With Obama in the race, it's doubtful Clark will get in now.

[chimpymustgo]

Obama, Hillary and Edwards have sucked all the oxygen out of the room. We have a great field of candidates, and it's going to be an exciting race!

[blm]

1. I hope Clark does enter. He is a credible voice of experience on serious world issues.

And THAT is the race that the GOP will be running and, given the corpmedia climate, that will be the race the media will focus on, no matter what storyline the Democrats prefer.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Many Clarkies (like me) will swing to Obama

we're the romantic types, looking for someone who just might be a great leader for this country. Our hearts have been broken before, but we can't resist that loving feeling.

[geek tragedy]

16. And we don't want someone with blood on their hands

from the Iraq war!

[BeyondGeography]

19. First and foremost....agreed

[rep the dems]

56. I'm a big Clark fan too, and I still think he'll run, but it's hard for me to

watch Obama without thinking of what a great President he could be. The two of them on the ticket in 08 would bring about tears of joy for me.

[Adelante]

3. Heh

We don't need no fucking primaries :D

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Really. Let's let the Beltway wise men decide for us

They own the oxygen plant anyway, right?

Obama does not now knock Edwards out of the race. Obama does not now stop Clark from entering the race, and Clinton won't knock Obama out of the race either. I look forward to some great debates.

[Adelante]

9. We can always let

chimpymustgo decide who can run and who cannot :shrug:

Democracy be damned!

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Unless she lives inside the beltway, she's just expressing her opinion

Same thing for you, me and Clarkie1 also. We have opinions, but people inside the beltway have special powers, you know.

[Auntie Bush]

40. Who the hell needs primaries?

We got the media (who knows best) to pick our candidate for us. We won't even have to get out of bed and vote. Yeah!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. There's lots of oxygen left.

It's too early to count anyone out. And the "oxygen suckers" tend to peak early and deflate.

[spooky3]

6. I hope he and all other qualified candidates enter the race.

It's good for Democrats to have excellent choices--the more the better during primary season.

I hope Gore enters also.

And, it's much better to let the primaries sort it out, as flawed as the process is, rather than have a lot of Democrats wondering what could have been, if only X had run...

[Clarkie1]

7. LOL. nt

[chimpymustgo]

10. Great day for predictions, no? LOL! nt

nt

[PresidentObama]

8. I hope Clark gets in.

Him and Gore lead the charge as the main two candidates I wish to support. If not, I'll probably jump on over to the Obama camp. But I really hope, and wish Wesley Clark enters the race and adds his visions for America to the national debate!!

[uppityperson]

11. I hope a bunch more people enter, there's lots of oxygen left

having many people in now would be good, get lots of good talking going. I agree, it will be an exciting race.

[PresidentObama]

15. I don't know about a bunch more people.

We've got a good field so far. Wouldn't mind a couple more to add to the debate. But not a bunch more.

[smalll]

13. You could well be right -

with the Democratic Big Three in place now, if Clark entered, he'd immediately be relegated to the Richardson/Kucinich/Gravel tier of candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

20. And if Clark was "relegated" to the 2nd tier, it would only illustrate

that yours is a sad commentary as to what constitutes insight, judgment and leadership; the qualities that we should be wanting and supporting in a President.....IMO.

The placement as it stands merily demonstrates that Democrats really are a confused bunch with many who buy into what the corporate media serves us on a platter.

Considering that the one who said the below in September of 2002 should be so underated, while those who either co-sponsored and/or voted FOR the IWR (and might be sorry now...or not) or have little experience in the matter of Foreign policy and National Security should be held up as first tier in the upcoming very important election.

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

"Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity."

"We've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing. There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must."

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

Also read.....
Why Supporting someone who was Right on Iraq in 2002 makes sense.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/wes_clark_on_charlie_rose_on_s.html

[mtnsnake]

14. If he doesn't run, I still think Clark would be a great running mate for Obama

He'd be the perfect complement, adding his years of wisdom and his experience with national security. General Clark would not only be a strong asset for Obama, but he'd be a strong asset for anyone if he ran with them. If he can't become our president, then the second best thing for us is for him to become our vice president.

[PresidentObama]

17. Obama/Clark would be an exciting ticket.

Personally, I like Clark/Obama better. But I'll take either combination gladly. It'd be a welcome change of pace from this current Administration. Seems like a good ticket. Obama has the star power, charisma, and message. Clark has the military experience, and foreign policy vision we need.

