I am leaning toward Gen. Clark as our candidate in 2008

[umtalal]

I just listened to General Clark in a radio interview. The man knows a thing or two that other candidates have not provided. He is reaching me.

[oldtime dfl_er]

1. I liked him in 2004

But I think he had a lot to learn about the down and dirty politics of 21st century America. Hopefully he'll spend the next year or two sharpening his political skills, I woudl definitely consider him for 2008.

www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[pauliedee]

51. Kerry/Clark a strong ticket

John Kerry has the experience and grit. Kerry also has strong domestic policy where Clark is inexperienced. Clark good for VP or cabinet. John Kerry still the man. I'll back Kerry in 2008!!!!

[ArkySue]

55. No Kerry!

Kerry blew it last time! Lost to the WORST PRESIDENT EVER! He had his chance. No more Senators! I disagreed that Clark is inexperienced with domestic policy. He had the most progressive tax plan of any candidate. He wrote a Federal Budget from scratch when he was a WH fellow with the OMB. He has a Master's degree in Economics from Oxford University. As Commander in Chief of the European Command, he was responsible for his soldiers' and their families' day to day living conditions such as housing, schools,etc. It involves alot more than just having soldiers march and shoot guns.

[pauliedee]

60. Kerry a better choice for president

Nobody has ever unseated a wartime incumbent...Kerry almost did even with OBL reappearing the week of election day. Kicked Bush's ass in debates ...BIGTIME!!!!!!

[liberalnurse]

2. If we are going to dream.....or have a wish list....

I read a few posts here taunting that Gore was thinking about running.

[wesrose]

30. Gore is too damaged

by his run in 2000. We need new blood. We need Wesley Kanne Clark! :bounce:

[pauliedee]

53. Kerry has better domestic economic experience

John Kerry is still the man....Clark maybe Secretary of State. Biden Secretary of Defense.

KERRY 2008!!!!

[dogman]

57. How about a Rhodes scholar who gained a Masters Degree in Economics

and was a White House Fellow, serving as Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I think that's more economic experience than Kerry has. Wes Clark is probably the most qualified with the broadest education and background of any candidate mentioned.

[umtalal]

3. If one want to listen to the interview with Clark

http://www.scpr.org/programs/talkcity/index.shtml#

I don't know when they will have it.

[Adelante]

9. Thanks very much

I see it's on the site now.

[pauliedee]

54. Kerry almost overcame huge disadvantage

Should be given another chance...55 milion votes and that's without 1/2 of Columbus Ohio voting. I was energized by Kerry to join the democratic party. KERRY 2008!!!!

[brainshrub]

4. I didn't support him, but I'll say this:

He's a good man who would have made a great president.

A Dean/Clark ticket would have demolished Team Chimpy.

*sigh*

But that's all speculation now, isn't it?

[xultar]

5. Agreed & a Clark/Dean ticket as well. I think Dean and Clark will talk &

I have a feeling with Dean as the DNC chair and Clark as a candiate they will totally ROCK THE HOUSE!!!

[NeoTraitors]

6. Clark is turning heads.

He turned mine. I am a lazy 'yellow dog' dem. I only started following politics hardcore in the monthes leading up to the election.
Thus I paid no attention to the dem primaries.

I wish I had tuned in earlier cuz General Clark speaks to me like no other politician. I plan to do whatever I can to make Wesley Clark the next President OTUS.

[xultar]

7. That is exactly how it was for me. He was the first candidate I ever

pulled out the wallet for.

Beyond the fact that he is awesome. I wonder why and what it was that he did that no other candidate could do.

[wesrose]

29. I think its his intelligence and passion.

Some people just don't get it. But we'll have another chance in 2008.

[umtalal]

8. EXACTLY MY THOUGHT!!!!

Clark for President and Dean for Chairman. YAHOO, anyone?

