single problme him or her self, s/he needs to know how to choose the right people with the right experience to develop the right proposals, and then know how to trouble shoot and evalutate those proposals. Those are exctly the type things that Wes Clark has been doing all of his life

[Renew Deal]

37. Leadership

"First thing that comes to my mind is never underestimate the importance of respecting the core positive qualities that a leader brings to the table."

You are so right about that. I think Clark is one of the few that could actually get stuff done. He's a relelntles worker and honest. He's out of the beltway, so he's not stuck in their old ways.

My worries about Clark's experience are more about the campaign and less about governing in itself. His limited experience is going to cause him problems as it did in 2004. It makes him one dimensional. When the war calmed down in 2003-2004, Clark's numbers went down (especially against Bush).

[Nedsdag]

17. My dear, you have opened Pandora's Box

You know once you say anything negative, his supporters will come at you like white on rice.

Clark has great ideas; however, he can't wait too much longer. Other candidates are hiring people and raising money. He has to make a decision soon.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I believe that Bleachers7 was inviting comments......because that's what an op does....

and he said both negatives and positives......and in re-reading what was written in response, I actually find a whole lot of thoughtfulness that came with those responses (perhaps not as much ass kissing to a self proclaimed ex-Clarkie as some would like though).....

I guess if one chose to they could also negatively state that Clark supporters were responding to the OP "like white on rice". guess that demonstrates that some folks don't welcome provoking and articulate debate, even when it is presented in the most of rational manner. guess some would just rather drop negative inferences perpetuating a stereotype about certain DUers by ironically being the one subjectively interjecting as much negativity as anyone.

Guess Clarkies should have not had anything to say, cause an ex-Clarkie was speaking or something? I am a bit confused as to what you would have found as more appropriate to be our replies, considering how wonderfully complimentary yours is in regards to Clark supporters. Help us out here.... :shrug:

[Nedsdag]

22. Frenchie, I wasn't knocking you or other Clarkies.

I was knocking this thread. I know everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but I felt this thread was unneccessary. It won't change any minds.

[Renew Deal]

39. It's not about changing minds.

It's about a discussion amomngst friends.

[Renew Deal]

38. I welcome all.

I've been wanting to have this discussion for a while. ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I would hold this thread up to anyone

as a positive example of the way that supporters of any candidate should respond to criticism of a candidate that they support. What do you find disagreeable about the quality of discussion on this thread?

[Tatiana]

26. I happen to think that this post is an shining example of thoughtful discourse. n/t

[Seldona]

19. I disagree.

For your first point what about John Kerry? He came within a few percentage points of beating Shrub, and that was when he was still riding relatively high on the war. Not to mention the fact that even though it was bs, the swiftboaters had one hell of a lot of people believing Kerry was a hippy instead of a decorated hero.

As for #2, I see that as a plus. He doesn't have a 20 year voting record the other side can sift through and use to paint him in whatever light they deem favorable. Besides I think it would take a certain amount of political know how as the Supreme Allied NATO Commander.

Clark has tremendous crossover appeal with both his military background, as well as the exposure he has received by working at Fox News these last couple of years. I really think that Americans are so sick of republicans in general that even a lot of right wingers will vote for a Democrat this time around so long as the right cannot paint him as weak on defense. Like it or not this crap still plays in the sticks all over this country and we would be remiss to write those people off. Let's see em call Wes weak on defense. He will eat them alive! lol

I want to win. I think Wes Clark is a shoe-in as president, and most importantly I believe he really is the best man for the job. And after *Bush, what a job it is.

Cheers!

:toast:

[Renew Deal]

40. Kerry's not a military guy.

There's a major difference between someone that served and someone that essentially lead the entire army.

One of the biggest questions for me is: "Who is the best person for the job?" I thankfully am no where near deciding.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Dubya has 6 years of the best experience possible for the job, that doesn't make him competent

IMO, foreign affairs are much more difficult to understand and handle than domestic affairs. Some people will disagree with me on that and that is fine but I stand by my view. I'd rather have a president with foreign policy experience than domestic policy experience because I believe that domestic policy is much easier to learn on the spot.

Clark's shortcoming in '04 was that he entered too late to compete financially and he was too much of a political neophyte. I think both will be different this time.

