Wesley Clark, lifelong Democrat or another Ross Perot?

from the AJC...
<snip>
Clark has yet to declare a party affiliation. But in the same CNN appearance, he criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy, including the war on Iraq, which is widely anticipated to be the central element of Bush's re-election bid.

"We've made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed less able to respond," Clark said. "We've lost a tremendous amount of goodwill around the world by our actions and our continuing refusal to bring in international institutions."
<snip>

Some believe that the Democratic Party has moved so far away from traditional liberalism that if Perot were running in 2004 rather than 1992, he would be running as a Democrat not in a third party. Remember the Perot campaign agenda...paying off the national debt, eliminate the deficit, rebuild our cities, maintain and build our manufacturing base, stop NAFTA, provide affordable healthcare, replace the electoral college with the popular vote, pass a law to hold elections on Saturday and Sunday instead of Tuesday, pass laws requiring the return of all excess campaign funds to the Treasury, pass laws prohibiting cashing in on prior government service, and pass laws to create equal opportunity for all new candidates by providing equal television time for all candidates. Makes him look like another leftest Castro in today's political world.

As noted earlier, the partison affiliation of Clark are still unknown. Is he a traditional Democrat just discovering politics, or an independant who sees our party as the most receptive forum to make his case?

.

"Is he a traditional Democrat just discovering politics, or an independant who sees our party as the most receptive forum to make his case?
"

NOT to the thread topic question.

it's just that he may not have shown it too obviously in public until the last year or two, because it's not considered particularly good form to be too openly partisan while you're actively in the military. If I remember correctly, Arkansas doesn't have voter registration by party, rather you just pick which primary to vote in each year, but I believe I've heard that Clark has voted largely (perhaps even entirely) in Democratic primaries. And I know that having read his earlier book (Waging Modern War) I've never thought of him as having Republican sympathies.

Nice fella ....

It usually takes more than an easy going, anything goes approach to life to advance that far up the chain of command.

He will split the democratic voters too much.

If he ain't with the Donkey we're screwed....

I think a strong independant bid, made by someone like Clark may be just what is needed to beat Shrub in November. Just think of the western and southern states that Democrats could win with Clark swinging votes away from shrub in those red states.

..n/m

but shrub is now the incumbent. And every recent election including 1968, 1980, and 1992 has shown that significant third party challenges consistantly help the challenger by drawing votes away from the incumbent party.

old Ralphie cost us last time, and the LAST thing the Dems need now is anything other than a UNited Front. If Wesley Clark runs as anything other than a Dem we will be in trouble....

Kerry/Clark
Dean/Clark
Clark/Dean

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

It is still up for debate whether or not Nader cost us in 2000, but Wesley Clark is certainly not another Ralph Nader.

IMHO someone should not run as a Democrat unless they consider themselves to be a Democrat, if they are an independent they should run as an independent, and if they are Republican...I think you get the picture. :dunce:

I'm still studying Clark's postions. He's not "left" enough to be my first choice, but seems more acceptable than a lot of the other candidates. Namely, the pro-invasion gang of four.

On the plus side, I think he would be a very electable candidate, simply because he's not a politician with a record to defend from the distortions that BushCorp is undoubtedly going to attack the candidates with. They certainly can't go after him as "weak on defense" or the usual tripe. And, in terms of a debate, it would be a massacre with the Texas fratboy's smirk pasted on the floor.

We'll see. So far I like him. Whether he's a "lifelong" Democrat is irrelevant. Hell, Zell Miller and Holy Joe are lifelong Democrats and I wouldn't vote for either of them if they were running against Satan.

Even the Busheviks themselves said the 2004 "election" will be the most divisive since the Civil War.

And perhaps the most important since the Election of 1864. God Bless those Grand Army of the Republic boys who voted 60-80% for Lincoln and helped stomp McClellan into the tera-firma (even though many of those boys loved McClellan when he was their bumbling General).

Funny that the Democrats of 1864, wrong as they were, campaigned on a platform of criticism of the pResident in time of war. But suhc history is lost, Orwell-style, if it ever happened at all.

My belief is that, if Emperor Chimp* is re-Appointed the Imperial Crown, then Amerika will truly see what Lame Duck Fuehrer means.

It is also my belief that, for all intents and purposes, the American Experiment, which flourished for 225 years (not perfectly by any means, but still excellently) and strangled for 4 more will expire completely.

Though the entity will live on as the Amerikan Empire, festooned with trappings, sayings, and songs of the Old (Democratic) Republic, for who knows how much longer.

If democracy is what we want, it will take more than the ousting of a President or a single party. It must be constantly reconstructed based on new democratic principles and ideals, and it must be built out of the dreams of the people for a perfect nation..not from the familar remains of a lifeless, stale corpse.

And the simple fact is, the 'Puggies, with their ruthless agression that no one took seriously until it was far too late, have pushed the battle lines almost back to the beachheads.