[Adelante]

10. Works for me

:thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

11. With Dean running for and hopefully winning DNC chair

clark might have to be my guy in 2008. Of course, if Dean doesn't win the chair and decides to give it another go in '08, then I gotta go with DEAN!

[Adelante]

26. Perfectly understandable

and understood. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Thanks for posting this....

Much appreciated it.

Clark is an Honest, thoughtful, articulate, intelligent, fair, and good man!

Clark is someone that none of the GOP powers-that-be would expect or want rising from our ranks....a great leader who can kick ass on National Security (the GOP calling card) and clearly explain Democratic principles to their own rank and file.

The RNC and the media were and are betting against Dems picking Clark, as they take for granted that Democrats are not that smart about winning. They bet we would be afraid to put up a real intellectual fighter that also happened to big a great military strategist. They think that they have the Democrats pegged down tight, exactly in the box they want them in. That Democrats would never do such a thing as unexpected as nominating a General...cause it seemed so obvious.

They never expected to see Clark rise from our voices. The media brought him down last time....but we can make him rise back to the top....where he belongs!

Who needs a politician when we can have a real leader, with balls, no less?

[pauliedee]

52. Kerry still strongest democrat

John Kerry should run in 2008. He left the campaign with a classy speech and people will remember that. Then he didn't disappear like Fat Al Gore. He's still got my respect!

I like Clark a lot but he is inexperienced on economic issues. He would be a good VP or top cabinet position. John Kerry is still the best man for the job....

KERRY 2008!!!!

[haypops]

61. Economic issues, you jest

Clark has a masters degree in Economics from Oxford University where he attended as a Rhodes Scholar. Also he worked in the Whitehouse in the Office of Management and Budget. Upon his retirement from 34 years in the Army (more budgeting than you can shake a stick at) he became an investment banker and is on the board of Directors of numerous Corporations.

Kerry's economic qualifications on the other hand are limited to gross mishandling of 15 million dollars raised by the grass roots ending his campaign for the presidency with that amount unspent on his own campaign or that of other needy Democrats.

[ZootSuitGringo]

13. Great interview.

long and very detailed. He really does have a lot of knowledge under his belt.

I like him more and more.

[autorank]

14. He was, is, and will be my candidate. The guy is great! Welcome aboard

[Clarkie1]

15. I'm listening to interview now...so nice to hear Clark in an in depth

interview that's not "made for t.v."

We live on a fragile planet. It's so clear to me that the U.S. must take a responsible leadership role in the world community and respect the world commmunity, especially in this century. We need people like Clark that understand the complexity of where we are in leadership roles. People that understand other nations, cultures, history, and how we got to where we are today and where we need to go. Leaders that inspire not just oursevles as Americans but also leaders of other nations and the world.

World leaders like Clark don't come around very often.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/talkcity/index.shtml#
Go down to Feb 2, 2005. Click to listen.

[mattclearing]

16. I don't think he was ready for primetime last year,

but if he comes back, I'll support him. Last time he seemed like a Clinton-endorsed Stop Dean stealth candidate to me.

If he runs against Hillary, I'll know he's for real. I could support him or Russ Feingold pretty easily.

This is all assuming Dean doesn't run.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Tasteblind, in thinking about what you have just written, let me ask you..

Did you know that Jimmie Carter had asked Clark to run? Many folks (in particular Dean supporters) have called Clark Clinton's Stealth candidate.....but do you think he was also Carters'? What about the 70,000 who wrote him letters asking (I begged) him to run. Do you think that they had Dean on their minds more than Bush? Why give so much credit to Howard Dean and so little credit to George Bush when asking who did Democrats want to beat?

If you listen in at about 33 minutes in that radio interview.....Clark discusses how he came into the race.

Please take these facts into consideration when speaking of a stealth candidate: There were plenty of Democrats that didn't think Howard Dean could win a General Election, including the majority of voters in Iowa. Did that make them all anti-Dean or "wanting to win the general election" Democrats?

