Warning: This is not flame bait! Re: Clark....

What qualifications does anyone see that would lead them to support him for President?

OK, he's been in the military, he's commanded troops, he's dealt with the military/industrial complex, all of that stuff...

But he's NEVER been elected to anything, has he?

I have some ex military (high level) friends who don't think much of him.

What's the deal?

For the record, I don't know much about Clark, I'm not trying to start anyhting...I'm genuinely curious.

I've seen him on some of the talk shows, and I think he comes across very well. Is he a Democrat?

Is he a VP candidate for the eventual nominee? Is that why he is out there?

(If it will make everyone feel better, I'll pull my Dean avatar off during this thread. :-))

He was a Rhodes scholar and first in his class at West Point. Regardless of what one thinks of the wisdom of the Kosovo campaign he did an amazing job of commanding it. That all speaks to the good. He also is a poor boy made good.

But that said, I do find it weird that he has so many supporters given his sketchy record on public issues. What I have heard is mostly good but it has also been largly platitudes.

I am an ABB person. He gets the nod and he will get my vote and whatever else I can give him. But until I know what he stands for I can't give an honest evaluation of him.

General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark was a White House Fellow in 1975-1976 and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He has also served as an instructor and later Assistant Professor of Social Science at the United States Military Academy.

Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards).

Is that enough? Or do you need more? Because I can get it.

lol

Yeah!

But when supplying more, please do w/o mentioning his military career. Please give his life experiences that would make him a good leader of a civilian nation.

Has that Arkansas-orphan-Rhodes-Scholar thing going as well. He's been detailed as a White House fellow in the 70's, so he has at least a working knowledge of how the place runs.

The larger issue, however, is that any well-meaning person with an IQ of at least about 100-110, and a working knowledge of history, law, economics, and science can do a better job then that idiot we have now. The trick is going to be dislodging Bush.

W/o using his military career, no one can state anything that would make him a ggood president.

A White House fellow in the '70's? Uh, this is 2003.

should anyone leave out his military career? It's part of who he is.

I appreciate the information.

So, basically he's a very intelligent, well spoken, experienced military commander.

Is there anyhting else that you find that particularly makes him an idea Democratic candidate if he chooses to run?

There is no doubt about his ability to communicate, I think he comes across very well on television and in interviews...

BTW...the mere fact that he is a Rhodes scholar doesn't give him some special dispensation to the oval office, * graduated from Yale. :-)

much bigger than simply getting out of Yale with a degree (especially in the era we are speaking of). There are something like a couple of hundred (if that) Rhodes scholars in the entire nation. That is like graduating Yale Magma Cum Laude.

I have no doubt that Gen. Clark is an immensly intelligent guy.

the smartest people, are many times politically impotent.

To a Masters Degree in Philosophy from Oxford ......

The point of describing his various accomplishments is to point out that THIS MAN EXCELS .... in EVERYTHING he does ....

Clark is a rare man ..... honestly: ..... there are not many made like him in our world ...

To chop him down because he hasnt yet ran for City Council is rather myopic .....

Great men make great presidents .....

They also can make great city councilmen, if given the chance ....

you're gooood. You should give lessons.


If any pols are lurking, you should contact this person and use him/her. (sorry I didn't look up your gender)

I'd be interested in hearing them.

But to answer your question, he can provide us with a keen insight that most politicians can't give. Besides, nobody would dare question the Democrats' patriotism with a military general running on the ticket.

about that one. While it maybe a harder sell it isn't an impossibe one give what they did to him.

Cleland is not a military general (or does he have a background like that?).

I think as a Seargent or Lt but not sure on that one.

I'm not trying to diminish Cleland's losses or his accomplishments. I'm merely trying to say that Clark has a certain soundbite quality: being a general. It's one word, but it could mean quite a bit.

I have a co worker who was a very high ranking officer in the Marines, left just before promotion to General. Served in Kosovo, etc...all the credentials, worked in the Pentagon.

All he'll say is that he doesn't care for Clark, and wouldn't ever vote for him for anything. When I press for details, he just won't go there...

In all fairness, it may be a personality thing, and political difference, who knows.

Another former military guy said he worked under Clark and couldn't stand him. End of story.

I get the feeling that Clark might have been too "liberal" for these two. They are both very conservative ex mil types. (But they are disliking the shrub more every day...)

I mean, look at Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner, and Paul Krugman. All are very smart, educated men and all come from the same side of the political spectrum, but Reich and Kuttner hate Krugman (or at least certain parts of his work).

I have asked that question repeatedly and have been told "Well, could anyone that says what he says be anything BUT a democrat?"
I'll give the guy a fair shake if he runs for the Democratic nomination WHEN he actually ADMITS he's a Democrat and he ANNOUNCES that he's running. Until that time I don't understand why he is even being discussed.