[dogman]

18. That would seem like a role reversal.

I think it would be really unlikely also.

[geek tragedy]

21. Clark has never been elected to anything in his life.

That's a major drawback.

[dogman]

22. It very well could be.

But then why would he be VP? My opinion is based on the need for leadership and foreign policy/national security. Depending on the GOP candidate, those could well be the major issues.

[geek tragedy]

35. VP is a complementary player who, well, does

what he/she is told.

The Presidential candidate has to make the political calls.

[dogman]

37. I'm not looking for a candidate.

I want a President.

[geek tragedy]

45. Unfortunately, one needs to be the former in order

to be the latter.

One price we pay for democracy.

[dogman]

49. As I noted, it could be true.

Evidence for your opinion is w. I just have hope that we can learn from our mistakes. BTW Clark has won more Presidential Primary Elections than Obama and Obama lost his first election too. Having attended both of their campaign functions, I can testify that Obama is more of a politician. I would not take that as an endorsement however as I don't find politicians to be endearing. I prefer honesty to pandering.

[DemCam]

24. Neither had Eisenhower

But that didn't mean he didn't have all the experience in the world with leadership.

I totally agree....Obama has no international experience when it comes to teaming with Clark. And in fact...the only reason we're not damning Obama to hell about his vote in 2003 is for one reason only. He wasn't there! We have no idea how he would have voted had he been there. All idle and useless speculation at this point. Of course, the same is true for Clark. For me, experience this time triumphs over hope.


I supported Clark in his run last time because of his leadership and international experience. I will support the candidate again who can best lead us out of Iraq without letting it fall into complete and irretrievable chaos. It would be unconscionable to abandon that country because of Bush's misbegotten war.

In my opinion, we need to engage the world powers and ALL of the countries in the region. And I mean all. We may not be able to do such a thing until Bush is gone for good.

If Bush does indeed invade Iran I just simply haven't a clue what will happen. The only thing we can hope at that point is that the Middle Eastern Sunni Muslims will be able to work together for stability...since we will be attacking a Shiite majority nation.

What are the chances?

I love Wes Clark, but four years is an eternity and I think he hasn't a chance this year....especially since he still has debt from four years ago. In fact, two years is an eternity at this point with all the unknowns out there.

The more candidates we have, the more chance we have of picking the weakest and that could really not be in any of our best interests. (I know, I know....Abraham Lincoln.)

[geek tragedy]

36. Not true that we have "no idea" how Obama would have voted

on the IWR.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/26/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

Yeah, that's a real head-scratcher.

[dogman]

38. Yet he voted to confirm Rice.

She was one of the armchair weekend warriors who pushed the policy that led to this war. Where was the Obama who is quoted above? That still has me, a constituent who voted for Obama as my Senator, still scratching my head.

[geek tragedy]

44. Um, not even remotely the same thing?

Russ Feingold voted to confirm her too--the vote was 85-13.

[dogman]

48. So the war is wrong but the war promoters are ok?

IMO they are exactly the same thing. How do you seperate the policy from the policy makers? I've heard justifications, but as I said, I'm still scratching my head in wonder. My other Senator, Durbin, voted no.

[rep the dems]

57. Bush wasn't going to nominate anyone for Sec of State that didn't

support the war from the start. As much as I dislike Rice, we weren't going to get someone good with Bush as Pres.

[dogman]

60. And yet we can't get a non-binding non-escalation motion passed.

Why didn't we stand up then? How come a GOP minority can do it? She lied and refused to testify under oath. She was one of the Vulcans.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vulcans

[Adelante]

26. Or a major plus

Considering how disgracefully unpopular elected officials are at this time.

[geek tragedy]

34. The drawback is that he may not know how to work

things in the world of politics--that he lacks political acumen.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. If that's true, he won't win the nomination

But conversely, if he can win the nomination, it will mean he has a great deal of political skill.

Personally, I think he did pretty damn well last time, considering he got in so late. He had a great deal more campaign experience now than he did then.

I think Clark is gonna get in, and I think he's got a very good chance of winning it. All he has to do is start talking to people in Iowa, Nevada, and NH -- other states too, of course, but the first three especially. He's got what it takes to win people over, and if the polls start to show that he's doing so, the money will follow. There are a lot of big-money people who want him to succeed, and are just waiting to see if he can get traction.

[geek tragedy]

46. He's gotta make a big enough splash to loosen

up some pocket books.