I don't think that those running against Dean, including Clark, were part of any covert conspiracy plot against Dean.....I just think that this was about real politics, and considering that this was supposed to be one of the most important election in our lifetime....all Democrats (including Clark and Dean) wanted to win this election.

Remember the Debate question posed to all of the candidates...."Do you believe that Howard Dean can beat George Bush?" Do you remember that Howard Dean was the only one to raise his hand? Now, why was that? Having to beat Dean was a bi-product of a much larger goal, because Howard Dean was the "front runner". Labeling Clark the Anti-Dean because Clark wanted to get rid of George Bush just as badly as anyone is a backward way of looking at what the election was truly all about to begin with.

The "stealth" theory might serve Howard Dean well.....but I think that it erroneously gives priority and places more importance on Howard Dean than deserved. What were the elections truly about? The elections were not about stopping Dean...but about beating Bush...pure and simple.

I believe that Clark was the anti-Bush candidate. There were plenty of Folks such as BartCop, Mediawhoresonline.com, the Moderate Independent, Josh Marshall, Gene Lyons, George McGovern, Michael Moore, Mario Cuomo, Kevin Drum, Charlie Rangel....and a host of others, who all backed Clark, not Dean, and who were very concerned about beating George Bush.

You see, this is the real complication in dealing with the "stealth candidate" theory. The fact that many, many Democrats were much more interested in beating Bush than in messing up Howard Dean's political aspirations.

I guess that those supporting Howard Dean could interpret Wes Clark as getting in Howard Dean's way.....but that's a bit self-serving and convenient IMO....to think that Clark ran mainly to stop Dean as opposed to beating Bush. This theory is just not a rational one. No one would put themselves and their family thru what Clark did just to stop another Democrat. His character was assailed, his integrity constantly questioned....yet you think he did all of this to stop Howard Dean?

What IS certain, and what I think that we can both agree on, is that any candidate would have had to beat ALL of the other Democrats in the race in order to run against Bush....including Howard Dean.

[mattclearing]

19. I thought we settled all this, Frenchie.

I'm just saying what I thought last year. Before you schooled me. It's all better now.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I understand what you are saying tasteblind....

But there are many, to this day, that really are convinced that Clark was the anti-Dean stealth candidate...

and I guess that one could look at it that way if one really wanted to.

This post was really for those folks....To give them the other perspective.

you just gave me an excuse to post my opinion on that whole matter, As I had never really articulated my thoughts on this particular issue. LOL!

[CalifSherry]

64. Very well put, Frenchie Cat

It's time to build alliances among the Dean and Clark partisans. Among all the partisans. Being thoughtful about our interpretations of what happened is part of the alliance building. Separating our own speculation from verifiable fact is a good step. As is refraining from the use of labels that further divide.

[ZootSuitGringo]

18. I remember the primaries of 1992

when Bill Clinton ran. He didn't come into the race until November of 1991, later than Gen. Clark did this time, I think. There would have been a front runner before Clinton decided to run. Yet, Clinton was never called the anti anything. Why did Clinton come into the race so late? Was it because he was also a stealth candidate? Did Jerry Brown and his supporters call Clinton the antiBrown? I don't remember hearing that.

The antiDean theory helps supporters of Dean explain why Dean lost. But it really doesn't. Dean was not the frontrunner because of votes that he got. The media was the one calling Howard the frontrunner, and labeling Gen. Clark the antiDean, but that didn't make those labels true. The media and the voters is why Howard Dean lost the primaries. I think that Wes Clark has become a scapegoat for that loss though.

[mattclearing]

20. I know why Dean lost for the most part. Gen Clark had little part in it.

He wasn't as solid a candidate as Kerry was.

Dean said a lot of stupid things, zigged when he should have zagged in the lead-up to Iowa, and generally had a shoddy operation, outside of fundraising.

General Clark was a victim of media bias and suffered from a general perception of inexperience as a campaigner.

I'd appreciate it if you not condescend to me about Dean. I'm well-aware of his strengths and weaknesses.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Well-said, tasteblind. This long Clark interview is marvelous.