[generaldemocrat]

24. Are you nuts?

Between Hillary, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden, and Richardson....Clark has the most direct foreign policy experience. And I'm not talking about working the DC cocktail circuit, doing speeches at foreign lobbies on K St., or writing legislation, I'm talking about being there on the ground overseas, involved in direct diplomatic negotiations with foreign leaders and acting as an envoy of the President. I'm talking about having to be the #1 guy at an important international organization like NATO. Those are the qualifications we need in this day and age.

We are bogged down in Iraq and now we're on a warpath with Iran. So tell me again, why shouldn't Clark run? It's not as if all these foreign policy f*ck ups are any closer to be resolved today than they were a year ago. The situation has not improved overseas and that is why Clark should run. Even if he doesn't get the nod, he will probably be one of the most attractive VP candidates out there (if not the most attractive) because of his military background and his foreign policy experience and he can deliver his own homestate plus one or two other red states. By sitting out of the race altogether it automatically takes him out of contention for getting a place on the ticket as Veep.

In fact, it is imperative that Clark run.

[Renew Deal]

41. Are you?

I think he shouldn't run because he has little to no chance of winning and he could hurt himself more than help himself.

I don't think Clark delivers anything as VP. I think he could deliver as president. I am talking abou the primaries only. All bets are off if he survives the primary.

[lumpy]

25. Compared to the other possible candidates,

Clark has them beat in every area of experience and intelligence. He would be the one candidate that would be best for this country. BUT, knowing that Geo.W.Bush made the cut in the voting booth, I would have no faith in the American people voting for a candidate that has outstanding exemplary qualifications for leadership.
If some of you believe that Hillary Clinton would win the vote, think about it. Misogyny is still alive and well in the old US of A. Ask any man, especially those with a Republican bent, what they think about a woman running this country. The first expression you see on his face is a troubling frown. Plenty of politically disinterested women are leary of a woman taking that role, believe it.
Obama, forget it. He's black. Nuff' said. Don't bother to flame. Bigotry is alive and kicking.
Edwards comes closest to appealing to Joe Dokes and wife; you know, Edwards is the down home, salt of the earth type of guy.
Believe me, I would like to see someone of stature, like Gore or Clark determining our future.

[Renew Deal]

42. I refuse to make a choice because of mysoginy and racism.

Americans elect women and minorities to all kinds of offices. Maybe it will take one of those to get this country back on track. Fuck the bigots.

Joe Dokes? WTF is that?

[lumpy]

48. Joe Dokes? John Q. Public, average working joe,

average working stiff, just 'getting along' guy. Ask Gramma, she'll explain.
As far as minorities and women in public positions, yes great strides have been made in this endeavor; thanks to women and some men who worked for the right to yote(accomplished as late as the 1920') and equal pay, thanks to the black movement for equal working and voting rights. I'll stick to my opinion that no way at this time will a woman or black be elected to the highest poltical post in this country because bigotry is still apparent.

[Renew Deal]

50. And because other people are bigots

Obama shouldn't be supported?

[lumpy]

52. The objective behind a presidential campaign is

to win. It is not comparable to an American Idol contest, perhaps more like a poker game. If it isn't in the cards, don't gamble. Sure it would be wonderful if prejudice and bigotry didn't exist in this country, but it does.

[Renew Deal]

57. Isn't that a bit racist?

Say this and make it clear: "I would not support a black candidate for president."

At least be honest with yourself.

[Mz Pip]

27. Interesting points

Can't say I really disagree with you. There is some truth to the idea that the base won't go for a military guy. Can't trust a guy in uniform. Sad but true. THe Nation did a hatchet job on him a while back.

I think that people who take the time to seriously listen to what he has to say would be very supportive of his candidacy. But most people are lazy and just get on a bandwagon and ride it out. Anyone who took the time to read up on Dubya could see what a loser he was, but most people didn't.

Clark is amazing and has worked hard the past two years getting Dems elected. He's smart, articulate and a quick study. But perceptions and reality are two different things. The fact that he has no political experience will be perceived as a weakness. It's a false perception, but there it is.

My biggest concern is that all the big players - the ones who can generate lots of money - are going to put their weight behind Obama or Hillary. Money was a big reason why he didn't go to Iowa last time. Fatal mistake IMHO. Kerry got the momentum and the rest is history.

