Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I don't honestly believe Kerry will want Clark in a visible spot

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jmoss Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:23 PM
Original message
I don't honestly believe Kerry will want Clark in a visible spot
(Sorry, Clark supporters: I mean no ill will by saying this.)

.....If we are going to mend America's global image, I don't believe John Kerry will want to appoint a General to a highly visible position. I think it would be better for Wes. Clark's career to pick a State that he wants to be from (ala Hillary Clinton), such as Arkansas or Illinois, and ascend in that State's party to win a nomination for Senator or Governor. I believ Kerry will support him, and make this possible; but not put another vision of Collin Powell in the executive branch.

But, by all means--please prove me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Before we can mend the global image
We have to get into office. And if having a 4-Star General on our team makes the American people more likely to vote for us, then a 4-Star General they will get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. I don't really think Clark would help much as VP
Does anyone have any hard data that he would provide such a benefit to Kerry or is this mere conjecture by Clark's former supporters?

I understand Clark supporters themselves are certainly enthusiastic about the possibility of Clark as VP, but that doesn't mean the general public will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
returnable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Your reasoning is somewhat flawed.
Edited on Thu Mar-04-04 01:30 PM by returnable
In fact, having Clark on the ticket would probably HELP the U.S. image abroad.

As the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Clark had the highest international profile of any of the Dem candidates, and is well-respected by our allies.

If mending fences with folks like Germany and France is your concern, Clark is your man.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmoss Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I respect General Clark; and your opinion...
...but people "abroad", who in many respects loathe anything American right now, want to see us returning to a Carter-like foreign-relations approach. I think that has to something to do, in fact, with why he's being praised by the international communtiy on a rather regular basis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmaier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. How many of these people "abroad" have
you been consulting with? LOL

I wouldn't even begin to speak for John Kerry, Wes Clark or people "abroad."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wesley Clark is RESPECTED by Leaders around the WORLD!
He knows more leaders than all of our 10 candidates combined! If you REALLY want peace around the world and regain the respect Bush frittered away, Wes Clark is the man to do that. Global image? If you want to repair that, Wes Clark is the man to do it. He worked with 19 other countries and their leaders during Kosovo....HE IS RESPECTED and admired! They KNOW him and they RESPECT and ADMIRE him. At least he has Foreign Policy experience, unlike other ex-candidates. HE is what we need to go against this "wartime/911" president. Not some candidate who served 4 years in the senate and has NO FP experience. JMCPO

WES CLARK'S TEN PLEDGES



I pledge to all Americans that I will bring our soldiers home, with success in Iraq assured and America standing strong.
My strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:

End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

Change the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, I would approach the problem as follows: consider adding troops; adapt to guerrilla war; better use intelligence resources, train Iraqi security forces, free up U.S. troops; engage neighbours for better border security; and secure ammunition.

Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a sovereign government in Iraq right away. Because Americans chose the current governing council, many Iraqis see it as illegitimate. I believe we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they have the capacity to succeed, but we should help the Iraqis quickly establish their own government to replace the existing council.


I will never ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice or ask their families to pay the ultimate price of patriotism except as an absolute last resort.
As President, I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

Restoring our alliance with Europe is the first essential part of my broader strategy for American national security. President Bush has created a go-it-alone approach and declared the use of preemptive military force as the defining characteristic of his national security strategy. A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.


I will never send American soldiers into combat without a realistic plan to win and the forces necessary for victory.
The Administration failed to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security, hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction, and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were -- you can't build a plan on hope.

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people -- and the enemy was emboldened.


The statements and actions of a Clark Administration will restore America's moral authority.
The Bush Administration has squandered in two years the moral authority America spent generations building. It started when President Bush said to the world, "you're either with us or against us." As a result, even some of those who were with us are now against us. And those, like Tony Blair, who are still with us pay a political price for it. America is hurt as well. We are less secure when our friends suffer for standing by our side. With fewer partners, we are left to meet dangers alone.

Even in Eastern Europe, there is dismay. These were some of the first countries in the world to support the Bush administration in Iraq. And what does this Administration do to its friends? In July, it suspends all U.S. military assistance to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Bulgaria because they have not yet promised Americans blanket immunity from the International Criminal Court.

