Another reason Kerry NEEDS WES CLARK .

[Auntie Bush]

Jason Jengerli (SP?) just said on Faux News that Kerry only had about half the Vet vote because of his anti-Viet Nam War stance. So with CLARK on the ticket...he could get the other half (my thoughts, not his) because Clark believed in our Military, was proud of them and worked hard to build up their moral & strength and fight for more benefits etc. etc. etc. Many of those anti-Kerry vets don't like Bush...but might vote for Kerry if CLARK were on the ticket.

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. I've lost track...

is that Reason #643 or #644? :shrug:

I love hearing Wes talk about his support for Kerry. If he can respect Kerry for standing up for what he believed in, then we should, too!!!

[Auntie Bush]

4. Sorry...you misunderstood what I was TRYING to say.

[Lefta Dissenter]

7. No, I'm sorry,

now that I re-read my post - it looks like I'm being sarcastic, which I'm not. I'm serious about losing count on the Clark reasons (obviously - I'm a Wes Clark Democrat - always have been and always will be).

I know several Clarkie veterans who are having trouble forgiving Kerry for his protest after his service - I think I'm agreeing with your post (aren't I?) that Clark would help those people to understand that Kerry had the courage to stand up for what he believed in, and that he will be a true leader.

Both Clark and Kerry will do more for the military and veterans than bush could even imagine with his tiny pea-brain and cold heart.

I didn't mean to sound snotty. :pals:

[AP]

8. To repeat my point below, if someone is so dumb that they'll

hold that against Kerry, how hard do you think it will be to convince them that some lie about Clark is true.

Think of it like an investment. Dems have spent 100 million building up Kerry, who is pretty good on nat'l security and getting votes of people who care about that stuff. Do you want to spend another 100 mil to get 100 more votes by reinvesting in it to get all the stuff you have already, or do want to invest 100 mil to get votes in areas Kerry doesn't cover as well?

[Lefta Dissenter]

14. If Clark's military experience

were the only strength that he had, then I'd agree with you. I'm someone who is normally turned off by the military, but I've sure learned a lot in working for Clark's campaign and getting to know a lot of military folks in the process. I've had to deal with some of my OWN biases in the process, that's for sure!

However, I was serious about my 'reason' count above. Clark is ready to step into the Presidency if something should happen to Kerry. He has had the leadership experience, the diplomatic experience, he has the respect of world leaders, he is brilliant on economic and other domestic issues, he stands where I do on social issues, and he's just damned PRESIDENTIAL! And since I don't get to have him as my president, I'm hoping he'll be my vice-president!

So, I'm going to peel some potatoes so we can have mashed potatoes with our grilled chicken tonight. The VP debate will go on well past the day that Kerry finally announces who he's chosen. You and I won't agree on who we would select for VP, and that's ok, but I'd pay a million bucks (if I had it) to see Clark go against Cheney in a debate, and I can't say that for anyone else I have heard mentioned as a VP prospect!

[JI7]

16. those are great reasons for Clark for vp

<Clark is ready to step into the Presidency if something should happen to Kerry. He has had the leadership experience, the diplomatic experience, he has the respect of world leaders, he is brilliant on economic and other domestic issues, he stands where I do on social issues, and he's just damned PRESIDENTIAL! And since I don't get to have him as my president, I'm hoping he'll be my vice-president!>

agree, he will always be ready for whatever work kerry gives him as vp or to take over as president if something should happen to kerry.

[AP]

19. As I said above, there are good reasons to pick Clark, and those...

...are some of them.

My point, to which you responded, is that getting more military votes isn't one of them.

Law of diminishing returns. Kerry probably has all he's going to get without having to really spend and sacrifice in other place to get incrementally more.

[Auntie Bush]

15. Friends!...I didn't explain myself very well!. Seems like several

others missed my point too. I agree with your explanation 100%. :pals:

[kvnf]

2. i agree

that he would add credibility in that regard.
Clark would be a great pick. I wish Kerry would hurry up and decide already!

[JI7]

3. Kerry won more veteran votes in the primary than Clark. Dean and Edwards

did also.

in new hampshire kerry got the most vet votes and dean got the second most veteran votes.

in virginia and tennessee kerry got the most vet votes with edwards getting the second most.

i think clark has strengths but in this area kerry did do better than him. and so did dean in new hampshire and edwards in virginia and tennessee.

