New York Observer Effectively Endorses Clark

Wesley Clark: Is He The Man to Beat Bush?

It should be no surprise that George W. Bush is turning out to be one of the worst U.S. Presidents in memory, one who may be leading the country toward a financial debacle. When Mr. Bush was running for office, it was pointed out that he’d never been successful at any career he’d tried his hand at; all of his opportunities had been created for him by others, who were bound to him by family connections. And when he goofed, there was always some dark-suited fixer who could clean up his mess. The problem is that the mess Mr. Bush is now making involves the entire country and the world at large. And the men and women in dark suits surrounding him are not providing him with any balance.

As a chorus line of Democratic candidates jostle for the job of taking on Mr. Bush next fall, there may be one who seems to have what it takes to actually win and save the country from four more years of Mr. Bush’s stunning ineptitude. We’re talking, of course, about Wesley Clark.

As a candidate, he’s about as good as they get. The other Democratic hopefuls will have a hard time dimming the lights on General Clark’s résumé: a Southerner who was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes scholar, wounded in combat in Vietnam, a recipient of the Purple Heart and the Silver Star, a general at the young age of 43, a distinguished military career in which he rose to be America’s top commander in Europe and NATO’s supreme military chief. When he was commanding NATO forces, General Clark created an alliance of 19 nations to join forces in the war in Kosovo—a stark contrast to Mr. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy in Iraq. The general is also said to be intensely competitive—"He is competitive drinking coffee with you," said a senior State Department official—a quality which will be necessary to neutralize the President’s $170 million re-election campaign.

George Bush is clearly in way over his skill level. Running a country takes intelligence, judgment and occasionally wisdom. Instead, this President’s decisions fly in the face of logic and common sense. Rather than grappling with the very real problems facing America—a ballooning federal deficit, the threat of Islamic terrorism, a growing number of families living below the poverty line—he offers a risky tax cut and a foreign policy that gets us into a hugely expensive war with no exit strategy and that alienates our previously reliable allies. Rather than level with the American people and ask for sacrifices, he just recedes further into a land of make-believe, exhibiting the flawed character of a man who would choose to preserve his own popularity at the expense of the well-being of the country.

<...>

http://www.observer.com/pages/editorials.asp

DTH

The general is also said to be intensely competitive—"He is competitive drinking coffee with you," said a senior State Department official—a quality which will be necessary to neutralize the President’s $170 million re-election campaign.

I love that line. I love competitive people -- they find ways to get shit done, when others shrug off failure with the line, 'I tried.'

Hey, I think I could like this guy. :) Now do I want him to be President? :shrug:

Clark would make the perfect VP. He brings the military credibility to the ticket but he is vulnerable as a main candidate.

Being called a flip-flopper? A liar? Soft on foreign policy? An effete, out-of-touch Northeastern liberal from a priveleged background and an elite prep school and university? That's my idea of vulnerability. Yours is...?

He's more likely to make a gaffe, unlike a more experienced candidate would. Flip-flopper, yes. Clark can be called a flip-flopper on what some consider the most important issue of the Democratic primary: the IWR vote.

…
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Not always easy with this crowd. Thank you very much.

This is a very important discussion, because each of the nine of us want to be the commander in chief of the United States military and protect the security of this country. That requires a clarity of judgment and the courage to stick by the judgment you've made.

Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun -- they were clear and consistent against the war. I was for it clearly and consistently, but I respect them for that clarity.

I must say that I've been very disappointed since Wes Clark came into this race about the various positions he has taken on the war against Saddam Hussein.

Howard Dean is right, last fall, a few days before the voting in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

There was an uproar. Then he said: I never would have voted for the resolution.

The American people have lost confidence in George Bush because he hasn't leveled with them. We need a candidate who will meet the test of reaching a conclusion and having the courage to stick with it. And I intend to be that candidate and that kind of president.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5841-2003Oct9.html

Noone is soft on foreign policy except for Bush*.

And noone but maybe Sen. Kerry can be labeled an "effete and out-of-touch Northestern liberal"

And "priveleged backgrounds or elite prep schools" is not a priority issue to Americans as should be obvious from Bush and Gore in 2000.

and easily dealt with. I can really imagine Bush attacking Clark for his position on the IWR. :eyes: Some other candidates I can think of have a 10 year record of flip-flopping that will play huge in a general election.


And noone but maybe Sen. Kerry can be labeled an "effete and out-of-touch Northestern liberal"


I suppose that's why Dean polls so well in the South and with the poor. My bad.