One after another, American presidents have laid a foundation of moral authority for the United States. That foundation was built through our leadership in containing Communism, in promoting human rights, in helping the poor and the sick, and in promoting international law. That foundation has been splintered in a few short years.

Also, a key part of my strategy of preventive engagement is to lead the global fight against rising tide of AIDS. Although AIDS is a preventable and treatable disease, in 2003, 5 million people worldwide were newly infected with HIV and a record 3 million people died of AIDS -- more than all the deaths from wars and terrorism in the world combined.

I have a four-part Global AIDS Security Strategy:


Keep the U.S. commitment to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria worldwide - doubling funding to $30 billion by 2008.

Dedicate a large majority of U.S. funding to multilateral approaches like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria, while demanding results and additional commitments from our allies.

Base prevention and research efforts on the best available science, including overturning the global gag rule.
My Global AIDS Security Strategy will:


Prevent 14 million new HIV infections

Provide care and support for 20 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans

Provide treatment for 5 million people living with HIV/AIDS, including supporting the WHO goal of putting 3 million people on treatment by 2005

Accelerate the development of vaccines and cost-effective treatments to stop HIV, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases

The guiding principle of our foreign policy will be to lead, not to bully.
This Administration has been all bully and no pulpit.

Simply put, this Administration is wrecking NATO -- and thereby doing incalculable damage to our security and well being. They have alienated our friends, dismissed their concerns, rejected their advice, and left America an isolated nation. I served in NATO twice, last as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I know its value, see its promise, and if elected, I won't let it be destroyed.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." When America led the world for the last half century, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them. America needs a President who can lead.

As President, that's what I will do. I will rebuild our relationships abroad and the alliances which maintain them. And I will strengthen them, so that we can solve problems together, so that the use of military force is our last resort not our first, and if America must act with force we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.


I will never challenge the patriotism of Americans who question my policies or express their disagreement.
In a recent ad, the Republican National Committee claimed: "Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists."

The Republicans have tried to monopolize patriotism; I will not permit the Republican Party to steal patriotism.

I am not critical of President Bush because he is attacking terrorists; I'm critical of the President because he is NOT attacking terrorists.


In a Clark Administration, America will always have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.
During my 34 years of service in the United States Army, I held numerous staff and command positions - including Commander in Chief of the United States Southern Command and Director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - rising to the rank of four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander.

As SACEUR, I led Operation Allied Force, NATO's first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and did not result in the loss of a single American soldier.

I know the utility of a well-prepared U.S. military, and I know what it takes to make sure that the U.S. has the best military in the world.

As Commander in Chief of the United States, I will carefully examine our defense budget to ensure that we are providing our military the money and support it needs to adapt to the new challenges America faces and to have the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped military in the world.


America's military will be a complement, not substitute, for diplomacy, law, and leadership in the conduct of our international affairs.
We must reorganize our government so that we can bring to bear the economic, diplomatic and political tools in our arsenal. When we use the power of international law and diplomacy, we can achieve decisive results, even without decisive force.

A Clark Administration would place our work with Europe and a reinvigorated NATO as a centerpiece of U.S. policy -- and then seek not to rely on preemptive force, but instead to use diplomatic, political, economic power and international law in support of preventive engagement. We would reserve the use of force for an absolutely last resort and then act together if possible and alone only if we must.

The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.


I pledge to use all of my experience and determination to fight the terrorists who have attacked our country, to defeat them and to work to prevent them from rising again.
I will go after terrorists wherever they are - in Afghanistan or any other country. As a result of the Bush Administration's inadequate and misguided efforts, Osama bin Laden and many of the leaders of al Qaeda are still at large and continue to pose a great threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and various other states. I propose the following three-pronged strategy to refocus our energies on hunting down bin Laden and destroying the al Qaeda network.

Press Saudi Arabia to join U.S. forces in creating a U.S.-Saudi commando force to work the Afghan-Pakistani border where bin Laden is thought to be hiding. It's time for Saudi Arabia to take real action to destroy al Qaeda from the top down. It's not enough for them to pursue terrorism within their own borders. They need to join us in the battle worldwide.