[Auntie Bush]

9. " Kerry won more veteran votes in the primary than Clark."

That may be true. :shrug: Who knows or cares...makes no difference!



"Dean and Edwards did also in new hampshire kerry got the most vet votes and dean got the second most veteran votes.

in virginia and tennessee kerry got the most vet votes with edwards getting the second most.

i think clark has strengths but in this area kerry did do better than him. and so did dean in new hampshire and edwards in virginia and tennessee."

Where did you pick up that false information? :shrug: Fox News?

Re-read my post. I WASN'T discussing Edwards! I wasn't discussing how many more Vet votes Kerry or other contenders got compared to Clark. I was simply stating the FACT that Kerry doesn't have all the vet votes because many of them disapprove of his anti-Viet Nam War stance but they could vote for him if Clark were on the ticket. Pray tell...what did Edwards have to do with that comment?

[JI7]

10. isn't the point to get more veteran votes ?

wasn't that the point you were making ? if it was there is no proof that clark can help much in this area.and there is actually proof that edwards and/or dean might help more just because they got more veteran votes in the primary.

[Darkamber]

30. Now do Vets or active military feel about Clark's anti-war stand?

I'm curious. Clark is an ex-General and thus you believe this will gain vet votes, but he was anti-war. To me that seems to be a contradictions in terms.

And I do agree that Kerry needs Clark, but I think we need him as Sec. of State or National Sec. Adviser where his knowledge and skills can really be used.

I'm also worried about the prison scandal. The stuff I read in the morning paper just about made me sick. I'm worried what more exposure and more digging into this mess will effect the view of voters toward military at the top two spots.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. I'm a vet and I support Clark's anti-war stance

And so does my husband, who's also a vet.

If you've been watching, there were a whole bunch of generals who were against this war. Did you see General Zinni on 60 Minutes tonite?

Even among vets who were initially for the war (and let's face it, most Americans were), many of us are appalled at how badly BushCo has bungled the post-war, how they have over-extended the military, refused to listen to military advice, and on and on and on.

I really don't understand why you would say it's a contradiction in terms. Most military are NOT pro-war. We are the last ones who want war, because we know who'll be doing the fighting and dying.

Oh and fwiw, Clark is not an "ex-general." He's still a general, but merely in retired status.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. From the 60 Minutes transcript

Now, in a new book about his career, co-written with Tom Clancy, called "Battle Ready," Zinni has handed up a scathing indictment of the Pentagon and its conduct of the war in Iraq. In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

(snip)

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong
strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don't feel it needs to be done now.

But he wasn't the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn't want but it was a war the civilians wanted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

[bowens43]

5. A military career is not only not needed

it's undesirable. This election should not be about military experience. It cheapens our nation to make it so. We have a civilian government. The last thing we need on the ticket is the product of 30 years of military indoctrination.

The primaries were a very good indication of what mainstream Democrats think of the general. We don't need him and most of us don't want him.

[Auntie Bush]

11. As we all now know...it is the civilians in this administration

that made all the blunders because they wouldn't liston to the military! This administration proved your point wrong!

[Jai4WKC08]

20. "Cheapens the nation" my Democratic ass!

In case you hadn't noticed, we ARE at war. We shouldn't be, if we'd done things better, maybe we wouldn't be. But we are. The military didn't put us there. It's the civilians in charge who took us to Iraq.

There was an interesting editorial by Tom Curry on msnbc.com this week. People are finally starting to come to the conclusion that Bush really has mismanaged the war in Iraq. (I think they need to be told how badly he's handled the war on terrorism, but that wasn't in the article, and it is a sad fact that way too many Americans think they're the same). It will be a central theme in all the elections this fall, presidential and congressional, and you're starting to hear more and more leading Democrats repeat the theme, using words like, “incompetence” and “mismanagement.”

But it only works if voters can be convinced Kerry, and Democrats in general, can do better. It's hard to imagine how we could do worse, but we've got an incredibly deep-seated prejudice running against us where it comes to national defense (and attitudes like yours are a large part of the reason).

Excerpt from the article:

Is Kerry more competent?

Harman and Holbrooke marshaled their evidence to try to persuade voters that Kerry would be a more capable commander-in-chief than Bush. “The Bush presidency focuses on the use of force,” Harman said. “They don’t focus on other tools in the toolkit. John Kerry has a bigger menu. He’s been in favor of building large, effective international coalitions.” Kerry is smarter, more widely traveled around the globe, and better read than Bush, she contended.