I'll support Clark if he runs and will vote for him in the primary but with the field being as crowded as it is already I have my doubts as to whether he'll bother. Money talks. Hillary has it. Obama will proably get the rest. Everyone else will be left in the dust. I hope I'm wrong. We shall see.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Renew Deal]

43. And all the big players are in this race except Gore.

Every heavy hitter in the party is running except Gore and possibly Kerry. THat makes it difficult for anyone out of the top 5.
Top 5 would probably be Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and possibly Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Almost without exception

Usually more than one of the probable candidates perceived to be top tier a year out from the first primary contests have their canidacy implode or collapse by the time those contests are upon us. We have already seen that with Warner and Bayh, and perhaps Kerry can be added to that list. If this conversation were being held 5 months ago those names all would have been prominantly in play, in fact they wre 5 months ago, and I am only counting people who had/have a clear interest in running. The opposite is also true. Usually one or more dark horse candidates emerge closer to the time of the first primary, and often they actually win. Carter did, Dean fell short, and so did Edwards who emerged as a major contender even later than Dean.

And if you go through the contested Democratic races of the past 50 or so years it is clear that people who fell by the wayside early were considered to be heavy hitters at the time.

Frontrunners have a special burden placed on them of continuing high expectations that must be lived up to early or they quickly become tarnished. It is precisely those high expectations that can get a Clinton, an Edwards, a Gore, or an Obama in trouble. They are expected to be highly competitive from the outset, failure to constantly live up to that in polling or fundraising or whatever becomes "a stumble". John Edwards finished 4th in New Hampshire and left that state "with momentum". That sure wouldn't have worked for Kerry. It didn't work for Dean or Gephardt in Iowa.

I like Kerry better than I regard him as a possible 2008 candidate. I don't think it wears well for our last Presidential candidate to be in single digits in National polls, or to be trailing well behind his prior running mate. Krrry is only a few points ahead of Clark in some. Richardson has a resume but there are rumors about personal baggage he carries. We'll see if anything real comes of that. Also a lot of election activists are angry with him for standing in the way of a real NM vote recount in 2004. Maybe as a result Bush took that state out of the Democratic column in 2004 with Richardson as a Democratic Governor. That type of performance doesn't endear anyone to Party insiders. And who knows yet if Richardson can connect well on the campaign trail outside of NM? Bob Graham couldn't outside of Florida in 2004, but he had a resume also. Clark did connect on the campaign trail last time, and he is much improved as a campaigner since then.

[Donna Zen]

28. Late to the party

However, I'm chiming in because this is nice quiet discussion---rare these days---and while these forums are the place for ones opinions, they are also the place to post differing thoughts:

1) Dems and the military: The Dems. now exist in a post-Webb environment, post generals-coming-out-to-oppose-bush too, and these are not inconsequential events within the collective psyche of DU and the off-line world. Dems. have watched as so-called moderate Dems. failed to challenge this administration, while their Army and Marines walked point. Currently, the country trusts the military and its generals more than any other occupation (doctors may rank 1 or 2) and they view of politicians is down at the bottom. People do not like Washington insiders. The military and those associated are huge voter pool who are still leery of the usual Dems., but they are now ready to vote for a military Dem. Webb would not have beaten Allen had he not had his credentials.

2) The office of the president occupies the executive branch: By its very nature, that means that the candidate needs to have run things, not vote on the senate floor. Of those now considered top-tier, none of them have run anything, and their experience is very light. They also don't have the necessary foreign policy credentials. People, no matter how much they have achieved, only have time to do some things. If Wes Clark skipped life's rubber-chicken dinners, he also has qualities garnered from his life that the others will never have. Domestic policy is much more the realm of legislators, while the Oval Office has a lock on Wes Clark's got.

3) Biden wants to be Sec. of State. I suspect that is the reason his name is on the list. (Who knows, I don't make a habit of reading Biden's mind; however, he has made no secret of his desire for that job.) Lots of people want cabinet positions, and they are far ahead of Clark in the crony line. I would guess that Wes Clark will not be named to any position in anyone's cabinet because crony matters more in Washington than merit. Clark's staying out will probably make it less likely that he would even be considered. Not only that, but remember, a Dem. would actually have to win.

If I haven't offered you any reasons why I support Wes Clark, it is not because they don't exist. Let me offer this: my concern is for my country and my daughters', and all God's children, future in our nearly lost dream. It is that guide that I see and hear from Wes Clark. Country first. When I consider the others, while I may see some good in all of them, after standing beside the General, looking at them is like squinting my eyes and trying to catch a shadowy glimse beyond a wide gapping gulf.

Whether he runs or not, I've seen a person who really does believe that honor, duty, country means something. And in today's political climate, that is amazing.