We'll see. Clark is kind of my fantasy pick.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. Not really

The publicity of a "big splash" would be nice, but it's not necessary. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Besides, I tend to think Clark could set himself on fire and the corporate media would ignore him in favor of some dead and/or missing blonde.

Wes will start out with enough money to keep him going for a while in Iowa, NV and NH, with a few trips around to the others just so they know he's thinking of them. If he doesn't have that much lined up already, he won't even start a run, and I believe he fully intends to start. If he can start to turn the polls around, like he was doing in NH last time, the money will start coming in and the media will have to start giving him some coverage, which will lead to more money, and then more media. It's called momentum, and he still has plenty of time to get it going.

[fujiyama]

63. I like Clark too

and would chose him over the other declared contenders, but geek is absolutely correct - if Clark doesn't get in soon, the donors simply won't be there. And this race will be very expensive. Many people out there are close to aligning themselves with someone or the other, if they haven't already. And the names making waves now are big and very well known. Clark is incredibly talented, but with the name HILLARY out there, it's a tough fight he has ahead of him.

He has a little bit of time, but it's closing in - and fast. Clark is still not that well known, other than being "that general guy" that ran last time. He certainly doesn't have the name recognition as the top three contenders right now - Hillary, Edwards, and Obama.

This time we have some talented players like Richardson that are going to face a very difficult job in getting the nomination...It's unfortunate though, because I agree with many that a Hillary nomination could be a disaster.

[Jai4WKC08]

64. Well, I do think Clark will get in soon

He told Mark Green on AAR back in mid-Jan that he would only wait "a few more weeks" (if I'm remembering his words correctly) to announce his decision. He's spent the last week on vacation with the missus. I fully expect him to announce an exploratory committee when he gets back. He's made it pretty clear that he knows the clock is ticking.

Where I don't necessarily agree with you is that the money supply will dry up. For the big money donors, it's no harder to give $2K to one candidate than to give $4K to two, or $6K to three. They do that all the time, and they probably drop that much money on the floor everyday ;). But seriously, I recall that George Soros maxed out for Kerry, Dean and Clark last time round, and I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

Shoot, not just the big money donors. You show me 10 people who are already maxed out for one candidate, and I'd bet 9 of 'em could afford to max out for another.

The VAST majority of the rest of us never max out for anyone, altho some of us may come close by the end of each calendar year. It's pretty easy for us to stop giving to one and start giving to another whom we decide we like better.

One last point on money. It ain't everything. Look at how much money Dean spent in Iowa last time, compared to Kerry and Edwards. For that matter, Clark had more money (not sure which states he was spending it in) than Kerry by the time of the NH primary, and it didn't help him much either. The main thing is, Kerry was completely busted at one point, not all that long before the first caucus, so busted he had to take out a loan against his home. But when he started to catch fire in Iowa (less than a week before the caucus), the money started pouring in, and by the time he won NH, he never ever had to worry about money again. Any of them could theoretically pull off something similar. There will always be enough money for a winner. I believe with all my heart that Clark will be a winner. But if I'm wrong, it won't matter when he declares.

But don't get me wrong. Time is a factor. For one thing, there's only so much time to collect the vast sums that will be required. It's not directly proportional -- "the fewer days, the smaller amount that can be collected" doesn't apply. But time does affect the equation. I also think time is important in that a lot of volunteer activists and paid politicos at every level are signing on with other campaigns. Some people will be willing to jump ship, but many won't. Those who won't might tend to be of better quality, and the pool of talent is getting smaller in either case.

I agree with you 100% on the name recognition problem of "that general guy" (I actually read a news report that included some old guy in TN saying that last time). His getting in now won't help that tho, not immediately, because nothing he can do will get him free media coverage comparable to Clinton or Obama. Not until he starts building up his poll standing, and it'll be a long time before he has enough money to do the media advertising he will eventually needed to do that on a national basis. But obviously, the more time he can spend on the stump in the key states, the more people he can become known to, and to get some momentum building. But that will take time so you're right, he'd better get started soon. He will.

[Indigent A-hole]

23. Hmm- I disagree

I think all bets are off- every candidate will shoot first for number 1, then on down the line, hoping at least to snag a cabinet position or Veep. The higher each climbs now the less they have to do later.

Make no mistake, Vilsack, Richardson, and the rest of the second and third tier candidates surely know they have no chance in the general election. Hope, surely, but the pragmatism of future runs must surely weigh heavily on their strategic thinking.

[DemCam]

25. Bill Clinton proved a second tier could win.

We can't discount someone like Richardson, I don't think. He is one formidable and tireless campaigner who in fact reminds me a great deal of Clinton in the "likeability" factor.