I just listened to it and am ready for 2008, if he decides to run.

Now lets'all move forward and beat some Bush.

[Maestro]

23. Another Clarkie here

I really can't add anything else except that everytime he opens his mouth, I say, "That is how I feel." If I say that enough, he's my candidate.

[visceral]

24. Sharpton's the man for me.

:D Al Sharpton all the way! Just get him riled up and watch him work.

[stackhouse]

25. as a clarkie i gladly welcome you interest and support!!

[SW FL Dem]

27. I was an early Clark supporter. I really like and respected him when

I heard him at the FL Dem convention. Unfortunately, he got into the race a little late and once Kerry took Iowa, his momentum was stalled. I hope he continues to be involved in politics. I loved his positions on almost every issue. Wish more people had gotten to know him.

[wesrose]

28. They will. It sounds like a dream I know. But they will.

[umtalal]

31. For those who thanked me, you are welcome. I liked Dean & Clark

I donated to both of their campaigns. But I did not get a glimpse of the General as much as that interview did to me. I did not want to leave my car.

I think that he does it for me as a candidate in 2008.

Let us hope.

[ABaker]

32. Nice idea, but

it is difficult for someone to go from the military straight to the Presidency. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower did it, but it wasn't easy.

To use an analogy, would you hire someone fresh out of college as the CEO of a large organization? (which is what a president is) or would hire someone who has worked for that company for awhile?

My point is going through the biographies of past Presidents shows the vast majority of them were either Governors, Vice Presidents or members of Congress first. I don't think that's a coincidence. I think most people want a president who held a lesser political office so that they would know how things work.

[ClarkUSA]

43. If in four years there is still a multi-front war in the Middle East...

with no end in sight (and a possible draft), thousands more dead and tens of thousands more wounded, with the hugely-charismatic and popular Sen. McCain as the likely GOP nominee, we might want to field a strong wartime leader of our own. Checkmate.

And it's not as if being head of NATO Allied Forces is not a top-level executive branch office on a par with being a Head of State with hundreds of thousands of dependents with the same oversight duties as a governor.

We don't know what four years of Bush will bring, but if it's anything like the last four years, it can and will get worse, especially if we enter into a three-front war with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to get to those huge untapped oil and gas fields in Iran.

[cosmokramer]

44. Being the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO isn't political enough?

The General held together a coalition of 19 nations during a WAR, and the position of SACEUR is a political position. Give me a four star general (there is no institution more political than the military) who was SACEUR (SAC of Europe), NATO Commander-in-Chief, full-control of the South Command (South America), over a senator with six years experience anyday (i.e. Edwards).

Being promoted through the ranks to General is record time is infinitely more difficult than winning a general election. Clark is more than qualified.

:-)

[erpowers]

33. Russell Feingold

I am looking at Russell Feingold for 2008. I think a Feingold/Clark ticket would be a good thing.

[BamaLefty]

34. 2004 Was His Year

Condi would crush him. Instead of 9/10 going for us, it would be like 7/10.

I'm sorry... and I know that some of you won't like this. But I don't feel like working my ass off for a campaign that I don't think can win the election. IMHO.

[ICantBelieve]

40. Condi would crush him?? NOT!!! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

65. You've got that totally backwards

2004 was Kerry's year.

Clark came in one year late. He's in the think tank oven, and will be ready to win the war that will be the 2008 presidential election.

Here's a tidbit!
The Note reports:
Spotted on Capitol Hill yesterday: Wes Clark, speaking, according to a source who was there, to a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers with a national security bent. Clark gave an upbeat account of the Party's fight to forge policy alternatives to President Bush's plans. He urged Democrats to stop talking about exit strategies and timelines and focus on how to win in Iraq.

He also joined Leaders Reid and Pelosi for a closed-door meeting of their newly announced National Security Advisory Group, including bold-faced names Perry and Albright.