And we must refight DubyaDubyaTwo again, with ouselevs cast this time as "the Great democratic-Republic Taken Over From Withing and Now Threatening It's Own People and the World with a New Form of Totalitarianism (which the Nazis were in '33)"

and we as The White Rose Society...

Yes, the Old Republic, just as in those goddamned Star Wars movies (and Babylon 5 and "I, Claudius" and Farenheit 451, 1984, etc etc etc), has rotted from within.

Can anything save it? Time will tell. many millions of people ow labor in it's defense, but they are underfunded and denied a National Voice (shhh...mustn't talk about the Emperor's* New Clothes)

nt

I believe a question similar to this was asked when the joint chiefs just sat there and didn't clap during Dubya's speech.

That's one reason he's not a "lifelong" public Democrat. It's common knowledge that he's voted in at least one Democratic primary, maybe more.

As for whether he's another Perot--wouldn't that require him running as an independent? Until he does that, I see no evidence he's another Perot/Nader/whatever. For one thing, he's not busy slamming Democrats that I've seen.

Yet you have to wonder how flakey someone who built a company like EDS was to begin with...seemed like Perot just augered-in.

The AJC does make Perots 1992 program sound actually somewhat leftist, doesn't it?

Clark does have the "non-politician" vibe, which was Perots big selling point too...so there is that similarity

I was quoting this program directly from Perot's "United We Stand...A Plan For The 21st Century."

No?

Then no Ross Perot.

that so many DUers are so enthusiastic about a man whose political positions are largely unknown, to the point where they talk about drafting him.

Why him?

Yeah, I know about his distinguished career, but why the enthusiasm when he hasn't stated that he wants to run for president or what he'd do if elected? Isn't he sort of, to use an old rural expression, a pig in a poke?

This is not flame bait. I am genuinely puzzled. (Note that although I'm a Kucinich supporter, I don't criticize other people's favorite candidates, with the exception of Lieberman.)

Probably alot of what people like about Dean.

He is a fresh face and not part of the party establishment or Washington "insed the beltway" crowd (alhough the Pentagon is "indside the beltway" in its own way).

Then there is sort of this Eisenhower factor, where Clark sort of projects a conservative to middle-of-the-road image as he is a military guy..as a way to neutralize the perception that the Demcorats might seem "too liberal" for moderate and indy voters. Similar to what Ike did for the GOP of his time.

He drew the attention of disgruntled Democrats when he started his organization called Dialouge for America. When he vocally opposed * as an analyst on CNN during the war he drew more attention. Since then the draft movement started and he became more visible because of the interest the media had of him partly because he was some what attached to them via CNN. The movement caught fire and when supporters went to his site they liked what they saw, personally I was torn between Dean and Kerry because they both had something I liked even though they seem to be poles apart. When I started to investigate Clark I found for this voter that he seemed to have the common cause that I was looking for. As for those who are frustrated that he has not declared remember most of these candidates have considered it since * stole the office, this was a new avenue for him to consider. I respect him for taking the time he needs to make such a decision although I too would like it sooner than later.

(overseas) than Kerry, Dean, Kucinich....
I honestly think, believe, feel that he would be a great presidential candidate - smart, internationally oriented, appealing to many voters, etc. With a good team, he might make a great president.

My enthousiasm springs from his being the only candidate who I think has a chance to beat out the Repubs.

Besides Gore, I'm not excited about any other Dem's chances.


DemEx

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 presented a realistic, multilateral alternative that would be better for both America and the world community, in both terms of both morality and law.

-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, the economy, and the constitution. He's a solid 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.

And he is no Ross Perot.

Everyone around him, including his son, have said that if he runs, he will only run as a Democrat. He will NOT run as a Republican, an Independent, or for a third party. This is consistent with his pragmatism and his great dislike of Bush's policies.

Why hasn't he declared his affiliation as a Democrat? It's because (1) He really has spent all of his life except for the past 3 years as a non-partisan public servant; and (2) It's good strategic sense. His comparative advantage, his schtick, if you will, if his ability to appeal to independents and crossover voters. He sensibly wants to maximize this and to give the SCLM as little of a chance to stick the liberal/partisan label on his as possible. As long as he isn't "officially" a Democrat, he gets to lob bombs at the Republicans (as he has with great skill over the past few months) without being immediately dismissed by the media as "just a partisan Democrat."

If you're really curious, you'll start at this great http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html">Esquire profile and this http://wesleyclark.blogspot.com/">blog.

I think the Democratic Party serves as the closest outlet for his views, and that he could do a good job if elected. Unlike a lot of the candidates, I believe he stands a chance of being elected. He will be popular with other types of voters who aren't necessarily pacifists, as opposed to a "peace candidate", who will turn off people who don't think we should be pacifists about everything (which is not MY opinion at all, for clarification). Clark is intelligent and has the stamina to become a good president.