[Indigent A-hole]

27. I agree wholeheartedly

I would say I am an instant Gore supporter if he were to run, but barring that I'm leaning Edwards, then Richardson.

If we were smart we'd elect Richardson- we need an experienced diplomat now like no other time in our nation's history, save it's birth (Franklin in France as it were.)

[rep the dems]

58. Richardson certainly has the experience.

And being a Governor is a major advantage. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Eurobabe]

28. That's a dumb statement because Obama's already been in the race

since speculation in January. How does this official announcement suck any more oxygen out of the room?

And besides, Clark breathes hydrogen. Everybody knows that. GO WES! GO OBAMA!!

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

29. Sorry to disappoint you, but

[Leilani]

30. Duh!

chimpymustgo = Karnack the Magnificent

[chimpymustgo]

31. Clarkie1 had a gleeful prediction of Edwards' demise. Thought I'd join the fun!

Surely, if Obama's entry "dooms" Edwards, it slams the door on the 2%-ers.

:hi:

[Leilani]

32. I think we're in the silly season

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

33. Clark always elevates the class level in the room.

There are certain candidates/potential candidates that stand head and shoulders above the rest and those include Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Wesley Clark. These men stood up and spoke the truth when all the others were equivocating about the war. I would be damn proud to vote for any three.

[Auntie Bush]

41. Who gave you that little tib-bit of information?

Tell them for me...they don't know what the hell they are talking about!

In these times of possible world war breaking out...I'm sure there will be millions of people who will feel safer in the guiding hands of someone who KNOWS how to fight a war and has foreign affairs experience...not someone who is just great talking about it. I'd love to see a Clark/Obama ticket. After 8 years more experience working on foreign affairs as VP he would be a perfect candidate...but not now! We and the whole world needs someone with Clark's experience now! Two years is too long to wait. Impeach Bush and Cheney et al now!

[CarolNYC]

43. I think chimpy's just playing with...

Clarkie1 here, in response to this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3104795

[knight_of_the_star]

42. With all due respect, you are full of it

Nothing is stopping Clark from jumping in, last time I checked there is no limit to how many people can run in the primaries.

[MrSlayer]

47. Why? If he gets the same coverage he smokes Obama.

Clark is the only one who really knows what the hell is going on in the war zones and how to solve the problems with the least amount of bloodshed. If Clark can get the same coverage as everyone else he'll blow them all away. The problem is he'll never get it. It's not in the corporate interest to have someone like him as President.

[Auntie Bush]

50. Nail hits head! n/t

[jefferson_dem]

51. Oh please. Must you try to tear down another candidate to build up your own?

Very weak too i might add...

[MrSlayer]

53. No. I'm just calling it as I see it.

What are Obama's solutions?

[jefferson_dem]

54. Um...that's *kind of* broad. Solutions to what?

I suspect you could find Obama's recommended policy directives for any of the pressing issues of the day with just a few clicks, on this site even. If you *really* are interested.

[MrSlayer]

59. Sorry.

I thought it was understood that I was referring to the war situation. I'll go check out his site.

[jefferson_dem]

61. No problem, MrSlayer. My apologies if i came across as combative.

Actually, there was a thread here on DU some time ago where posters were asked to summarize the candidates' Iraq policy in 100 words or less. I offered something on Obama. Might be worth checking out...i think some might be surprised at how close Obama and Clark are on this issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3016314

Note that Obama has since offered several a more detailed proposal (and legislation) on benchmarks and redeployment.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/01/posted_by_frank.html

[MrSlayer]

62. You're right.

His ideas are very close to General Clark's and aren't the empty words some of the others are throwing out there. This raises Senator Obama to me. I didn't see anything on his site about Iran. Has he spoken on that issue?

[Dinger]

55. Can You Imagine What'll Happen WHEN Clark Enters The Race?

They will HAVE to cover it, and even at a minimal level, it'll be all Clark needs.

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Don't hold your breath, Dinger

I wish I thought you were right, but I don't. The corporate media will NOT give Clark any more coverage than they did Kucinich or Gravel and probably less than Dodd or Richardson (unless he can come up with something really original to grab their attention, and I don't mean like Biden did).

But that's ok. Let Clark go to Iowa (NV, NH, etc) and make his mark with retail politics. When he passes one of the three leaders in an early state, then he'll get some attention. Probably not as much as he'll deserve, but enough to work with.