At this point, then he is irrelevent. The people on DU that are carrying water for this guy are the same fools who were fantsizing about McCain and Powell switching parties.

If he isn't willing to stand up as a Democrat now, then just when will he grace us peons with his presence??

Besides, if this Iraq thing keeps getting worse, the last thing the American people will want to see running for President is someone associated with the military. Military general types only look good after they have been in a few victory parades and that ain't going to happen with anyone associated with the military at this point.

He's just not saying so.

And since Clark was very anti-war to begin with, why would a potential military disaster in regards to the war hurt him?

Mind telling me why I should give him ANY consideration as a candidate for the DEMOCRATIC presidential nomination, then?

"The people on DU that are carrying water for this guy are the same fools who were fantsizing about McCain and Powell switching parties."

'Fools' ???????

BOTH McCain and Powell are bona fide CONSERVATIVES .... and though I would support a Clark candidacy, I have NEVER EVER supported either McCain OR Powell ...... so apparently: your comment is false .... it is also abusive ad hominem ......

Clark does not promote a conservative worldview ... EVERY statement he has made has been in support of progressive policies .... It is quite typical for 'generals' to resist declaring a party: since they serve a NATION without prejudice ....

These cheap shots are unbecoming of Democrats ..

<<The people on DU that are carrying water for this guy are the same fools who were fantsizing about McCain and Powell switching parties.>>

How do you know what this? It's nothing but an ASSumption on your part. I support Clark and I can't stand McCain and Powell. So please don't assume you know anything about Clark supporters because you obviously do not.

dems nominate Lieberman who doesnt have a chance in hell.
then he could come in as an independent or a green or some-
thing. But I agree. He should have the guts to declare
which party he's with NOW>

it's about Clark choosing the strategy that maximizes his ability to criticize and, I hope, ultimately defeat BushCo.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Clark enters and wins the nom, wouldn't you want him winning as many independent and moderate Republican voters as he can? Or making it as hard as possible for the media to label him? His strategy for doing this is to play up his independent thing for as long as he can. Given that this is his comparative advantage (as Dean's is being "the outsider/insurgent" or Kerry's is being the "respectable liberal senator," etc.), I don't see why we ought to begrudge him his best weapon to win votes--*especially* if our overriding goal is to get rid of Bush in '04 and turn this country to a responsible direction..

(And while Clark lacks a number of things that would make him the "ideal candidate," I doubt guts is one of them. If you check out that Esquire article, there's a great story on pg. 4 or 5 about an incident he was involved in when negotiating the Dayton Accords...)

While in this post-9/11 world (God I hate that phrase) his military experience may be favorable to some people. The problem is that people still believe that Bush is a good commander-in-chief. Unless people can break that meme, Gen. Clark's military experience isn't going to be that much of a benefit, unless you feel that military experience is a prerequisite for consideration. Personally I'd like to see him as Secretary of Defence in a Dean cabinet.

So here's some cons against Clark, to back up what you've heard:

-Some military guys don't like him, because they saw him as a hotshot, too-smart-for-his-own-good golden boy who didn't always rub everyone the right way. He went up through the ranks very fast, which is very hard to do without making people annoyed, whether it was his fault or not.
-Probably got dismissed from his job as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe a few months early after winning the Kosovo war because of the above.
-Nope, never been elected to anything.
-Unwilling to officially declare that he's a Democrat.
-No official campaign or money either.

So what's "the deal" with him? I like him a lot because:

-He has consistently articulated since Iraq starting making the news regularly again last year a coherent and realistic critique of the war and the Bush Admin's policy.
-But he hasn't just been saying "Bush is bad." Or "war is bad." Clark has clearly and intelligently articulated why he thinks war was unnecesary AND has presented a realistic multilateral alternative that would be better for both America and the world community, in both terms of both morality and security.
-As you noticed, he is a very clear speaker who is able to communicate complex positions in terms normal people can understand, but without dumbing down his message. He's quick on his feet and does very well in interviews. He doesn't mince words and he doesn't come across as whiny or negative.
-He takes a long-term view of the environment and the economy. He's a progressive who can articulate his positions in terms that make them seem reasonable to moderate conservatives. So even though he's not officially a Dem, that's the only party right now he'd consider running for. Most Clark supporters agree that his unwillingness to say he's a Dem is partially a smart ploy and partially sincere. It's true that he's spent most of his life in a non-partisan public service position, so he really has never been a member of a party. But holding off declaring as long as possible is a pretty smart way to attract independents and moderate GOPers and not get labelled by the SCLM. And it makes it easier for him to keep getting media gigs as a "non-political" military commentator (although those are getting harder, since people always ask him if he's decided to run even if it's totally unrelated to the topic).
-He's from the south, he's telegenic, has great academic, military, and business credentials. He has a moderate position on guns, no political record, and a background as a general, so it's very hard to paint him as a "librul radical." People know him from his stint as CNN war analyst. And of course can speak to security issues with a great deal of credibility. All of this gives him a prima facie great profile in terms of electability.
-Clinton likes him and thinks he'd make a good prez. A good number of traditional lefty Dems are among his supporters. He has a burgeoning Internet draft movement that's generating a lot of buzz and some money, and he's done nothing to promote it. So between the Big Dog and grassroots supporters, he has a lot of support waiting for him.