And "priveleged backgrounds or elite prep schools" is not a priority issue to Americans as should be obvious from Bush and Gore in 2000.


Part of being an effete liberal.

Any candidate can make a 'gaffe,' and all of them have, including Kerry, the most experienced politician running. Dean has made more than I can count, including one of the most stupid and basic imaginable, over Israel.

instead of taking a clear and concise position.

As for polling, Dean is beating Clark where Dean is well-known. Resume only goes so far. IMHO, Clark neither has the time nor the money to beat Dean in the primary, and maybe Bush in the general (unless Dean is able to damage Bush sufficiently for Clark).

Noone calls Dean effete. The incorrect characterization on Dean is that he's an "angry liberal", not an "effete liberal". Dean is a passionate centrist. Big media often calls him "liberal", although he's always governed as a centrist. And big media will call Clark a liberal, too.

'Big media' can call Clark what they like -- the public aren't likely to buy it, and if they're going to buy it about Clark, they'll swallow it whole about Pudge.

By the way, are you giving up on 'vulnerable?' If Clark's the one who is vulnerable, why are you now on the defense? Something for more open minds than yours to consider.

Who's on the defense? :evilgrin:

'Big media' can call Clark what they like -- the public aren't likely to buy it, and if they're going to buy it about Clark, they'll swallow it whole about Pudge.

He actually said he voted 'NO' on the Iraq Resolution.

What a loser.

himself as an angry liberal in the primary to attract support. He will not be able to get out of that box in the general election - big media won't let him.

Passion is very different than anger. I've seen Dean, and passion doesn't come to mind at all.

Funny that on the one hand anti-Clark people say Clark is the evil Republican in Democratic clothing, very suspicious, very PNAC -- yet you think he will called a liberal.

will be called "liberal" over and over and over again. Btw, it is my observation that Republicans are trying to smear Clark with "eccentric/crazy general". He's not. But, a lot of folks will repeat and believe that. And specifics on Clark are an unknown to many people. If he doesn't paint himself, the Republican Party will paint him instead.

No. Dean is the passionate centrist. I'm the angry liberal. :)

the passionate centrist
NEW YORK -

At the end of summer and onset of fall, pundits are gearing up for the Democratic presidential primaries. Recently, columnists have churned out a slew of articles profiling, criticizing and praising the candidates. Rating the candidates, writers have given the health insurance gold medal to Kerry, the centrist medal to Lieberman and the leftist medal to Dean.

Absent from all this politicking, however, is discussion on the Democratic strategy. Aside from TIME magazine's "How to Build a Better Democrat," no columnist has provided a comprehensive or innovative view of the identity Democrats need to assume in the coming election.

It seems each party is having an identity crisis. George Will, the conservative columnist for the Washington Post, stated, "Foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast - and perhaps rendered incoherent." In an effort to broaden their image, Republicans created an unassailable facade of "compassion," claiming to be "for" all those typically overlooked by the system: the elderly, minorities, the poor.

A cue for Democrats: To broaden your image, embrace the idea of passionate centrism. A 1997 USA Today story quoted then Governor of Vermont Howard Dean as calling himself a "passionate centrist." A cursory look at his governorship proves this to be true. And so, Dean's success, both as a governor (he's won five consecutive elections) and a presidential candidate, is based on impassioned moderation.
…
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/08/04/3f2de34c3b301
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41955

A Good-Tempered Man

Several times I've heard television journalists complain that Howard Dean has to learn to control his temper. Actually, it is his temper that I find attractive.

An honest man with sincere convictions will get angry when he hears lies. Some of our greatest presidents had ferocious tempers. George Washington, Andy Jackson and Harry Truman are three examples.

You don't see other candidates getting angry because they are all phonies. Their so-called convictions are just campaign positions manufactured by their staffs. They don't really believe in anything except getting elected, so they really don't care what is said. They are like trial lawyers. They are interested only in scoring points and winning. There's nothing personal, and the truth simply doesn't matter.

Whether you agree with him or not, Howard Dean actually believes in his convictions. He is a genuine man. An honest, genuine man will not suffer fools lightly, nor will he stand around like a dummy with a phony smile on his face while he hears himself lied about.
…
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20031008/index.php

Clark is a great candidate.

Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
…
General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Clark Explains Statement on Authorization for Iraq War
…
"I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war."

Speaking about the resolution on Thursday, General Clark said, "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question."

He then added: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it."
…
About Iraq, he said "There was never an imminent threat," and called the war "a major blunder."

"We're not the sort of `you're with us or against' kind of people," he said.