They frame this as an early, early, early look at the '08 field which is very Note of them. The important thing here, though, is less that Wesley Clark was on the Hill than that his appearance attracted a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers eager to here what he had to say. This seems to indicate to me that the National Security Advisory Group concept will actually go somewhere, with its members actually doing stuff, and staffers and legislators actually paying some attention. Ezra Klein is right to say that the politics of security are largely about image (the politics of everything are), but the important thing to note is that you can't just whip up some issues and an "image" cooked to order when it comes time to run a presidential campaign. You need to have some idea of what it is you're trying to market, and some experience with various people actually trying to market it. And perhaps most important of all, one key element of "image" is not looking uncomfortable discussing these topics, and one easy way to do that is to actually be comfortable and confident that you know what you're talking about and understand where you want to take the country.
March 15, 2005 | Permalink
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/03/signs_of_li ...
Original story:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156 ...

[Schema Thing]

35. The man makes disciples whenever he does a long format interview

radio, town hall, informal speaches, you name it....

All he has to do is keep doing this, and 2004's momentum will pale in comparison.

His story, his knowledge, will win over most of the people who hear it, in my guess-timation.

[momknowsbest]

36. doesn't have what it takes...

..too many skeletons in the closet that hold him back emotionally!

[car54whereareyou]

37. Sounds like psychobabble to me.

Please explain.

[ICantBelieve]

39. No skeletons

There are no skeleton's in Wes's closet. What would make you say such a thing?

[cosmokramer]

45. WTF? Skeletons? Puh-leeze...the man is as clean as a whistle!

[Claire Beth]

38. I supported Clark in 2004....

got his autograph and had my picture made with him. I think he is by FAR the best candidate....but 2008 is a long time away...WAY TOOOOO LONGGGGGGG!

[Lena inRI]

41. To all Clark leaners and bashers alike. . .

to know him is to love him.

Instead of my persuasions, let his own ideas speak to you from his online 2004 position papers. . .but you have to take the time to read them. . .no fudging.
http://clark04.com/issues/

And as for so-called skeletons in his closet, Clark would answer you dead-on so ask him about those skeletons some of the above claim he has. (new website shortly to combine Wespac and Clark Community Network or CCN: for now http://www.forclark.com/)

Clark/Boxer or Clark/Gregoire 2008 thrills me!

:thumbsup:

[jen4clark]

42. Very happy to hear that umtalal!!

I never paid attention to politics until I saw Michael Moore in Fall '03 and he talked about General Clark. From there I joined a Clark meetup group and for the first time in my life I found myself actively working, campaigning and promoting someone I truly believed was worthy of my total trust. The more I learned about him, the more hopeful I became about the future of our country.

It's true at first he wasn't well versed in the "game" of politics (which to me was a good thing), but you could see how quick he learned. Now when someone tries to interrupt him, he calmly and without hesitation goes on with his point - stating Facts. One of the many things I love is how he can take any issue, no matter how complex and explain it in a way that anyone can understand.

I've met him a couple times and you can feel and see that he's a good person. Through his inspiration, my life is totally changed. I would never have thought my my 40's that I would have gotten so entrenched in politics, but through his example I am encouraged and motivated to write letters, emails, call in to talk shows, just let my voice be heard and speak "Facts".

Above all he is a shining example of something he always says which is "when you can do good, you should."

:yourock:

[Siyahamba]

46. He'll be 63 by Election Day 2008

I hope he's still up to running. But then John Kerry is about the same age and a lot of people are counting on him running too.

[DemDogs]

47. Edwards will be 55 and a movement behind him

I really think Edwards is our best bet both on our historic core principles and on electorally. With Dean actually giving us a Democratic presence in the red states BEFORE election year, and Edwards motivating people of all stripes in his moral crusade against poverty (1 in 5 children, 1 in 8 Americans right now), we have a winner among us.