Fully utilize the assets we already have on hand to hunt down bin Laden and destroy the al Qaeda network. Too many of our intelligence specialists, linguists, and special operations personnel are investing too much time and energy in Iraq in a fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction -- a task that could better be handled by international weapons inspectors. These inspectors are ready, willing, and able to perform this mission. This is a clear case where getting help from the international community to share the burden in Iraq will free up crucial resources to allow us to better fight the most significant threat to our homeland.

Repair our relationships with our allies and friends, and rely on international and regional institutions, like the United Nations and NATO. These institutions can provide vital support to American diplomacy, bringing in others to share the burdens and risks that we would otherwise carry alone.


And finally, by these pledges and with your support, as President I will make America more secure than it is today.
As President, I will ensure that we succeed in Iraq, that we focus our intelligence, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement and military resources on defeating al Qaeda, that we restore respect and support for America, and that we re-orient our foreign policy to meet the challenges of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, international crime, and environment threats. Taken together, all of these steps will make America more secure.

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Grand sweeping statements such as yours
really require some documentation, regarding Wes Clark.

The above posters have responded with info, so I won't bother.

I will simply say that your theory is completely flawed, due to the fact that Colin Powell is the 1 & only person in this administration who is trusted abroad.

Why did they use Powell to make their argument at the UN for war with Iraq?

Many people do not see Generals as boogie men, as you seem to. When a person has reached the highest eschelons of the military, he is more diplomat than warrior, & is sophisticated on the international scene, such as your average pol could only hope to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmoss Donating Member (252 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. here' a link for the doubters
You might say I'm comparing apples and oranges, but here's a link to refresh your memory as to why foreign nations might feel uneasy about another General in another Secretarial position:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

And I'm curious at what information supports the premise that John Kerry needs a 4-star general to win in November.

I feel confident he will pick a legislator for VP.
(Edwards, Graham, Bayh, Clinton, Gephardt, Richardson or Harkin)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. post earlier today
Basically...as a vp, fills Kerry holes. But mostly, it is about a Southern strategy and while several on your list are from the south they are not the whole package.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with Clark's stars. Someone has kindly posted some of the talking points, but his speech in the Hague and his most recent books would give you a better picture. Clark at State does not mean Powell, I would think Marshall. Powell was not educated at the Point which is a very unique education.

Anyway, I agree with you. There will be no seat at Kerry's table for Clark. And no, I doubt that Clark would chose a state to run for something or other. First, he lives in Arkansas and loves the place. Second, there is already a fine Dem who has expressed a desire to run for gov. there to go along to two Dem Senators. Finally, Clark is interested in many areas, and may just chose to pursue them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. sniff, I'd miss Clark
Wesley Clark's International Honors

Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France);
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands);
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy;
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal);
The Commander’s Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland;
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain);
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium);
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic);
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic;
Commander’s Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia;
Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria);
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia);
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania);
Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia);
The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco;
Order of Merit of Argentina;
The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Clark is ALREADY out in public for Kerry
if kerry didn't want him out in public for him he would tell clark not to campaign for him. and id on't know what the whole colin powell thing you are talking about is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abburdlen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here's a few reasons
Edited on Thu Mar-04-04 02:36 PM by abburdlen
D'oh! someboby beat me too it!

Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom)
Commander of the Legion of Honor (France)
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands)
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal)
The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain)
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic)
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic
Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia
Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria)
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia)
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania)
Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia)
The Skandeberg Medal (Albania)
Order of Merit of Morocco
Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia)
Military Service Cross of Canada.

But I only had a minute to think of a few reason.

Oh yeah he does speak German, Russian and Spanish in addition to his native tongue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democratreformed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Endorsed by (how many? I forgot was is 55 or 155) leading diplomats
(ambassadors and what else - I forgot that one too).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yes, 55 ambassadors.
I was looking for my file...I KNOW I saved the list, but I can't find it. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. This is one of my favorites
and very impressive.

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. wow
Number 1 of 579 good competitors is really great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. The man is brilliant.
In his "American Son" DVD a classmate talked about walking into every class and seeing Wes Clark in the #1 chair in every class. Pretty impressive, eh? He's just the kind of "thinking" VP we need. He has the needed experience and brains to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democratreformed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Thanks, I hadn't seen that before.
God are you not just sick to death of defending this man? Even after he is gone, some people still can't leave him alone. Wonder who he is a threat to this time? (or perceived threat as it may be) My patience is just about gone. Sure, we all have to come together to support our nominee, but, yet we still have to put up with the crap spewed about the others who did not make it.

