General Wesley Clark May Seek Democratic Nomination

Read the article, thanks Batman. Still leaves a lot unanswered, in terms of his positions on major issues, but what he did say, what he did cover was so similar to my own thinking that it could have been my words. In fact, if you read the article, you might see some of the exact points I have made about the war, our relationship with our allies, etc. that I have made in posts in here. Needless to say I am very anxious to hear more about Clark's positions on other issues, but right now he is clearly my favorite candidate. Clearly he would need to surround himself with people strong on the demostic side, but post 9-11 it seems that the President's primary role is as spearhead to fashioning our place in the international community and leading efforts on an international scale, and Clark is among the best candidates on the planet in that regard.

In so many ways he stands as the complete opposite of Bush: highly intelligent, independant, someone whose position is entirely based on his own efforts, sacrificed for the country, articulate, complex, diplomatically aware but not very savvy when it comes to internal US politics, a believer in dialogue based agreement as opposed to a proponent of unilateralism on all levels...really, it would be hard to find a more complete opposite to Bush. Very interesting.

 

I said this earlier, but think it is worth repeating, Clark will not steal away military votes from Bush. Clark is a NATO guy who the military did not like very much.
Yeah, I think military voters in Iraq may be upset with Bush, he sent them there, he's keeping them there. But I think those votes are very securely in the Resident's pocket. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.

 

You are way too sure of this. I'm not at all convinced it's true.

Clark is a NATO guy who his military bosses didn't like much. That says nothing of the rank and file. Military guys don't much shine to draft dodgers or chickenhawks either, on principle. Clark's taken a number of bullets and he's had great success as a military leader, but that's not even what'll be most attractive to enlisted people. What'll be most attractive, especially given the situation in Iraq now, is his accountability mantra. Look, in the Esquire article, at his recommendations for Somalia. Look at the way his hands were tied in Bosnia and how he overcame that. Imagine him in a debate saying I succeeded in spite of Republicans bashing that action while troops were in the field and despite the incredible limitations placed on me by the Clinton administration -- think what I could do if I were in charge.

Kerry will steal military votes from Bush if he's the nominee, by virtue of the fact that he's bled like they have or might. Clark has not only bled for the country and for the service -- he has unimpeachable credentials as a military strategist who understands how to fight and win wars better than anyone in the administration (including Powell). The military is not populated by blind lemmings. I think Clark would slaughter Bush with them and I think he's the only Democrat (excepting Powell who, on almost every single issue, really is a Democrat too) who could do that.

Also, it's not too late to get in at all. At ALL. There is no frontrunner. Outside Dean, there is no momentum. Clark makes Kerry small and erases Lieberman and Edwards. A Clark/Dean ticket (either in either position, though I think it's stronger with Clark on top) is a nightmare for Bush and Rove. Unimpeachable credentials on foreign affairs and national security coupled with a guy who's demonstrated success on domestic issues (especially a balanced budget in an environment hostile to balancing budgets) who's caught fire with disenfranchised voters. That is pure dynamite. And if these guys could get together ahead of time, making the unlikely and unprecedented move of getting on a ticket together before the first vote, they could pre-empt the whole primary process and start spending money on the general election.

 

And if these guys could get together ahead of time, making the unlikely and unprecedented move of getting on a ticket together before the first vote, they could pre-empt the whole primary process and start spending money on the general election.

I like that, but think it is too hopeful. Lieberman and Gebhardt etc. will attack these guys tooth and nail to prevent this.

 

I still see Clark as inexperienced and quite frankly he needs the challenge of a real campaign for us to see if he is ready to be VP or possibly President. To be VP/Pres You need more than managerial skills.

Before I put all my hopes in him and whoever deposing Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the rest I would have to see if he be is able to take heat from the media and the Republican attack machine, two things he hasn't shown yet.

