General Wesley Clark May Seek Democratic Nomination

I read this article the other night and have been meaning to post it. It's nine pages long so I won't post the text, but I highly recommend giving it a read. It's a great article and really made me hope he'd run.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

 

Any enemy of Tom DeLay is a friend of mine.

 

I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be a real contender in 2004.

 

I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be a real contender in 2004

Just told a friend that on Saturday. It would certainly be helpful to have a real military man to help put the draft dodging AWOL Dubya in line.

However, given their treatment of Kerry, Mclelland and even Johm McCain, they have no shame in accusising real military men or even heros of being soft on military defense or now premeptive military offense. Clark would have to be willing to take them on directly on this issue as they will shamelessly try to imply that he is a coward or a traitor and only they can alleviate the fear that they continually fan in the American population.

 

When this first came up back about 6 months ago, I said that I'd vote for him if he runs and I stand by that. Based on what he has said in the past, he opposes in general terms the patriot act, and considered the war in Iraq the "inappropriate" war at the time.

Apparently, he wasn't really liked at the end in the Pentagon because of a close personal relationship with Clinton, and some people there considered him a sycophant to the president. Listening to him speak, it is clear that he is very focused and goal oriented and he approaches everything with a military "get the job done" attitude without getting sidetracked by the ephemera. He also has that "southern thing" that really seems to be good if you're a democratic presidential candidate.

There's a webside at http://www.draftclark2004.com aimed at drumming up support. There's a page devoted to his position on the issues here.

 

It sounds as if it might happen. You have to admire the clout he has... no other candidate would be able to join the race this late (or later... ie, labor day).

IMO, money might not be limiting for Clark. He'll instantly take the credibility slot that Kerry has been trying to bogart. If he runs, I suspect babyface Edwards will go back to manage his NC Senatorial run.

But I also wonder if Clark would take some of Dean's "change" votes away from him. It is not at all clear to me that Clark would win the nomination. I also have a sneaking suspicion that his addition will make the field dynamic enough for someone like Gephardt or *gasp* even Lieberman to get early traction (by taking a few of Kerry's vet votes).

This whole Iowa and NH thing has to be corrected. I love that branch of the party ('some of my best friends are liberal' ) but damn, Clark would kill Bush in the general election... and now we have to rely on our pissed off friends in Iowa to look that far down the road? *shudder*

 

You could sell the article more effectively if you pointed out the hot topless 4 star general on the front page.

*cue c&c music factory's everybody dance now

 

Its been mentioned on this board before ---Kerry/ Clark 2004--- thats a winner right there.

 

By the way, I saw my first DRAFT CLARK FOR PRESIDENT 2004 bumper sticker on a pickup truck in the parking lot at Meyerland Plaza over the weekend. The truck also had a United States Marine Corps sticker in the window.

 

I like him, but I am dubious because he's never run for office, and that is a grueling trip for a rookie. I'm not sure he has the fire in his belly, which is essential. Right now, Dean is the man to beat, primarily because he's the only guy who has supporters who are excited.

I don't see Clark as helping with any constituency, so I don't expect him on the ticket.

 

a setback for Clark!

Nerds will be Clark's undoing! If we can't keep the nerds silent, the Clark campaign will never gain a footing!

 

NNNNNEEEERRRRRRDDDDDSSSS!!!!!

 

OH HELL YEAH

DeLay is a hypocritical draft dodging p***y. I wish he had decided this earlier, the guy really has the best chance of beating Bush IMHO.

 

He's got curb appeal, but I don't see him making the cut.

Eisenhower won the world's biggest war. He was a household name. Wesley Clark is known only to those who watch News channels frequently, and he lacks charisma. He's very pretty, takes a great photo, but he's underwhelming in every other way.

He has no constituency and I don't think he will have one.

The term "fire in the belly" means having the drive to run for president. He doesn't have that, or he would already have been out there. Bill Bradley didn't have the fire in his belly, even though he made a half hearted attempt to run.

If Wesley Clark is on the ticket, it means Dems are going to lose big, and it means at least a half dozen other Dems turned down the VP position on the ticket.

If Clark runs, he might beat Graham, Kucinich, Sharpton and Braun, but not Kerry, Dean, Gephardt or Lieberman.