Right now Clark's said that he's thinking about running for President because of the draft movement and not just doing this to be VP. And people close to him have confirmed this. That said, he hasn't ruled out being a VP candidate. But right now, he's thinking about running for the Dem nom.

If you're really curious, you'll start at this great Esquire profile and this blog.

I hope you'll keep an open mind and happy reading!

Like I said, my big problem is the non-declaration of political affiliation and the delay on getting into the race. You have made some good points here.

I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

I hope you find the links informative and that you'll get a decent opinion of him, what ever he decides to do (unless he does something silly that really makes him deserve to lose it).

Also, no worries about the Dean avatar. I have the utmost respect for Dr. Dean (but I'm a bit biased, since I know one of his close family members). As a bonus, Clark seems to have a similar opinion--you should check out Clark's response to Pat Buchanan's attempt to bait him regarding the governor in this Buchanan and Press interview (let's just say that Clark's response was very different from and IMHO more constructive than Lieberman's recent comments...).

n/t

friends who think he's awesome and would make a terrific president. So there.

People complain all the time about Washington Insiders running everything and then when someone comes along who isn't a Washington insider there's all kinds of criticism that he isn't.

Maybe we need someone who isn't part of the establishment, who hasn't catered to all the special interest groups, who is intelligent and thoughtful and has a serious working knowledge of foreign affairs, someone who doesn't want the US to be going it alone, someone who believes in a multilateral approach to solving foreign conflicts. Someone who believes that war is a last resort - and has the background to back that opinion up. And yes, smart helps, too.

We have a guy sitting in the WH who is intellectuallly lazy and has wrecked whatever positive opinion the world community has had of us. Maybe it's time for someone who believes in an intelligent and well thought out approach to both foreign and domestic policy. And I don't goive a running f*ck that he isn't a goddamn Senator or Governor if he has the ablity to make it work.

MzPip
:dem:

Cute.

His curriculum vitae is simply too huge to relate here ...

Though I am troubled by his lack of 'official political experience', I recognize that while fellows like Cheney and ASSKKKroft and Shrub were 'too busy' to serve their country: all of them preparing for political office by fluffing their coifs and pressing their lapels: .... Wesley Clark was either studying Socrates, or dodging bullets while serving his beloved nation .....

Wesley Clark DOESNT HAVE to pay lip service to patriotism: .. he is the REAL DEAL .....

While Bush was packing his nose with cheap adulterated blow: .. Wesley Clerk was becoming an honest-to-goodness man through selfless service and dedicated studies ..... While Bush was riping off citizens blind: .. Clark was AGAIN Serving his nation AND the world, leading NATO Forces.....

Wesley Clark is nearly TOO GOOD .... He is beyond anyone in the american political landscape with those qualities which define great men .....

The American people REALLY dont deserve a man as good as Wesley Clark as their President ....

They are gonna have to work on that .....

simple as that. He is stronger than W's strong point, everything after that is a gimme.

Thanks, great post. :-)

Clark has a number of qualifications.

He is not a professional politician.

The Republicans made a pact with the devil when they sanctioned war for wars sake.

Clark can set us free.

In this age going into the 21st century we need someone without a bias so he can cut our military budget by as much as 95%

We need to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of Non-Violence

And to have a Non-violent Army, Air-Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

To destroy all Nuclear Weapons and technology.

To not fight any wars in other countries unless we are attacked and have a just reason to fight a War

And to join all International Global warming prevention pacts.

To forgive all foreign debts owed to Uncle Sam.

We need a politician to outlaw the death penalty for National Security reasons.

We need to increase welfare for the poor in this country and the world

And more

Think about it has the death penalty reduced crime. 9/11 seems like the biggest mass murder ever in this country. And the fanatics that did it say they did it because we are barbaric because we have no real democracy, or principles. They see an America of Jerry Springer Americans.

They resent that Republicans which they think as being all Americans
make deals with dictators in Saudi Arabia, while not keeping the principles that made us loved around the world, principles of freedom, justice, liberty, and peace.

How can the world see as loving freedom when we have an unjust death penalty law?

How can they see us as having principles of democracy when the powers that be steal from the poor and give to the rich. And on top of it give nothing to the poor. Not even a welfare program.

We need the relationships with our "former" allies repaired. We need someone who can straighten out the quagmire in Iraq and get our service personnel back home. We need someone who can and will let the Iraqi people rule their own country.

On the domestic front, a VP like Bob Graham can overseer and tutor him to get him up to snuff.