 

The reason Powell calls himself a Republican is the same reason Republicans will vote for Bush. The Republican party is the party that is for military spending. It is the party that is about a strong defense above all else.
You're right, in that the military would prefer one who bled over one who didn't, but they will not be voting for Bush they will be voting for his party.
As for the whole Dean/Clark deal before the first vote...
C'mon, that's silly.

 

First, I agree that the military vote is the Republicans' to lose, but they're in a great position to lose it -- especially with a decorated, successful general running and challenging a war which the American people are starting to doubt. They will listen to him. And the image of him repelling down a mountainside while being fired upon, to save fellow soldiers, stands in stark contrast to Bush's aircraft carrier photo op. Give these guys some credit. They're not idiots.

I don't expect the Dean/Clark before-the-vote thing to happen -- I'm just suggesting it should and it's not out of the realm of possibility. These are both guys who think outside the box (especially Clark) and they're the only ones with traction. Lieberman and Gephardt can attack all they want -- they will only cement their reputations as dinosaurs. They are both of the past. Already. One from the old Dem past, one from the new one -- both failed strategies at a time when we are redefining the spirit of the party and desperate to get rid of the worst president in the nation's history. Read the Mark Shields article on Dems liking and nominating outsiders and mavericks. Clark and Dean both fit the bill. Moreover, they cancel each other's weaknesses and make a good geographical split ticket as well.

But more than any of that, think on this: Terry McAuliffe has asked Clark to run. If he says yes and has the DNC behind him, say goodbye to Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards and welcome Dean, Kerry and Graham to the race for VP. I like Dean there, both for his positions and to secure the new voters he's brought in, but any of them will do.

Remember too that Clinton got in in October. If Clark gets in, it'll be mid-September at the latest. Clinton was able to succeed because there was no frontrunner. That's even more true this time. And Clark swipes Dean votes by being a maverick outsider and by having criticized the war from the beginning -- from a position of greater strength and experience than Dean did.

Some of you guys are thinking old rules and discounting him accordingly. I don't know if he'll get in or not, but if he does he's an almost instant frontrunner.

 

Just a few things,
-The geographical split thing in my opinion only works when it involves someone who has been elected from a particular region. Clark may have been born in the south, but he was never elected from there. There is nothing to suggest he is the type of Democrat southerners vote for, as there is with Graham and Edwards.
-I agree that a Clark/Dean ticket makes more sense than a Dean/Clark ticket.
-The front loaded primaries, which as you know, did not exist in '92, make it much harder today than it was then to be a late entry candidate.
-Most important, the military mindset is not to question wars. "Ours is not to wonder why..."
-I don't think it's impossible. I think he has a better chance than most of the nine, but still think Clark is going to be nothing more than a very vocal and important campaigner for Dean/Graham and then the Secretary of Defense or State.

 

serious:

Not bad points, but the main ones are flawed.

The frontloaded primaries mean virtually nothing in this particular race because no candidate has solid support. Including Dean. Gephardt doesn't have Iowa, Kerry doesn't have NH, Edwards doesn't have SC. That's a big part of the Dean surge. The field is wide open. A DNC backed Clark campaign changes that overnight.

I don't suggest that Clark is automatic in the South (or in Arkansas), but a North/South ticket still helps.

As for the military mindset: first, many of them ARE questioning why, so the old rules are already fraying to some degree. More importantly, kindly present one example in the history of the country where the military's preferred party fielded a draft dodging chickenhawk against a respected general.

Conventional wisdom does not apply here.

Clark could get in and stumble badly. He might be terrible, we don't know. But it's folly to suggest he probably will. And it's folly to observe old rules in this kind of campaign and this kind of age. If you didn't believe that before, observe Dean. If the internet had been this strong in 92, that could have been Brown. If it had been that strong in 2000, it could have been McCain. All bets are off. In a situation like that, I like the hell out of a master strategist who thinks outside the box and speaks truth to power. Toss in his ability to completely shut Bush down on issues of patriotism, foreign policy and national security and I can't even believe you've already bumped him down to a cabinet position.

 

Deckard, ya beat me to it! Stop staying up so late, will ya!!!