[ZootSuitGringo]

48. I wish that poverty was the only thing to deal with in 2008,

But without any governmental money to spend, I think we need someone that can come into the WH and take a close look at what the pentagon is spending. I don't think that Edwards would have that kind of juice.

I guess dreaming doesn't cost you anything, but a National Security lightweight will not be elected in 2008. Sure, Edwards might run, and he might even win the nomination, but he won't win the presidency.

I'll be willing to work for Clark. I have real problems with Edwards. If he hadn't voted for that damn war that has sucked our treasury dry, we might have some money for poverty today!

[janx]

49. 63? That's nothing.

Clark could even run in 2012 if he wanted to. So could Kerry.

[woodsprite]

50. I'm teaching my 4yo "Clark/Boxer 2008".

I gotta teach him to stop saying "* is our president and we're stuck with him for another 4 years." and "The bad guy cheated and Kerry lost". I'm sure that won't go over well on those mandatory psych tests * wants to start in schools in July.

[jenoah]

56. A brilliant combination

would be Clark as president, and Hilary as VP. This would include Hilary in the White House bid, yet as VP, the smearing and polarizing factor could be abated. This could set her up in 2012 or 2016 for prez after being VP!

Clark would be such a wonderful choice. I wish other Democrats would stop stereotyping him once they hear "military man". He has proven to not fit in any mold, or any stereotype. He is just a one-of-kind progressive leader that this country needs after suffering 8 years of Bush and Co.

[okieinpain]

58. I'm completely in awe of his wife. she would make a great first

lady.

[ProgressiveConn]

59. He should be running for Arkansas Governor in 2006. And if he wins...

then we should talk. Is there any reason he SHOULDN'T run for gov?

[ZootSuitGringo]

62. Clark doesn't need to run for Governor

unless he thinks that's what he should do. Arkansas already has an excellent Democratic candidate running, and the GOP will put a Rockefeller. Clark doesn't need to run for Governor in 2006, if he wants to run for Prez in 2008. There would not be enough time for him to govern properly, as the Prez primaries would be starting shortly after he would be taking an oath in Arkansas.

To waste this democratic gift who is an expert on national security and foreign relations on running a small state, when he has already ran a much larger organization as he did while Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, is asinine (but a good excuse for his detractors).

I recommend that if you would choose not to vote for him because you think he needs to be a politician before becoming the leader of this country, so be it. Personally, I prefer a leader. Politicians come a dime a dozen.

Peace!

[CalifSherry]

63. Campaigned for both Clark and Kerry

When Wes withdrew and threw his support behind Kerry, I followed suit. I worked long and hard: mobilized volunteers, raised money, chaired a committee that took on both local GOTV and swing state support from Marin County, CA. We (along with our many allies) increased registration by 8.7% (12,000) and turned out 89.4% of the registered population (up 5% from 2000). Our swing state mobilization made 125,000+ calls and, in the final week, became the phone bank for several counties of Russ Feingold's successfull Wisc. campaign. (They released their local people to canvass.)

In the end, Kerry lost me. He lost me by not keeping faith re making sure every vote was counted. By not using his GELAC funds to do what he promised. He lost me by making a 19th century gentlemanly concession speech way too early. He lost me by listening to political dinosaurs that clearly didn't understand the sea change in the grassroots. He lost me by not fighting nearly hard enough. Just recently, at a "thank you" event in San Francisco, he lost me by seeming out of touch with reality and ready to run again.

Prior to the CA primary, I spent an evening in a room with Wes Clark and about 80 people. Very smart, well informed people asking touch questions. Clark was magnificent. Not only did he reach people's minds; he touched their hearts. Certainly reached me.

Great promise there. A true public servant. I hope I have the chance to work for him again.

[RaRa]

66. I was an early supporter

and still like him. But does he have the political savvy to really win on a national level? I know he's politically astute, but I'm thinking about beating the GOP cartel. Does he really have what it takes? I'd like to hear from people who have heard more from him recently.

on edit: meant to reply to 1st message re: Clark.