I guess I could just look at it this way: If they are too scared of him to admit the least little good thing about him, I guess they don't deserve to have the hope that his campaign brought to millions.

Yes, it was millions. I am sick to death of reading "he had no support at the polls" or whatever that crap line is that is posted in every single thread here that has "Clark" and "VP" in it.

Sorry, incognito, for ranting, but I don't know how much longer I can take the apparent disdain for this good man by certain people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Defending Wes Clark will always be an honor to me.
I respect him SOOOOO much and will always defend him. It does get tiring, but he's more than worth the effort. :loveya: I understand the reason for this original post...jmoss wants Edwards to be VP, NOT Wes Clark. Well, I think we showed exactly why Wes Clark would be a better VP than a Jr. Senator with NO FP experience. :) JK would be a very wise man if he chose Wes Clark as his VP. He would be wise because he would be getting the best damn VP ever and his MILLIONS of supporters.....AND their money AND efforts to campaign. I'd work my ass off for that ticket and I'm sure ALL Clark supporters would. Be wise JK, be very wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democratreformed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Genuine enthusiast applause for your attitude!!!!!
That's such a great way to look at it. Thanks for sharing it with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Yes, he will be remembered in history as being greater
than all of these generals. His tactics will be studied for hundreds of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #16
49. You're wrong In_cog_ni_to. He wasn't one of the smartest
Generals in history. He is the Smartest! McArthur only had 94 classmates to compete with and Clark had 579. Yep, I'd say he was the smartest General in history. And we let him get away! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Clark is a bad campaigner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. How often have you seen him?
In person that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I don't need to see him in Person.
He made a lot of bad decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Thats right.
You don't have any arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeSpeechCrusader Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. That's because you presented nothing to argue...
there is no need to argue with you over your opinion...it obviously will change nothing. Post some substantiated information and then we can argue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Let me see.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/elec04.prez.clark.explainer/index.html


Clark didn't click with voters, Schneider said, was the late start to his campaign, prompting him to skip the January 19 Iowa caucuses.

By ignoring Iowa, Clark allowed Kerry to run alone with a message and a target constituency that was virtually identical to Clark's -- including "veterans, seniors, the standing to engage President Bush in a debate on national security, the promise to keep Americans safe."

Sounds like a bad campaigner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeSpeechCrusader Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Clark started late...
He had to decide if he had a chance in Iowa. He figured he didn't because of all the ad money that had been spent and all the time that had been spent there by the other campaigns. He took a gamble, and it didn't pay off. That doesn't make him a bad campaigner. I believe that he did extremely well for when he entered the race. No one could have ever imagined the effect that Iowa would have on the rest of the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Bill Snide of American Entreprise Institute said that? Then t must be true
I know. Media thought Edwards shit don't stink but Gored Clark from day one.
The quesstion would be why? Why was Edwards exit "gracious" in spite of heving been done while people were still voting?
Why is a RW tank guy so intent in picking the Dem VP? or , let's try an easier one: For whose benefit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Oh, Jeeze, revisionism gone amok
Flash back to the situation in Iowa.

It was a battle between Dean and Gephardt, and Kerry had to mortgage on of his mansions to simply stay in the race. He fired his campaign manager and all the rest of it. Schnieder and the boys all figured too little, too late. The race was between Dean and Gephardt.

Then Gephardt folded, Dean collapsed and Kerry ran off with the ball catching 99 out of 100 analysts flat-footed and dead wrong.

And CLARK made a mistake? Maybe it was a mistake in hindsight but nobody could see just why until the night of the caucuses. Up until then it was a crapshoot, based on what everyone thought was going to happen in Iowa. Clark put a lot of time into digging in against Dean and was outflanked by Kerry, just like everyone else.

Oh, but that means Clark is a bad campaigner.

Dude, he started in September, raised millions of dollars, involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers and while he only won ONE primary, the only candidate who won more than that was Kerry. There were nine candidates in the running when he joined in, and there were only three left when he threw in the towel. All Dean and Edwards did, all that they accomplished, by staying in was to manage to lose more primaries than Clark did.