“You have to read books, you have to know world leaders, you have to think about these issues — not just delegate to others who do that,” she said.

Kerry, said Holbrooke, “will be the most knowledgeable president coming into office in a long time and matched only in terms of prior experience — this is ironic to list these two people — only by (Richard) Nixon and George Bush Sr.” Kerry has “lived overseas, has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 18 years, (and) knows the international community,” Holbrooke said.

It is not clear if voters in battleground states such as Missouri and West Virginia will be impressed by such globe-trotting credentials.

Unlike Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 or even former NATO commander Wesley Clark, who vied with Kerry for the Democratic nomination, Kerry has never commanded a large-scale military operation.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5031618/

No one is saying that domestic issues aren't important. But Kerry already enjoys a far greater confidence on those issues, and that's not likely to change. People looking for work, people without health insurance, people who care about civil rights and the environment are for the most part gonna vote for Kerry now.

But to a LOT of swing voters, Iraq and terrorism are what's important, and Bush is running as the "war president." He has a VP who was Secretary of Defense during the first Gulf War, the execution of which is widely admired. God only knows who his Secretaries of State and Defense will be by November.

If Kerry can't convince the voters that he can handle the war(s) better than the Republicans WILL in the next four years, we lose. It's that simple.

[Old and In the Way]

25. Gotta disagree.

I'm all for reducing our militaristic bent in this society. On the face of it, a Kerry-Clark ticket would be counter-intuitive to further that end.

However, Kerry-Clark have the credentials to drive real reform at the Pentagon and make the case that the Cold War is indeed over. I see Clark's value as 2-fold:

(1) Kerry is going to need a fulltime focus on transitioning out of Iraq. Clark would be an excellent choice to oversee this happening.

(2) Clark could then set his sights on de-emphasizing the Pentagon budget and transfering that money into productive domestic programs to help the middle-class and our economy.

Clark's biography is particularly suited for the times, IMHO.

[AP]

6. Any vet who isn't voting for Kerry because Repubs have lied about him

and he or she is believing the lies is going to be just a susceptible to lies about Clark.

There are are plenty of other good reasons to pick Clark, but I think there's a law of diminishing returns as far as appealing to vet votes goes.

If those vets want to vote for the guy who went AWOL over the guy who was actually on the ground risking his life for his country, I don't know how throwing a General on the ticket is going to knock sense into their heads that isn't there already.

[Auntie Bush]

12. Silly You! It is a fact (not a lie) that Kerry was anti-Viet Nam war.

Where have you been?

[AP]

13. It's not a good reason for vets to dislike him. He's not anti-vet, and...

...many vets probably felt the same way about the war that he felt.

The point is, if vets are hating on him because he didn't like the war, even though he fought in it, I'm not sure how many of those knuckleheads you're going to get to vote for him by putting anyone else who is military (especially someone ranked higher than a sargeant) on the ticket with him.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. You're trying to be too logical

And if anyone should know that voters don't decide based on logic, it should be you.

There are a LOT of vets (and their families) who have made the John Kerry = Jane Fonda connection. Whether they should or not is irrelevant. And these people HATE Hanoi Jane.

Clark explains Kerry's anti-war stance, that Kerry was continuing to fight for what he believed in, and he does it with the credibility of someone who fought there and stayed in the Army. I've heard Clark talk on the subject a couple of times now, on cable news, and he's quite effective.

Most people don't believe that Bush went AWOL. Not just right-wing Bush-lovers, but lots of people in the middle. I don't understand it myself, but it's a fact that they don't. I suppose they've never bothered to look at the actual evidence, so they see it as just attack politics from the left. Also, those who are too young to remember VN don't realize how the Guard was a dodge from having to go. They think of the Guard the way it is today, heavily committed.

I don't think Kerry or Clark really want to refight Vietnam in this election, but we've all seen the RNC bring up the medals crap, and the protesting. It IS a good reason to have Clark on the ticket. One of several hundred.

True story. I forwarded Clark's NYT editorial about Kerry's medals to everyone in my address book. One of my Republican friends, a school teacher in Colorado, wrote back (paraphrasing): Thank you for sending that. I can't support Bush any more and I've been looking for reasons to vote for Kerry.