 

First,
I think it is too late for anyone new to enter the race.
And,
even as for a vp spot, I still think Graham looks better.
The constituency thing is a real problem for Clark.
There is only a certain type of Democrat that Southerners vote for. Folksy types.
I don't know enough about Clark to know if he is one, but the record shows that Graham certainly is.
By the way, I don't think Graham has a real shot at the top spot, and don't really want him on either spot.
Also,
Military folks are going to vote Republican. Clark is not Eisenhower.
Lastly,
I'd love to see him stumping for whoever does get the nomination, my money is still on Dean.

 

For those too lazy to read the 9 pps article and I was one.

The most interesting parts to me. In summary I think that Clark would be a good combination with Dean. If he runs it is to take it to Dubya and the vicious neocon bullies. You can't play nicey with them for example allowing them to have their sordid affairs while pretending to be so Godly and upset over Clinton's affar.



So, yes, the general remembers September 11. But he also remembers September 13, because on that day, as the shock began to wear off, some people in the ruling party started figuring out that it might not be such a bad thing if Americans were sore afraid. That was the day the general received a phone call from a friend of his, a Republican in Arkansas who'd heard talk that the general was contemplating running for office in his home state as a Democrat. "You going to come over to our side now?" is what the general remembers his friend saying. "Because there is no political future in the Democratic party. The American people are never going to trust the Democrats with national security now. The Democrats are done. The Democrats are over."

He knows next to nothing of the civilian world. He was able to outmaneuver Slobodan Milosevic—or maybe simply pound him into submission with B-2's—but he was outmaneuvered in turn by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton and Defense Secretary William Cohen. He won a war but lost his job because people at the Pentagon, well, hated him. He was considered too political for the military, but in the end he was a military success and a political failure. Right now, he has mystique both as a general and as an outsider, but he loses some of each as soon as he becomes another scrounging candidate.

So far, he has outlined his principles but not his platform, and his principles—shorn of mystique—are not so different from Howard Dean's. The longer he holds off on declaring his political intentions, the more he runs the risk of appearing indecisive or insincere. The sooner he does declare his intentions, the sooner he winds up in the same category as Dean and the rest of them, whose ambitions have become a national punch line. He is in a position that is both enviable and impossible.

For seventy-eight days, the United States, in conjunction with NATO, bombed targets in Kosovo and Serbia, and when Milosevic finally withdrew his forces from Kosovo, victory had been accomplished without a single allied casualty. "It was an incredible victory," Clark says now, repeating the words that have become his mantra,

. "We better understand this about the war on terror: that it is not enough to take down states. We are not going to attack Germany; we're not even going to attack France. We need NATO. We need an alliance. We need to get these countries inside the camp, into the boat with us, so our war is their war." We need a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead of making "nation building" dirty words, we need a Cabinet-level post for nation building.

The crowd tonight—this pacific old Democratic crowd—wasn't standing at the end in response to any idea other than the idea that this man might be running for president on their behalf; that he might be willing to not only start a dialogue but advance it while assuming its full cost; that war might be more necessary in the United States than it ever was in Iraq; and that if Wesley K. Clark runs for president, he—a general, after all—will have no choice but to wage it

The general likes working for WaveCrest because WaveCrest is about the future, and so, as it happens, is the general. Indeed, the general is something of a prodigy where the future is concerned. Once, the U. S. Army tested a thousand of its officers to see how well they extrapolated future trends from current patterns. The general, long before he was a general, finished first, and now, when he articulates the principles that would inform the creation of his political platform, he does so in terms of "outcomes" five, thirty, and a hundred years in the future. For your five-year outcome, you concentrate on rebuilding the economy. For your optimum thirty-year outcome, education. And for your optimum hundred-year outcome, the entire institutional environment. And you start now. You acknowledge the interdependence of all outcomes so that you don't make the terrible mistake of rebuilding the economy at the expense of education, at the expense of the environment

Though self-described as "an old Leftie," she says, "This year I'm not standing on principle. This year I want to go with the guy who has the best chance of beating George Bush. And I want to know what it is that makes you think you can. I know this is an unfair question, because you're not a candidate. But I'm assuming you're not in New Hampshire for our wonderful spring weather."
She is sore afraid. She doesn't want him to run for president so much as she wants him to run against the president. She wants him to stay a warrior by becoming a candidate, for she doesn't need another candidate so much as she needs something else: a champion. Leftie that she is, peacenik that she is, liberal that she is, Democrat that she is, she's ready to invest her last best hope in the prospect of Wesley Clark waging one more war.

 

I read the Esquire article. I like him.
Still don't think he gets either spot on the ticket, but if he were to, it would be okay with me.
Generally, I think former military make good leaders. They know the costs of war.
Look at Ike, one of the most dovish presidents we've ever had.