[lumpy]

29. I appreciate your outstanding post.

THanks

[Renew Deal]

44. Crony Line

Funny and true. :D

[AtomicKitten]

32. When Wes jumps in, he raises the bar.

The sum total caliber of our candidates goes way up. The only think he was lacking in 2004 was politicking experience. He's worked his ass off for Democratic Party. He deserves a shot at going to the show.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. I respect your position on this, even though I don't share it.

I'm well aware of the possibility that he may not be a viable candidate, should he choose to run. If that happens, it happens, but I'm going to be supporting him anyway.

I happen to believe that he is the best equipped person out there for dealing with the international mess that we've gotten ourselves into. I also think that he's the most progressive on domestic issues that we have a realistic potential of electing. I also believe that, should he manage to get through the primaries and win the nomination (however unlikely that may be) that he would be the best positioned to win a really decisive electoral victory, and possibly bring about a political realignment, bringing the country as a whole down a much more progressive path.

So, I am willing to take the quixotic stance of supporting someone who may not have much of a chance, because I believe the payoff would be so great should he succeed.

I'm not worried about the risk that he might forfeit an imaginary cabinet post in some Dem administration. I agree with the people here who say that is much more likely to be decided by political patronage than by merit anyway. Whatever happens, I think that Clark will continue to use his influence as he has been doing, and will continue to benefit this party and this country, whether in an official capacity or not.

I don't begrudge anybody else their right to support whomever they choose, however unlikely their own choice may be to get the nomination.

I try to avoid both the cheerleading, and the sniping at other candidates, but I hardly think you can argue that Clarkies are the only, or even the worst offenders in that area. You may just be especially attuned to notice it, since you yourself are a former Clarkie.

[Capn Sunshine]

54. This is all moot until he says something

You would think with all the candidates jumping into the pool that NOW would be the time. He's had four years to think it over. I'm working from the assumption he isn't going to, or he would have at least articulated something to stay in the mix..

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Clark would have done better if he had gotten in earlier

That being said, his chances for 2008 are rapidly decreasing as he takes his time to decide if he is going to run.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I see Clark joining the race helpful to most if not all of the candidates...

Read here:

Excerpt....

And so getting back to the original question: Are multiple minority candidates too much of a good thing? The Cliff Note answer is that “could be”. In the past, minority voters might have migrated to one or two candidates, but this time around, each candidate will attract a reasonably predictable portion of his/her representative constituency. Without Clark in the race, the quantitative divisive math has John Edwards winning the contest by default.

Interestingly enough, Wes Clark is the one who could dramatically change the current dynamics of the primary race. First and foremost, the situation in Iraq/Iran makes Clark once again a relevant candidate for the times. The General’s record of military success is unmatched by any other candidate, including Sen. Kerry, as Clark would be the only candidate who successfully planned, led and won a war, all the while negotiating with multiple heads of states. His intense knowledge of foreign policy stands to make a large dent in Richardson’s claim as the candidate best versed in the area. It is in fact Clark’s “early and often” detailed plans of reasonably securing Iraq while negotiating the U.S. out of the war that could neutralize Hillary, (as she and the Big Dog come as a pair), considering her documented hawkishness and lack of apologies on her Iraq vote.

Wesley Clark adds domestic national security to the national debate, something none of the other candidates offers. As the former director of Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs under Clinton, Clark as the “competent and credible national security” candidate could spotlight the issue of domestic terrorism. As an emergency preparedness expert (in partnership with former FEMA head James Lee Witt), Clark brings in disaster management (i.e., Katrina) as an important component to the national debate; an issue which would otherwise go missing and a debate unfortunately focused currently on personalities and charisma.

Wes Clark also disqualifies Obama as the only top contender who was right on Iraq. Not only did the General see the invasion as a bad idea as early as the summer of 2002, but he also foretold how events would unfold 98% accurately.

Clark is also a Southerner which would deprive John Edwards the sole mantel. Even Edwards’ claim to poverty and union issues (to which Obama is currently his only rival) become less potent, as General Clark has publicly come out with steps to combat not only poverty, but what Edwards seem to have forgotten, the middle class blues.
snip
In concluding the analysis of the possible Democratic candidates, if General Wes Clark chooses to run, the dynamics for all of the candidates change significantly. Wes Clark entering the race makes the primaries much more competitive for all of the contenders. Ironically, Clark is the key to leveling out the playing field so that each minority candidate remains a viable contender.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/2008_candidatestoo_much_of_a_g.html

We'll know sooner than later.