If you don't like Clark, feel free. If you don't like facts, that's another story. The Clark campaign was a remarkable success in the face of overwhelming opposition from within the party AND within the media that almost to a man (and woman) did their best to marginalise and discredit the campaign.

I don't mean to come down hard with my Doc Martens but jeeze, fella? We missed a great opportunity with Wes Clark and now we are stuck with just another same-old/same-old Washington insider as our candidate. How do you think THAT is a better outcome?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. Says it all about the Clark campaign
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Perhaps Clark's vote total is proof.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. In the end, he won as many primaries as Edwards & Dean
& beat Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton, Graham, etc. etc.

Not bad for a non politician, vs political pros.

And the truest result may be the influence the candidate has on his supporters.

I would say Clark & Dean won that hands down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democratreformed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Such eloquence. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. That's what Elizabeth Drew said:
She said Clark was eloquent when she last saw him. In fact she added that she hadn't seen energy in a room like that since RFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. I know.
But he is a bad campaigner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. Clark was a good campaigner. Read on.
I wrote this before as one of the the last posts on a dying thread so this is a good chance to repost it.

Clark was definitely an above average campaigner in live events in my opinion. Not as polished and probably not as effective a speaker as someone like Edwards, but in a league with people like Dean and Kerry. He lost a few points on polish but more than made them up through sincerity, intelligence, and conviction. The overall effect of seeing Clark on the trail was both very moving and highly energizing.

Clark was more erratic in formats not under his control, those primarily being the debates, and varied TV interviews. Regarding the latter, sometimes Clark did great but it took him awhile to learn how to best modulate hot and cold image projections to best effect for that medium. Clark's learning curve there was impressive though. Toward the end of his campaign he was routinely nailing it. But of course reporters tend to make quick and early judgments and cling to those like a drowning man to a rope.

The debates were trickiest for Clark to manage, and I think that is where most of the misconception about him not being adept at campaigning comes from. First off, Clark was NOT on a level playing field during them. No other candidate had to spend so much of his limited time in an 8 to 10 candidate format essentially wasted by having to defend his basic allegiance to the Democratic Party. Further Clark was pigeon holed from day one as a foreign policy specialist and almost never given an opportunity to speak to his broader vision of America domestically. Third, there were definitely Debate ambushes launched against Clark, the most memorable being the Fox debate before New Hampshire where they cut away from the debate early to a panel of Republican talking heads sitting around specifically trashing Clark. The artificialness of the debate formats was compounded by the number of debaters, which squeezed everyone's comments into tiny time windows. It forced experienced debaters to totally ignore most actual questions if they wanted to make any points at all. That didn't come naturally to Clark. He actually answered the questions for the most part.

Another thing is, Clark was an original positive campaigner, something the media chose to forget once they focused on sunny John Edwards. Clark did not use the debates to attack other Democrats. That meant he did not get repeat air time for the type of zingers the media loves to focus on. Edwards stayed positive also of course, but he was shameless about hijacking questions and turning them toward his basic stump speech. Clark however has no problem with attacking George Bush. By now Clark understands the debate game better, he would not have to play nice debating against fellow Democrats, and any future debate, like a Vice Presidential one for example, would only be a two man show allowing Clark ample time to make his points. Given a little time, Clark is devastating while making a point, because anyone who is listening gets both the punch line and the supporting rational in a way that leaves virtually no room for doubt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. Trained debater
Being trained in the art of debate would certainly work against anyone appearing on the dog-and-pony shows.

I really enjoyed Clark's town meetings with his very precise use of language, and his organized answers. One day I had a zonk ya in da head moment, duh! Clark is a trained briefer; there was no bs just info and when it is over people start breathing again. The word I heard most often was "brilliant." I don't think America is used to being told the truth without a thick covering of buzzz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. There are arguments to use against Clark. This isn't one of them
There is no leading American politician right now who is held in more intrinsic respect in Europe than Wesley Clark who was very popular as NATO Commander and is well known by people in and out of powerful circles. They, like us, know his talk, but unlike many in the U.S. they also saw his walk, and they like both what they hear and saw. Clark is a guy who is beloved by Kosovo and Bosnian Muslims. How many American politicians do you know who receive honest affection from any Islamic people other than perhaps Clinton? Look, people around the world aren't fools. They have seen what chickenhawks are capable of doing. It's not the uniform they fear its the finger on the button.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
estherc Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. Anecdotal evidence shows
that a lot of disillusioned bush supporters would feel more comfortable voting for a democratic ticket with Clark on it that one without. My anecdotal evidence is conversations with the republicans that I know. Most of them like and respect Clark and have said they'd be likely to vote for him.

