Seriously - What are the differences b/t Dean and Clark on POLICIES?

As a former Gore supporter now turned Dean supporter, and also someone who admires Wesley Clark, I have a serious question. First, I will state that my #1 choice for 2004 is a Dean/Clark combo, and my #2 choice is a Clark/Dean combo. I say this mainly b/c Dean has a considerable money and grass-roots advantage right now, but I'm praying we will see a Dean/Clark combo in 2004.

IMO, these two men are similar in many important ways (they are both against the Iraq war), smart, progressive, and upset about US foreign policies/unilaterislism. As for the symbiotic aspects of a Dean/Clark combo, Dean has the public policy/governing experience and Clark has the national security/multi-laterialism credentials. Just like Cheney was the "heavyweight" for Bush Jr. in 2000 campaign re foreign policies, I can see Clark adding some gravitas to Dean's foreign policy platform (or vice versa should Clark get a top slot).

It did bother me a little bit that Clark has not declared himself or entered the race yet, but after readng the long Esquire ariticle this weekend I suspect he is not going to enter unless he feels he can ultimately succeed. Clark is a very goal oriented and competitive person, which is a good thing. IMO, Dean needs Clark to fill-in his lack of national security experience, and Clark needs Dean to fill-in his lack of political campaigning and governing skills.

Howard Dean is considered a "controversial liberal" b/c he was so outspoken about the run-up to the Iraq war and that he allowed Civil unions in VT. Now that Wesley Clark is coming out saying the same thing about Iraq, will Clark suddenly become the next "controversial liberal"? Somehow I doubt that will stick. Dean is going to have to deal with the civil union issue, but other than that issue, from a POLICY PERSPECTIVE, how does Clark differ with Dean?

So, that's my question, what are the real POLICY DIFFERENCEs between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark? Please don't give me your "subjective feelings" about either person or a list of their backgrounds, as these men obviously have very different looking resumes, but what I want to know seems to be is a reasonable question. (Given that Clark seems to be stating his positions with more clarity this summer).

Please characterize your answers into either DOMESTIC POLICIY and FOREIGN POLICY. I look forward to responses on the known POLICY differences b/t these two patriotic men. Thanks!

Clark/Kucinich, Clark/Gephardt, or Clark/Economic Progressive would be the ticket to beat. Since Clark has been rather quiet on economic issues, he needs someone to solidify the base.

Based on posts here at DU:

Dean has a policy of only being 5'7" tall throughout his administration.

Clark has a stated policy of having been a great warrior.

Dean has some bashers and some supporters.

Calrk doesn't seem to have bashers.

Truth be told, I think Wes Clark and Howard Dean are very close on the issues.


To the left of Holy Joe and to the right of Sharpton, Kucinich, and Moseley Braun and in the middle with Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Graham.




*cept Howard Dean and Wes Clark are more market oriented than Gephardt.

Clark has not stated his policies. He is not even in the race at this point.

His alleged positions are stated on the DraftClark website, but I keep hearing how that site is in no way affiliated with him, so how can they be posting his policies? I am mostly neutral on Clark right now, because he is not in the race and his policies are essentially unknown.

My only problem with Clark right now is that he was a career military man. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but I want to see our society eliminate its worship of the military and would prefer that a military man was not on the Dem ticket in '04.

(if I remember correctly) are taken from interview quotes where he discussed his positions.

Let me point out that being a military man can have other advantages. None of the people in power today can remember flying squads of young men into fire fights one day only to pick up as many body bags the next. None of them can remember standing on the tarmac in the Philippines while they unloaded soldier after soldier maimed for life knowing full well that Westmoreland was playing golf at the base course. None of these men have seen a baby with it's head bashed in or a young child burned over 80% of it's body from a military action.

The right military man has an even stronger reason to be careful about making the choice to go to war.

Just a thought.

read what's out there on each man. Once Clark announces (as I hope he does) - we'll know exactly where he stands and a comparison will be easier. I will say one thing - Clark is more progressive than Dean; I don't see many similarities.

I have read about Clark's positions in various articles and snippets, and I have not seen anything to suggest "Clark is more progressive." (I'd say they are equally progressive). In other words, nothing I have read jumped out at me as a "real" difference. Can you support your statement with a factoid or two? (no disseration, just a couple of sentences). Personally I see lots of similarities, whereas you do not, please elaborate, thanks!

They are very similar on the issues.

If you want someone fundamentally different than the pack look to Kucinich and Sharpton.

Dick Gephardt is not as pro-free trade as the other main stream candidates but he's a moderate at heart.