Edited to add: I know that's anecdotal, but I don't think it's atypical of moderates and conservatives of my generation.

[AP]

18. There's a rule in movies. Sargeant is the highest rank you can be and...

...still be a good guy.

Anyone ranked higher than a Sargeant is a jerk. Sargeants and lower are always good guys.

If vets don't like Kerrry now, they're not going to like him more because a general is on the ticket.

[Lefta Dissenter]

21. Thank goodness this isn't the movies!

and I still haven't peeled the damned potatoes...

If what you said were true, Clark would have NO veteran/military support. Let's ask Jai, or any number of other veterans who support Clark. I worked closely with numerous veterans through the primary campaign. They all have enormous respect for Clark, and recognize his brilliance and compassion. Not only has the word 'jerk' never appeared in the same sentence as Wes Clark's name, but it hasn't been on the same page!!! One of our Clark volunteers was a vet who attended West Point with Wes Clark. If you want to hear admiration and respect, talk to that guy!

And to address your post and Anti Bush's original post - there are many veterans who are not necessarily enamored with Kerry, but who would work their asses off for a Kerry/Clark ticket. If I personally know of several such people, then that must represent a somewhat significant number of people throughout the country.

Add to that the people who would then be attracted to the ticket because of Clark's experience in diplomacy, his expertise in economics, his compassion, his brilliance, his articulate speaking style... well, there's a LOT to gain by putting Clark on the ticket. Bringing in more military votes is not a trade-off, it's just another bonus!

[AP]

28. A West Point graduate is an officer. Sargeant is the highest rank a

non-commissioned officer can reach, and they aren't privates. That's why they're the good guys in the movies.

In working with Clark, I don't doubt you met military people who don't like Kerry. It's sort of a self-selecting group.

However, I still maintain the ones who are not voting for Kerry already and could still be convinced to do so are a small group and you wouldn't trade a tone of political capital just to try to get a few of them.

And, for the third time, those reasons in the last paragraph are good reasons to pick Clark.

It's not a good reason to think that he's going to deliver military votes Kerry doesn't have already.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. That's cute, but it's not true

Lots of movie heroes have been officers.

And fwiw, Kerry was one too. So was Bush. It's irrelevant.

My point had nothing to do with rank, it had to do with experience. With having been there. With whether Kerry is a "real American" who is patriotic and loves his country, or a traitor like Jane Fonda, and who can stand up and say, I'm a "real American" who loves this country and I stand with John Kerry.

Edwardniacs think everything is about who's likeable.

[Sparkly]

24. "They're not going to like him more because a general is on the ticket"

Maybe not, but *I* would! :)

[MoonRiver]

23. Yes, and add to this the fact that * only beats Kerry on terrorism.

We need a strong military/national security experienced ticket. With Clark as VP, Kerry wins in a landslide.

[Donna Zen]

26. Yep it does seal the deal

I live in a small community and there are many retired military around here. They are slowly beginning to leave bush, but they are not ready to "cross the street." I've asked them about Clark on the ticket...and bingo! Their comment goes something like this: well, if that were the case; or if Kerry put Clark on the ticket, or so on and so on.

The strangest part for me is the gun issue around my area. The guys that vote on this issue, and there are lots and lots, do not trust Kerry. Even though Kerry and Clark have nearly the same position on guns, if you say Clark, they swing right over.

BTW, I will not be voting based on either of these issues. I would like to see an anti-war candidate on the ballot. I would also like to know there will be a voice at the table who opposes the "Patriot Act." Mostly, Clark is brilliant and will make the Dems look good and do good.

[MoonRiver]

27. We have to win this election or it is all over.

I really believe the great American experiment will be destroyed if * steals another 4. We're going to be far from perfect even when Kerry wins. But at least we'll have a shot at bringing this nation into the civilized world.

[xkenx]

29. WHY KERRY-CLARK

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. way, and This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that. Look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's & MIAs. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean."

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders (he has knighthoods or the equivalent from 18 european nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times.

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class,
became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters. 4 star hero vs. the
"chickenhawk."

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected by the President in National Security issues.

Please, for the good of the country, select Wes Clark.

[RadiDem]

31. Clark would be a fine choice !

Much better than Edwards IMHO.

I like Bob Graham too !