"We're a come-and-join-with-us kind of people," he told a crowd of 1,000 in the main lounge of the Iowa Memorial Union. "Americans know in their hearts that you don't make our country safer by erecting walls to keep others out. You make us safer by building bridges to reach out.

"We also have to recognize that force should be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html

Clark on whether he'd have voted on the IWR and Dean's response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=401401

You want to talk about gaffes - have you listened to Bush talk?

It is funny that Lieberman is quoted as support for your position. Do you think Lieberman have a reason to spin the story his way - and maybe he left out a few things??

Clark has one problem: LACK OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE.

America is in a crisis right now, and a proven politican is NEEDED for the job, and Clark isn't it. He'd be better served as a VP for the time being.

I support a Dean/Clark ticket. This is an virtually unbeatable ticket.

Hawkeye-X

America is in a crisis right now, and a proven politican is NEEDED for the job, and Clark isn't it. He'd be better served as a VP for the time being.

Explain what a 'proven politician' brings to the table that is so valuable. Saying 'experience' is question begging, so that won't cut it.

And since you agreed with the previous poster, explain why Clark is 'vulnerable,' while softy Dean, who even looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy, isn't vulnerable.

can see. And at least 16 years in the White House.

Each has its charms. I'd like Clark/Edwards because of Edwards very clear and unambiguous support of the working and low income American, but whatever will win the election will work for me for now. Clark belongs at the top of any ticket, though. He's got the gravitas thing nailed.

"America is in a crisis right now, and a proven politican is NEEDED for the job, and Clark isn't it. He'd be better served as a VP for the time being."

I don't get the nuance. Either the guy (Clark) is presidential material or he is not. How can he be a great VP, but not at all ready to be P.

If prez Dean had a heart attack in a swimming pool two days after inuaguration, what should Clark do - resign? would he suddenly become presidential then - or would he be a proven politican by then?

Wes Clark is presidential today, and will continue to be tommorrow, next week, and most importantly on election day 2004!

Whether it's Dean or Clark or Kerry or Lieberman or Edwards, etc.

I trust Clark to govern, but not to win a campaign. You have to understand that my criticisms of Clark are about his campaigning ability, not his governing ability. And to go up against the Bush and GOP machine we need someone with many years of campaigning experience, IMHO.

I see Clark as a fast learner. So, I think after 8 years of VP he'd run a fine campaign for President. :)

Hold the Presses!

I bet. Very liberal paper. I read Conasen and Corn there all the time.

She's going to come down and run for office herself, if this keeps up. She said, it appears that no one is fucking good enough to run for President according to DU anti-clark posters. God thought she had handed us one.....but, Noooooooo.......O8)

He writes for the Observer

Pudge himself doesn't run too well these days, so his followers do it for him. ;-)

You are too fuckin' funny!

C'mon, you guys gotta admit that was funny! ;-)

DTH

following boards:

(Jackson) Stephens Group, Inc ( http://www.stephens.com/ )
Acxiom Corp. ( http://www.acxiom.com/ )
SIRVA, Inc. (as in SIRVA Relocation -- http://www.sirva.com/ )
The Markle Foundation ( http://www.markletaskforce.org/ )
Council of Foreign Relations ( www.cfr.org )
The National Endowment For Democracy ( http://www.ned.org/ )
Center for Strategic and International Studies ( http://www.csis.org/ )
The Atlantic Council ( http://www.acus.org/ )
Soros' International Crisis Group ( http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/ )
Messer-Greisheim ( http://messergroup.com/de/index.html )
Entrust, Inc. ( http://www.entrust.com/ )

So a guy who lobbied for Henry Kissinger and for the indefensible Big Brother piece of shit CAPPS II no fly list is our new Democratic (Leadership Council) savior.

A guy who served on the board of a global relocation company (SIRVA) is the man we want to trust to keep our jobs in the USA.

A guy who worked with neocon globalists on the CRF, NED and AC is the outsider candidate we want to restrain our imperialistic tendencies.

A guy who lobbied for defense contrators is the man we want to clean up defense contracting abuse.

A guy who served on a neocon Homeland Security board that likes the Patriot Act and wants a whole new domestic super-spying agency with the Homeland Security department to replace the FBI for domestic surveillance is the mas we want to trust to roll back the Bill of Rights' encroachments of the Bush Administration.

A guy who spent most of 2001 praising Bush is the man we should nominate to bury him.

A Reagan Democrat is the guy we need to get back those Reagan Democrats.

Sorry, suckas. But I'm not buying any snake oil this year.

the establishment press endorsing an establishment candidate.