Personally, I'd rather see him as Sec of State, working to unravel w's mess, but if the VP slot would be more likely to win the WH, that's okay with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. That's my experience too
I've had one real hard-core Repub on-line friend say, back in December, that Clark would be the only one of the Dem candidates who could beat Bush, but that he wouldn't really mind a Clark presidency if it came to that. This guy is one who supports Bush on foreign policy, but very concerned about his fiscal policy, which I think is fairly typical of mainstream Repubs.

Pretty much every Repub on the message board agreed with him. Anecdotal to be sure, but there were a lot of 'em, and the sentiment was almost universal among the group.

Otoh, the guy is also a social conservative, very religious, and may not have known how extremely liberal Clark's civil rights positions are. Well, as VP, or elsewhere on the Kerry team, none of that much matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swcl Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
39. I think the 55 ambassadors and diplomats
who endorsed Clark have a very good understanding of the impact Clark would have on our global image.

Fom the press release:
Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.

"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to theNetherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts America and the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Bingo, swcl!
I was looking for it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-04-04 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. That says it all...
right there! Thank you for the post!

Welcome to DU, BTW! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
43. Chanelling kerry now? What happened to channeling babies?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-04 07:36 AM by robbedvoter
Your man is a specialist - very useful skill in a VP Behold:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html
"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Of course, if kerry prefers "The two Johns ticket" to the "War heroes vs Chickenhawks" ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
45. Why should Clark give a rat's ass?
He gave it a shot and it didn't work. The voters, in their wisdom, chose someone else. So it goes...

He should go back into business, make a few zillion bucks, maybe get a chair in some college teaching economics or geopolitical history, and wrap it all up, like he said all along, as a golf pro on some course.

We asked him to run and he answered the call, at a great cost to him in time and money and damage to his reputation and good name. I don't think we can ask him to do anymore than that.

Of course, he does seem to be determined to continue the fight against another four years of BushCo rule but that's just a measure of the man, not an obligation.

As to a spot on the ticket or in a possible Kerry administration, I really don't think that is going to happen. In the real world, nobody hires someone who is obviously more qualified than the man (or woman) doing the hiring. Just too much potential for problems that way.

My money is on Edwards as VP, or someone from left field (or maybe right field). Dean or Clark are as likely VP picks as Sharpton or Kuchinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. I tend to agree, Mike
"Of course, he does seem to be determined to continue the fight against another four years of BushCo rule but that's just a measure of the man, not an obligation."

He sees the country is on a course to disaster and will do what it takes to save it. He sees Kerry can do the job and he's there for him. But I doubt Wes cares about public office in itself, particularly. It's what can be done with it. If Kerry needs and wants him, I can't imagine Wes not answering a call to service. But all he really needs for himself is a forum to get his ideas across and effect change for America. This he will have with or without Kerry, but I am convinced Kerry and Wes are in it together regardless of Kerry's ticket or cabinet choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmokramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
50. Get over your Edwards grief...
...and stop marginalizing General Clark.

Your intent is so obvious.

Can't wait to see your face when Edwards is NOT selected for VP, and Clark IS part of the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmokramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-04 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
51. You are already proven wrong....
I have it from a reliable official campaign source that EDWARDS is NOT on the short list for VP, but General Clark is.

And here is how you are proven wrong (again):

General Clark has been stumping for Kerry all over the country. Kerry wants him out in front. Or did you not see the "Wes will not be standing behind me, but beside me, walking the point."

And tell me how a decorated four-star General first in his class at West Point and Rhodes Scholar should be 'hidden'. He is a brilliant man, and an asset to any democratic administration. And your constant 'litmus test' of democratic credentials is just plain stupid.

Give me a friggin' break!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC