Binary poll: Gore or Clark as our 2008 presidential candidate?

[Guaranteed]

I'm not throwing in anyone else. IMO, these are the two with the best shot (at least at the moment).

At this point, who would you rather see as our nominee?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I like Gore well enough,

but unfortunately he carries the stench of the loser, even though he doesn't actually deserve it. And, worse, he exhibited the extraordinarily bad judgment of having selected Joe Loserman as his running mate. I'm not sure he can recover from either problem.

[Guaranteed]

2. I don't think having had Loserman as his running-mate is too much

of a problem, but you're right about the "loser" stench. That's his biggest problem.

However, I don't think that's nearly as big of a problem as the one that many Democrats created for themselves over the past few years with all the capitulation.

[KBlagburn]

11. If nixon can overcome "loser".

any body can

[mattclearing]

55. Yeah, and that turned out great. n/t

[Cha]

123. Exactly! I was just thinking about

nixon coming back..but then was it even worth it for him?

[Democrat Dragon]

3. Gore: wooden block, Clark: General

When it comes to "selling yourself to the people", image is everything.

(note: I am not dissing Gore, I'm just telling you his public image)

[Guaranteed]

5. Gore's really changed, though.

I don't think he's the same guy as he was in 2000.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Maybe he could make a big comeback

I'd be happy with either one. :) I think Gore does have the "whiney loser" thing the republicans will use against him. But he was flat out against the Iraq war (I remember his speech on this on CSPAN) and he probably has changed since 2000 as we all do. He's probably learned a lot recently too since 2000 and how things are done. Maybe it's good he's not in the public eye so that way, if he does run in 2008, he will make a big comeback. Has he said anything yet about 2008 that's official?

[Guaranteed]

10. I dunno, I've just seen some people talking about it around here.

Gore's still pretty popular with Democrats. And, he does have a lot of the executive experience that Clark doesn't have. After all, he was VP during possibly the best 8 years the United States ever had.

[pbartch]

224. I LOVE GORE. Wish Clinton could run again!!!!!!!

[Guaranteed]

238. Me too.

But at the moment, Gore has 125 votes vs. Clark's 221.

[AlGore-08.com]

12. No, it's too early for anybody to say anything official

But according to several reports by the MSM he is considering it strongly, and feels that the political winds have changed - - the same populism that the party machine bashed him for in 2000 and 2002 is the direction that the party is moving.

The odds are very, very good that he will run. And he'll win again.

[Guaranteed]

20. Wow!

:)

That's really something. Thanks for that.

[Clarkie1]

31. I'll be frank: Gore does not have the charisma to win.

He doesn't connect with mainstream America. He's wooden.

Now, I'm the last person to believe we should choose candidates based solely on thier public charisma, but there is a certain minimal threshold.

Gore doesn't have it, and this is coming from someone who was a big Gore supporter even before the 2000 run. He writes great books, though.

People are not going to want to rerun the 2000 election (or at least a part of it).

[Cha]

124. Gore isn't the "same guy"..but

the lazy-ass fascist press would paint him as such..not that they would give any Dem a true picture. I think Gore didn't run in 2004 because he didn't want to put his family through that fascist press cycle again.

[Guaranteed]

176. This is true. And it would be up to Gore to counter-act that via

a strong, clear message.

The message is the only thing that can get through, all things being equal, with the way the media is today.

[BlueInRed]

257. yeah, unfortunately, he would have to turn around his image

in the mainstream media before a lot of people would be willing to renominate him. I love the guy, but I recognize he already has an established image in the media that would have to be reversed.

[Downtown Hound]

4. Clark

Nothing against Gore, but I think Clark has a better chance. Give him a good progressive running mate such as Barbara Boxer, and you have a powerful team there.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. That's a nice ticket too

I think Clark and Boxer are powerful in their own rights. Boxer is a straight shooter who isn't afraid to stand up (as in the Rice hearings and Ohio) and Clark is a General. :)

[JaneQPublic]

90. There's a major problem with Clark that everyone is overlooking:

His presidential campaign would be hounded by the "Supreme Allied Commander Vets For Truth."

[FrenchieCat]

98. The difference is, however,

that Clark's role as SACEUR was very recent, and there are many reporters who covered Kosovo in totality who still work in the media today. If you have read various articles from the mainstream press written at the time, e.g, The Unappreciated General; The General who did too good a job, General Clark, he was right and so now he must go; Warriors Reward; etc, etc, etc (see http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm to read these MSM articles) you can conclude that General Wesley Clark and his accomplishments would stand up to any scrutiny.

So too is the fact that there have been books written about the subject of Kosovo, and Clark's role is out there, already written in hard copy by many credible sources. My point? The type of documentation that is out there shows Clark as an able leader and the story of his feat is not considered "ancient undocumented history" by any means...as opposed to Kerry's "the word of one vs. the others" situation. We are talking about 1999-2000, not 1968....i.e., relatively recent.

While Kerry's story was 35+ years ago was bound to be murky, and there was trouble proving the Tidy Bowl Vets wrong, I don't see there being a problem in proving that Clark was a brilliant strategist during the Kosovo War.

The disagreements that Clark did have with the pentagon, was because he felt that putting boots on the ground, instead of bombing a la coward, would be more effective in avoiding the loss of innocent lives. Iraq, and the way that it is going, really makes that whole disagreement moot anyway.....

The fact that he received medals from 16 countries in direct relations with Kosovo would also go a long way. Further, Clark received the Medal of Freedom after his retirement. So whatever Tidy Kosovo bowl there might be, it would get blown out of the water.

Please remember that we won Kosovo, and with no American US soldiers lost.

If you want to know about the World War III issue, please let me know, so that I can clear that one up as well.

(edited to include link on MSM Kosovo/Clark stories written 1999-2000)

[Guaranteed]

99. Practically the entire Pentagon was against him.

You don't think they'd do exactly the same thing?

He got FIRED, for Christ's sake!

[Auntie Bush]

101. Not because he did anything wrong...but to make way for William

Cohan's buddy. Cohan was jealous of Clark and revengeful. It had nothing to do about losing ones job due to incompetance...but had everything to do personality/cronyism/jealousy. Cohan was a F***** asshole and resented Wes for having access to Clinton.

PS He didn't get fired!!!! (Don't be a loony bull goose) He was retired a few months early due to military political reasons.

[Guaranteed]

103. Yes, and I'm sure that's how the RW media will spin it. nt

[FrenchieCat]

105. Clark did not get fired - Why are you so misinformed?

Who information have you been reading about Wes Clark????

Here are the facts,and only the facts:
Actually Clark was retired 3 months early,not fired.
Actually, Clark won a war, for Christ's sake.
Actually, Clark Won it without losing a single American Soldier's life.
Actually, Clark was decorated by 16 countries for his achievement.
Actually, Clark received the Medal of Freedom by the President at the time.
Actually, the only Pentagon that was against him were Republican Sec of Defense Cohen and General Shelton. They wanted only bombing from high altitutes, because they were afraid of casualties. Clark wanted Boots on the Ground and low flying Apaches, because he wanted to avoid unnecessary deaths of innocents. He finally got the apaches.
Actually, Clark, instead of being a yes man, insisted on being heard in regard to avoiding the deaths of civilians.

Actually, here are the decorations he received from various nations who recognized his strategic genius FOR KOSOVO:
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm

US Defense Secretary William Cohen congratulates Gen. Clark after presenting him the Defense Distinguished Service Medal at a Pentagon ceremony, September 24, 1999


General Clark was awarded 'Commandeur de la Légion d'honneur' by the Minister of Defence, Mr. Alain Richard. It is the first time in almost 25 years that a Supreme Allied Commander Europe was granted this high

Cleland to sponsor Congressional Gold Medal for General Wesley Clark
Free-standing bill to honor Kosovo leader has support of 67 Senators

WASHINGTON, DC— U.S. Senator Max Cleland today announced that he will sponsor a bill to award General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. Cleland had originally offered this measure as an amendment to the FY 2001 Defense Authorization bill, but because of procedural requirements, has decided to offer a free-standing bill to make the award.

"General Clark led the NATO forces to a decisive victory in the skies over Kosovo," Cleland said. "He was the point person for a radically different type of war and combat, with a multi-national force and a multi-national set of leaders to gain consensus from. This is the new breed of combat for the 21st Century, and the General mastered it with the highest possible military standards."

[Guaranteed]

107. LOL Frenchie...

Frenchie, Frenchie, Frenchie....

You think that's the way it'll play out in the media?

You remember what we were just talking about?

Kerry's record was more solid than that. No one could say that Kerry got fired.

[FrenchieCat]

110. Kerry's record was more solid than What?

You mean the Purple heart bandaids?

Or voted for before voting against?

The documentation that I provide is FROM THE MEDIA!

I think that yours is wishful thinking. I suggest that you read the links that I provided instead of being so busy laughing. You may not want to know what documentation is out there written in WAPO, Outlook and other mainstream media....but it's out there. Sorry.

[Guaranteed]

115. Kerry's medals were all entirely legitimate.

This man was a WAR HERO- just like Wes Clark.

Only Kerry didn't have the whole Pentagon against him- although, yes, he made enemies. But no enemies THAT high up, with that kind of credibility. And certainly not even in the same quantity as Clark, although, again, in very high quantity.

And there is that last thing, too.

You know, the more I think about it, the more similar Clark and Kerry's war records become. Ganged up on by their peers/colleagues. Very well accomplished, yet ripe to be torn down. Misunderstood even though they were in the right. Solid Americans betrayed by those surrounding them, because of that fact.

It's a common theme for Democrats. And for more than just those two.

[FrenchieCat]

117. You misunderstood me....

I am not saying that Kerry was not a war hero from back in the late '60s, he was. And you are right, Clark got the exact same decorations for his 4 wounds in Vietnam. Clark got all 4 bullets at one time, and took a year to learn to walk and shake hands again....so there is some difference in the severerity of the wounds. Plus, those under Clark's command do not dispute the events on the day that he was shot.

But that is were any similarity ends.

Clark did not protest the Vietnam war, the GOP's sore point, and the reason d'etre for the Swift Tidy bowlers. Clark stayed in the army and helped rebuild it after the devastation left from Vietnam. He did write his thesis on the Vietnam war which was pretty damming but very detailed and accurate.

Clark went on to negotiate peace at the Dayton Accords, Plan, lead and win the only Nato War. Kerry did not do this.

Clark's enemy are not as numerous as you wish they were. There were two; Shelton and Cohen, period.

Now, if you can name me so more, please do so, and also show me how they are enemies of Clark.

Further, I feel that you have not read the links that I have taken the time to provide within my posts...and I am starting to feel that you started this thread to get to a determined path...which is not where the thread is going. To some degree, I feel that you are being disingenious... That's not cool, and I am a bit dissappointed in your approach.

[Guaranteed]

119. LOL now you're REALLY cracking me up.

What fucking "determined path" could I have possibly had in starting this poll?

It's a legitimate poll, with, IMO, PERFECT premises. These are the two men, at the moment, with the best shot. You disagree, find me someone who has a better shot than one of them. Good luck.

And, unfortunately, you missed the whole point of this particular threadline. The point is the RW media, Frenchie, and what they do to Democrats' stellar war records. I wasn't even referring to Clark's Vietnam record. Why you would think I was, I have no idea. We were talking about Kosovo, remember?

Let's spell it out real clear: The media will do EXACTLY the same thing to Clark as I am able to do right now. They don't have to "look at your links." They don't have to give praise for all the great things Clark did. All they have to do is get a half-million dollars together, write a book called "Clark's Treason in Kosovo," and send a couple of Clark's colleagues to CNN to talk shit about him, while declaring that there were hundreds behind them feeling EXACTLY the same way. You talk about Shelton and Cohen? Yeah, if Clark runs, you can be DEAD SURE that you will be hearing directly from them, over and over again.

Why would they do anything different than they did in 2004?

It's time for a new strategy from us. Hiding behind military credentials, or credentials at all, for that matter, doesn't work. It never did. It means next to NOTHING- unless your opponents are going to use it against you. Otherwise, people just don't care.

LOOK AT BUSH.

[FrenchieCat]

121. So you are one of the "Safe" fellows?

Scared of what the Right Wing MIGHT do? So maybe you should be looking toward a Republican lite, no?

You don't get that Shelton already disavowed his statement on Clark, and that none of the other brass wanted to comment on it...including Colin Powell.

You don't get that 67 Senators in a MAJORITY REPUBLICAN SENATE recommended the Medal of Freedom for Wes Clark.

You want to imagine the worst scenario, and say.....we are beat! Wes Clark is not a pink tu-tu Democrat who just gonna fall down when he is attacked. That's what you don't understand.

On the one hand, you say we need fighters; we need to stand up for what we believe; we need to be strong and hit back....but on the other hand, you are advocating that we shouldn't go with a strong, accomplished Democrat like Clark, because we should be scared as to what the RW media will do and say.

So which is it? Are we gonna stand up and fight....or are we gonna shake in our boots? :scared:

You don't know Wes Clark, and you don't know how he would respond...but I can bet you my bottom dollar, that he wouldn't sit by and wait...to see if it would go way. That's was Kerry's biggest mistake.

I noticed during the last primaries, Clark still ended up doing pretty damn good....even with the smears, and the ignores. He could not be ignored in a General election, which is what you fail to see. Winning a war is not a liability to Nascar dads. Not being a "Yes" man in the military is not a liability to progressives.

What I know is that WES is a fighter, and he has and will continue to kick GOP ass....and he would have plenty of back up, if he won the nomination.

Even Colonel Hackworth took back his famous comment about Clark being a "perfumed Prince"....saying that once he met Clark, he realized that he had been WRONG.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
I've been constantly asked, "Hack, what do you think of the general?"
For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."

It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn't quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post – a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.

I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.

His response: "I wanted to serve my country."
snip
For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.

No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

There is a great big difference between Clark's record and his actions...and what happened with Kerry 35+ years ago record and his actions, and what the Republicans would be able to invent.

[Guaranteed]

122. I'm not "scared" of anything. I'm telling you EXACTLY what they'll do.

And of course I HOPE that Clark would counter-attack, forcefully. But do you even realize that Kerry DID try to counter-attack?

The problem is that the media doesn't always play along with that. Sometimes, the RWers even play tricks on those who are one OUR side (see Dan Rather and CBS News).

You're still missing the point, because you're still basing his entire campaign around his military record. YOU HAVE TO GET OFF THE "GENERAL" SHIT.

IT'S A DISTRACTION. It doesn't MEAN anything.

Would you have rather had Kerry spend three months talking about Vietnam, or three months talking about how Bush fucked up our national security so badly?

So, do you want Clark talking about Kosovo? Because that's all they're going to let him talk about.

You want Clark? Start talking about his POSITIONS. Give him some depth. AVOID the military shit. It doesn't do anything helpful! It's only a liability!

It's only a liability! *skip* It's only a liability! *skip* It's only a liability! *skip*....

[FrenchieCat]

125. Perfect....I think

Kosovo, the last won war by the US and NATO, with no US Casualties and approx 500 civilian deaths (I ain't cheering this mind you)
versus
The Iraq War, 1500 Soldier dead, 10,000+ wounded, 100,000 Iraqis dead, 200+ BILLION in sunk in the black hole, troups without what they require.

I say yes.....let's contrast and compare.

Clinton's Kosovo war against Genocide vs. Bush's Iraq War for Oil and PNAC

That debate would be welcomed to all Americans....

and would let them see the funky manner in which Bush and his Republican Cabal have handled this war.

I believe you have stumbled on a winner for the Democrats in this one.

Dems Weak on Defense, my ass....would be the bottomline analysis that anyone would have to come to.

Thank you.

[Guaranteed]

126. No, no, not the war itself. That's of no importance.

His role in the war. His conflict with the Pentagon. His subsequent "early release" (FIRING, they'll call it). That's what sells newspapers, that's what gets ratings. The new controversial book by Pentagon Generals for Truth.

You know how it'll go.

[FrenchieCat]

127. Actually,

you can be a self defeatist. At this rate, I don't even think you would want Jesus running.

Personally, I don't think you understand Clark's strength. I think you underestimate Clark for some "unknown" reason.

Starting to sound more and more like wishful thinking.

I have given you real distinctions, analysis, examples, etc., etc., but you choose only to ignore anything that I have written.

I hope that discerning readers don't do the same.

I hope they read my posts, without the tint of total pessimism that you choose to interpret Clark.

Wes Clark has already been "branded" as someone that takes not shit and someone that has leadership skills. Nothing you say or do can take that away.

The press is bold, and is certainly biased.... but they are not yet totally insane.

If we listened to you, Dean would not be about to be elected as Chair of the DNC.

If we listened to you, no Democrat should even bother running for office.

I think you are taking it to the extreme....but of course, if Clark looks the worse for it, I guess it's all in a good day's work.

Again, I will maintain, Clark is no Kerry.

But you can continue to insist that all is lost and doom & gloom. LOL!

[Guaranteed]

132. I've said my piece, but you obviously have no idea what I stand for.

You can not seem to understand the distinction I'm making between credentials and policy.

If policy had been the focus of the Democrats in the primaries in 2004, we would have had an entirely different outcome- one way or another. And I think it would have been for the better.

But you insist on making the same mistake we made last time. You want to hide behind military credentials. I refuse to repeat myself, though.

I'm trying to tell you exactly what would happen...what would HAVE happened with Clark....in a general election run for the presidency. YOU refuse to listen to ME, despite what Kerry saw, and the downright eerie similarities between them.

It is your fear that will not allow you to rest on principle. You want to play games- games which failed, very, very recently. Maybe someday you will wake up.

By the way, for the first nine or ten hours of this poll, Gore was within seven or eight votes of Clark. I returned after about a five hour absence this afternoon, and suddenly there was a 30 vote difference. Since then it's turned to....how many? Wow. 70 votes.

I wonder what happened. That's crazy. 160 votes for Clark. I'm surprised there are even that many DUers that hang out here in GD: P.

;)

[FrenchieCat]

137. Don't know about that.....

It's your poll, not mine. You said earlier that the poll was a good one, so questioning the results now makes little sense....as I said earlier, maybe it's because the predetermined path wasn't followed. Looks like you will just have to take what you can get.

It appears that Clark won the poll. What do you want me to say about it? Sorry about it?

I thought our debate was interesting, enlightning and informative.

The sky is falling per Chicken little vs. informational links, quotes and rational logical retort.

That's what I love about DU.....LOL!

[Guaranteed]

141. Frenchie- everyone saw what happened.

EVERYONE. ;)

Both to Kerry, and to this poll. They all know.

Your avalanche of irrelevant links doesn't even begin to address what I'm saying. They know that, too. You're deliberately avoiding the point. I'm sorry it had to come to that.

Really, I'm sorry, FrenchieClark.

[FrenchieCat]

150. Again...

You can not be both a player and the judge. Please leave it for others to acertain.

My "irrelevant" links are much more than what you provide. Just because you don't bother to use them, doesn't mean others won't.

Guess that readers should trust your judgement based on what? Your earlier reputation?

I Don't think that DU works that way, and in fact it is my hope that it doesn't. I think that the impartials shall determine who's who...and not you.

Does that make sense...or do you need a link for that as well? Oops, forgot...on your side of the fence, no backup is needed, just a voice that is almost as true and right as the almighty!

Good luck.

[Guaranteed]

152. LOL If you don't understand what I'm saying, you just

haven't been paying attention. That's a nice way of putting it, too.

Open up those eyes, Sleepyhead. It's easier to learn something that way.

[Quixote1818]

169. The difference is Clark stayed with the military and Kerry protested

the military. I don't see a group of "swift boat" types being very effective against someone who dedicated his life to protecting this country. Sure they will attack Clark on all that but I don't see it doing any serious damage. It will show he was a patriot and people expect people in leadership rolls to not get along 100% of the time. It will hurt Clark some but not like the swift boat thing hurt Kerry. Sorry, it's just a very different situation.

[Guaranteed]

175. LOL man....you think they're going to say that when Clark runs?

"Oh, he dedicated his life to protecting his country....we should lay off!" ???

I'm trying to tell you that, as far as Clark is concerned, this has nothing to do with Vietnam. They will do the same thing to Clark regarding Kosovo that they did to Kerry with regard to Vietnam. That's what I'm saying.

Pentagon against Clark. Clark gets "let go" ("fired" RW media). Russians. Clark's a traitor. Yadda yadda yadda. We've heard it all before. A libelous book.

You don't see this???

[ClarkUSA]

189. What do you think they're going to say about Gore?

You're not telling us anything Clarkistas haven't known since Feb. 2004. You aren't listening to what FrenchieCat is saying, which is that you are comparing two men whose lives and instincts are juxtapositioned at 180 degree angles.

No one will be exempt from character assassination by the GOP. The striking difference is that Republicans do not attack their own.

[Quixote1818]

213. Sure I see it and it will do some damage but not as much as the swift

boats did to Kerry. Look, Michael Moore put out a movie ALL about the crap that Bush has done and Bush still got elected. In the end it will come down to how well Clark does on the stump and in the debates however his carrier in the military is more of a plus than a negative which I don't think you understand. Their is going to be dirt on everyone including Clark but I still don't see it damaging Clark as much as the swift boaters hurt Kerry. After all, we lost zero American lives in Kosovo which is a far cry of what we are seeing in Iraq. Were their problems in Kosovo with Clark? Probably. Was Clark successful in Kosovo? ABSOLUTELY! Thats the difference! The end result.

[Skwmom]

256. Have you ever heard of backlash?

Trying to go after someone of Clark's stature and caliber won't be so easy.

[car54whereareyou]

191. So when you don't like poll results

do you always assume they are inacurate? As a new DU member, I am offended by your implication that I am somehow suspect because I voted in a poll here.

[ClarkUSA]

202. Deanial ain't just a river in VT

Welcome to DU, car54whereareyou.

:toast:

[car54whereareyou]

205. Thanks for the welcome,

fellow Clarkie. Delighted to see your greats posts here!

[ClarkUSA]

178. 160 votes for the best Democrat to beat the sh*t out of the GOP in 2008

Perhaps some of the 1.5 million Albanians General Clark saved from genocidal ethnic-cleansing at the hands of Serbs and their Hitler-admiring leader Slobidan Milosevic are members at DU. Maybe they take time out of their days to make sure they support the man who saved their lives and the lives of all their families and friends.

Just maybe. Po?

Mirupafsham.

:smoke:

People come home from work or school and vote. It's that simple. And we like
General Wesley Clark.

Kuptoj?

[FrenchieCat]

133. What's funny

is that you would separate the war from the man that won that war.

I think that's gonna be a hard one to do.

67 Senators (that's more than a super majority--in a majority republican Senate) endorsed Clark receiving a Medal of Freedom. Those Senators didn't give that medal to the War....they gave it to Clark. And this was after he was retired.

Clark received decorations from 16 countries. No, the war did'nt receive 16 medals....Clark did.

Hackworth spoke glowingly of Clark in that article that I posted. No, he didn't speak glowingly of Kosovo....he spoke Glowingly of Clark.
-------------------------
These praises said...were not said about the war, they were said about? Guess? yes, you've got it....about Clark:

Op-ED: Military Colleagues Adm. Larson & Lt. Gen. Christman Praise Clark
http://tinyurl.com/28cec
"As former superintendents of the United States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, it was our job to teach young cadets and midshipman about the demands of 21st century leadership. Clark's actions throughout the Kosovo conflict, culminating in his testimony at the Hague Tribunal, could form a chapter in manuals on modern character-based military leadership...

Admiral Chuck Larson, served as superintendent of the Naval Academy for seven years. Lieutenant General Dan Christman served for five years as the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Both men recently retired."
____________________________________________________________

General Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Gen Clark at
West Point, preceded him as J-5 on the Joint staff,
and was commanding general of a division which trained
at the National Training Center when Gen Clark
commanded: " among the five most
talented officers I've met in my life. I think he is a
national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey told the AssociatedPress, "For 34 years,
when there was a tough problem the local leadership
asked Wes Clark to take on the problem. This guy has
been incredibly successful at doing the country's
business."

He also told Knight-Ridder newspapers in October that
General Clark "has great integrity, sound judgment and
great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public
servant of exceptional character and skill."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?

NH Veterans for Clark Newsletter, Dec 14, 2003
General John Shalikavili, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of staff when Gen Clark served as CINC Southern
Command and when he was assigned as SACEUR: "Clark has
an infinite capacity for hard work and stress...
That's a characteristic of his--he devotes all of his
energies to get the job done and done right.
New York Times, Monday, May 3, 1999, By Elizabeth
Becker

Lieutenant General Don Kerrick, former Deputy National
Security Advisor while Gen Clark was Supreme Allied
Commander, and a member of Gen Clark's staff as J-5:
"I've known Wes Clark for ten years. I worked for him
and worked with him. When I worked for him on the
Joint Staff, I saw that he generously gave credit to
his subordinates and helped them achieve their career
goals. He was an exceptionalleader." LTG Kerrick
continued, "When I worked with him during the
Balkan peace discussions, I witnessed his unique
ability to build coalitions and gain consensus on
difficult issues Wes's energy, perseverance, military
savvy and superb negotiating skills were critical to
getting an agreement."
NH Veterans for Clark Newsletter, Dec 3 2003

Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who was director of
planning at NATO headquarters for Gen Clark: "There is
this aspect of his character --
he is loyal to people he knows are capable and
competent... He is a complex man who does not lend
himself to simplistic formulations.
But he is very competent, and devoted to the
country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21814-2003Sep16¬Found=true

Navy Commander Eric Massa, who was on Gen Clark's
staff at both Southern Command and then at NATO
headquarters, where he was a chief liaison back to
Washington, DC: "If Wes Clark asked me to jump off the
Brooklyn Bridge, I'd ask him if he wanted it done in
the summer or the winter."
http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/112703clark_guy_2003.s
html

Army Major Pat Williams, who was responsible for
readiness for Gen Clark in the 1st Cavalry Division:
"I was in the Army for 12 years before I came to the
1st Cavalry. I encountered leaders of allwalks of
life, but I didn't see a true leader until General
Clark.
He's never shrugged his responsibility as a leader.
He always acted ethically and honorably."

Chief Warrant Officer Cris Hernandez, Clark's Deputy
for Security,
NATO/SHAPE Headquarters: "General Clark is an
extraordinary leader. People trusted him because they
knew that he was honest and a straight shooter. And
there was no mincing words with him. He always
wanted to hear the truth. You didn't put things off.
He wanted to know what had gone wrong so that he could
make corrections and getback on the right track.
"But most of all, General Clark is loyal -- loyal to
his country and to the United States Army, the
organization that brought him up from
West Point cadet to Supreme Allied Commander. I have
worked around a lot of generals, and I can say that
the Boss is one of the best I've ever worked with. He
cared deeply about the soldiers he led, treated all of
us who worked for him with the highest respect, and
served
his country with dedication, courage and honor."

Exeter NH Selectman Lionel Ingram, an upperclassman
when Wesley Clark was a freshman cadet, and later a
fellow West Point instructor in the
Economics Dept: "They're just after him because he's
got a strength and he's not going to give into them," Ingram said.
"The mistreatment is going on, to some degree, because he
refuses to give in to whatever it is he feels is wrong. I think
that's part of his character." Ingram believes the retired four-star
general's long military career makes him the best
candidate to challenge President Bush in 2004. Ingram
said Clark has the "social attitude" to meet the needs
of American citizens and the financial sense to foster
economic growth.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11302003/news/63254.htm

From "American Son":
Theodore P. Hill, roommate at West Point:
BG David Martin, Clark's battalion commander when he
commanded a company in Vietnam, for which he was awarded the
Silver Star and Purple Heart
Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, West Point
classmate:Admiral Charles Lawsen: Colonel William J. Taylor, Jr.
Lieutenant General F. J. (Rick) Brown: Retired Army Captain James Dyer, West Point classmate:

http://www.veteransforclark2004.us/page4.html
Derek
Sgt.
Virginia Beach, Virginia
92-98
Comments - It is wonderful to see the General pushing forward to the White House. I was on his personal security detail at USSOUTHCOM and was able to facilitate safe travel in that AO. When confronted with a new issue he always looked at his XO or ADC and said "Let's get smart on this." This is EXACTLY who we need in the "House", not a person that giggles madly and wastes American lives and taxpayers dollars. The General is a class act andcone of the smartest men that I have had the pleasure to serve under. I fully support a memorial to fallen brothers (and sisters)-in-arms in unrecognized conflicts (Haiti, Somolia, etc) and would love mention of fallen brethern in
our Special Opns Forces who gave their lives in many "training accidents" over the years.

T. Ryan
Rank – SSgt, USMC
City – Boston, Ma
80-84 87-2003
Comments - Prior to joining the Marines I was a 17 year old Soldier in the 1st Bn 77th Armor 4th ID. Then LtCol Clark was my Bn Commander. I can honestly say he was top notch, very well respected by Enlisted and Officers a like and learned a lifetime of respect from myself. A true Soldiers Soldier. Thanks for everything Sir and Semper Fidelis.


TRIPLETT, TAMMI
Rank - SGT/E5 , ARMY
1988-1996
Comments - I was at the NTC while Gen. Clark was the post commander. I admired him them for holding townhall meetings so that he could hear the concerns of the entire community. He was concerned for us then and I believe that he is concerned for us now.

Forrest (Bill) Hilbish
CW04 (Retired)
US Navy
Mogadore, Ohio
1975-1999
Comments - I worked for General Clark while stationed at SCJ6 Current Operations Branch for USSOUTHCOM in Panama. He was an excellent leader and commander. My wife was impressed by the fact that even though there were hundreds of officers working for him, he knew both of our names. He replaced General Barry McCaffrey (Drug Czar for Clinton). I am a Republican but I would vote for the "ONE" Democrat. Good luck General...


Louie Yepez
SPC, ARMY
Long Beach, California
1997-Present

Comments - I first saw Gen. Clark when iwas in Bosnia in 1999 and he
spoke to us in a theater. I always felt he had strong leadership qualities,=

which is why i will support him for 2004! Thank you.


Sam Closkey
Rank - LTC - Army
City - Palm City, FL
1966-1986

I worked with General Clark at the National Training Center. I always thought he would be an excellent president. He was the easiest guy to work for, smart, appreciative, confident and he really cared about people. I am a registered republican, but he's got my vote. How can I help?


Reporting for Duty - Wesley Clark
By David H. Hackworth
9-28-03

With Wesley Clark joining the Democratic presidential candidates, there areenough eager bodies pointed toward the White House to make up a rifle squad. This bunch of wannabes could make things increasingly hot for Dubya - as long as they don't blow each other away with friendly fire. Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, "Hack, what do you think of the general?"

At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's owner. An appealing common touch.

But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.
The address of David Hackworth's home page is Hackworth.com. Sign in for the free weekly Defending America column at his Web site. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts."

© 2003 David H. Hackworth.
_____________

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/elec04.prez.clark.militar
y/

Clark releases stellar military record

"I think what you have to understand about the armed forces, it is a -- it's a competitive bureaucracy. People enter it at the bottom and they come out atthe top. There's a lot of gossip. There are some sharp elbows in there."

And in book, "Waging Modern War," Clark accuses the military chiefs of having a "hidden agenda" and complains about what he calls "overly cautious Pentagon attitudes restraining commanders in the field."
______________

[Guaranteed]

136. You're just missing the point entirely.

Keep re-reading.

[FrenchieCat]

138. If I've missed the point, perhaps is because there isn't one...

[Guaranteed]

143. In your mind, I'm sure there isn't.

Cognitive dissonance in action, folks.

Step right up...see the amazing powers of ignorance that the human mind possesses. Step right up, step right up....

[FrenchieCat]

148. Sounds like a freak show....but

One problem though....ignorance is not a virtue, and one of the players cannot also make himself judge.

You see, the difference in your posts and mine are marked. There can be no denial of that. I speak throught the voices of many via links, quotes, etc.

You speak one voice....and show no links, no real rational beyond certainty based on not much beyond the confines of your mind.

Although both are opinions, one is backed up by fact....while the other via insistence.

I prefer the former.

And I rest my case.

NEXT....

[Guaranteed]

153. Unfortunately for you, the problem is that every single one of your links

are irrelevant.

You're simply not addressing what I'm saying. The point remains, based on first-hand and universal RECENT experience.

Step right up....Step right up.....

[5thGenDemocrat]

261. Well, you'll have to excuse me, Loony, because I'm kind of stupid

But when you say "see the amazing powers of ignorance that the human mind possesses," who is it I'm supposed to be looking at exactly? Because at the moment, I'm looking at you.
John
I've got over 6000 posts here and I'd vote for Clark over Gore in a hot second. Maybe, just maybe, I'll get that opportunity in the 2008 Michigan primaries. I sure hope so -- I surely do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

211. The Difference Is

Clark is excellent on the offensive. He always was, even early in his campaign when he was still getting the hang of the politics game. Except Clark almost never went on the offensive against other Democratic Candidates. That was an intentional stance that he took. However he always went after Bush and company forcefully, and effectively. That is why Kerry used Clark so prominently as a surrogate.

Kerry unfortunately played on defense much of the campaign, especially before the end. One could say that is because the Republicans were always attacking him, but I don't. That is what Republicans always do. In sports there are defensive and offensive oriented strategies. A team that plays an opponent with a strong offense can attempt to strengthen it's defense or it can go on the offensive itself. Clark is a master at the latter.

As to the emphasis some of us Clark supporters place on Clark's credentials, the point really is that because he has them Clark is more free to emphasize other issues in a race against the Republicans than almost any other Democrat can be. Clark doesn't have to prove that he isn't anti military. Clark doesn't have to convince the public that he understands it is a dangerous world out there. Clark doesn't have to repeatedly grandstand that he will never let America's enemies catch us unprepared. He already devoted his adult life to protecting America. It is a decided point, that question is off the table. That is why we point to Clark's credentials now. It is most relevant to do so while appraising the possible Democratic field of candidates, which is what we Democrats will need to do. Clark has a strategic competitive asset that most Democrats can't come close to.

Of course Clark has positions on a range of domestic concerns. His 2004 campaign website still has them all archived. They are detailed and they are excellent. And of course as 2008 slowly approaches Clark will speak out increasingly on them again. If he made a speech on them now no one would cover it. The most the media will do now is quote a few lines from John Edward's new revamped stump speech that he just gave in New Hampshire, but they only do that because they are fascinated in the phenomena of the "Two America's Speech" that they previously covered so extensively. The media reported on the style, not substance, of Edward's speech.

I am sure Clark discussed issues when he addressed Congressional Democrats. And we will be discussing issues here regarding our candidates as 2006 gets closer.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

164. More solid record???

Clark is the most decorated military officer since Eisenhower. I don't know how you can interpret Kerry's record as more solid than that.

Sure, I take your point that the corporate media will find negative ways to spin it anyway -- but they'll find something against any Dems record. War record, Senate record, personal life, health, religion. Whatever.

My feeling is, after McCain, Cleland and Kerry you've got to start asking how many times can these guys go to the same well before even the semi comatose public starts to realise nobody's military record is good enough for these chickenhawks who love to talk about honoring military service.

[car54whereareyou]

182. "Kerry's record was more solid than that"

what are you talking about? Kerry did not have much of a record in the senate. That's not meant as a criticism, it's a reality due to the fact that he was the junior senator from Massachusetts. Clark's record is in your face - he was a key shaper of the military, helping to reform and rebuild it after the war in Vietnam. As for your argument about how it will play out in the media, let's face it - no one living or dead would look good after the RNC bully boys have their day. We have to stop this line of thinking and stand up and fight! That was Kerry's biggest mistake, he just stood by and let them destroy him.

[Skwmom]

204. This argument is absurd.

Trying to compare Clark's record to Kerry's military record is ludicrous. Kerry's first assignment was "safe" and his second assignment would have been another "safe" assignment but they changed the swift boat mission while Kerry was in training for that assignment. Kerry received three purple hearts within a very short time period, without any hospitalization. The three purple hearts were his free pass home with the video footage he shot for his future campaign ads. Plus lets not forget his painting the entire military as worse than Genghis Kahn (but what the heck he wanted to run as the anti-war candidate).

Forget about any medal controversy. These facts alone were enough to raise serious questions about Kerry's military service.

I guess the candidates who are weak on national defense are desperate to argue that Clark's credentials will be of no use (and may even hurt the Democrat's chances) in 08 because look at what they did to poor Kerry. That is such hogwash.

[ArkDem]

265. Clark plays out one way only in the media. As an extraordinarily

odd man.

[BootinUp]

266. do you really believe that?

Why was Fox fauning over his expertise yesterday?

You just go around spewing nonsense with zero facts to back up what you say. You're free to continue doing it, but the only person that loses is you. Don't think DU'ers aren't able to see through the bs.

[ArkDem]

267. Who cares what Fox thinks?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

[BootinUp]

268. Yer killin me.

The point was the major media in this country does not think Clark is just an odd man. But you go ahead with your little campaign....lol.

[JaneQPublic]

114. Uhm, my post was meant as a joke.

I have nothing but respect for Gen. Clark.

Next time, I'll know to use a smiley face. :)

[Guaranteed]

116. ROFL!!!! nt

[FrenchieCat]

120. Actually, I think that you had a good point

even if you meant as a joke. There are many who might think that because both Clark and Kerry were military heros, the same thing that happened to Kerry might happen to Clark. So I think you made an excellent observation within your joke.

And taken as ging, my response was not heated nor was the tone anything by matter-of-fact. I just detailed why I didn't think that the tidy smears would be accomplished on Clark's record in the same way that it was on Kerry's. In fact, the contrast is startling and should put some's mind at ease in reference to a nagging doubt, that indeed your joke could become a reality.

Kerry was dealing with a non press documentated incident from too many years ago. Not only was he slow in refuting their attacks, but the only thing he had to refute the attacks were his words, the word of some of his crewman (just as many of these swiftboat attackers had a different story though), and some Navy official documentation.

Clark's Kosovo was recent, was documented all over the press, and Clark's disagreement with the pentagon Defense secretary and his lackey (Shelton) were also documentated, and the press sided with Clark, at the time. Too many Books have been written about Kosovo and Gen. Clark, so the version of things cannot just miraculously change. 67 Senators voted to recommend Clark for a Medal of Freedom...and this was during a time of a Republican majority.

So it's important to point out apples vs. oranges.

[JHBowden]

8. Gore is a proven winner.

Tough choice, but I gotta go with Al.

[KBlagburn]

9. Sorry

I cannot choose between these two.
I could however support either of these great men individually.
I could also support a Gore/Clark ticket. But there is no way that I would be able to choose between them. Very difficult.

[borlis]

13. The media will destroy Gore.

They destroyed him last time. I'll never forget after one of the debates, they were more concerned with how thick his neck looked in the suit he had on than what he actually had to say. And I'll never forget the way they picked on him for wanting him to put Social Security in a lock box so it wouldn't be touched.

[Guaranteed]

21. That's the typical race to the middle.

There wasn't anything of importance to talk about.

I get the feeling he might have a bit stronger message to send out next time.

[RealDems]

14. I'm with Al...

he left the DLC and became an outspoken war critic and economic populist before it was cool.

[Auntie Bush]

104. Didn't he learn that from Dean? Dean did it when it was really cool.

[flaminbats]

15. one could win my support..if elected Governor in 2006

If Gore wins Tennessee, or Clark can win Arkansas I might consider them.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I don't think that Clark would run for governer

just to abandon post after a few months and begin running for president. I would hope that Gore would not do that either. Don't you think that would be kind of a breach of trust with either the people of Arkansas or the people of Tennessee?

[Clarkie1]

26. There will be no governor Clark or governor Gore in this universe. n/t

[Guaranteed]

29. Gore was VP for eight years. Why on Earth would he even need

to be a governor?

AND he was a Senator for God knows how long.

[flaminbats]

74. What do the voters need?

Gore won my vote in 2000 only because Nader was not on the ballot. In the primary I backed Bradley.

If Gore had won his home state he would be President, if he proves this can be done..I could back him in the primaries. Gore was a great Senator and one of the best Vice Presidents, and I would support him without hesitation if these were the offices he campaigned for.

When Republicans lower the bar for their candidates, must we do the same? Voters are right to set a high standard for Democrats.

[Guaranteed]

78. You have TOTALLY lost me.

Yeah, the 2000 campaign was messed up. Is that what you're saying?

But that was an entirely different dynamic. That was a race to the middle. Politics is about persuasion, and leadership, now. Gore was one of the first to realize this. And he has the credentials to back himself up as a credible candidate.

What are you even thinking trying to say that Gore needs to be a governor? He was VP!!

[flaminbats]

113. we need to have Democrats winning at every level..

You're right, I'm ramming too many thoughts, which don't go together, into a single post. IMO Gore can help our party most by beating Phil Bredesen, and Clark can help us by running for Governor. Unlike *, Gore would be the most competent President despite his flaws.

Our party is not thinking enough about the midterm elections. How do we win back Congress, how do we elect more Governors, and how can we recruit the best candidates? Unless we perform well in 2006 I believe Democrats shall be irrelevant in 2008. Why waste our votes in the Democratic primaries in 2008 if Democrats are reduced to a third party? Voters want their votes to make a difference, and we need to demonstrate our relevance in 2006! :kick:

[Clark2008]

45. Why would Gore run against an incumbent Democrat in TN

for governor in 2006?
He wouldn't.
And, if Clark ran for governor, that would effectively knock him out of ever running for president.

[flaminbats]

70. the incumbent Governors of Tennessee and Arkansas are Republicans..

Phil Bredesen just hasn't switched parties.

Gore would be serving his state simply by defeating Bredesen, Clark would be helping Arkansas by defeating the Republican. By proving themselves in the midterm elections, the press is more likely to take Gore and Clark seriously in 2008.

[ArkDem]

89. Mike Beebe, the Democratic Attorney General would

whip Clark's butt easily in a run for Governor in Arkansas. He is definately going to run.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Thank you for that.

Anything else in that Crystal ball of yours?

A job as a Strategist is waiting for you somewhere, I am sure!

[ArkDem]

215. Just stating the facts. Beebe has a big organization here and Clark

is pretty much an outsider.

[FrenchieCat]

216. Clark's not running for Governor...

So I just concluded that your post, based on your history, was just more of the same negative Clark stuff.

I'm sure if Clark had decided to run, he would have an organization in Arkansas.

Please don't underestimate Wes Clark....after all, the man organized and accomplished an awful lot nationally in the 4 months that he ran. He may not get credit for it, from those who don't want to give....but the facts still show that Wes Clark is nobody's poot-butt. He was courted by both parties the last time to run for Governor. he turned it down then, and it doesn't appear a consideration on his radar now. So the left field....Beebe would beat him--is just a kind of a "WTF?" type of comment.

[ArkDem]

218. You know nothing of Arkansas politics...Quit while you are ahead.

[FrenchieCat]

219. One needs not to know Arkansas politics to know

that Wes Clark isn't running for Governor.

One need not know anything about Arkansas politics to know that Clark did a bang up job organizing in the four months that he ran for the Presidential Democratic nomination.

No one needs to know that you got a Dean/Hillary '08 thing going on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1577700#1580480
Like Dean as a nominee would have a chance in hell in Arkansas! The man is wonderful....but Arkansas? I don't think so.

But in fact, no one even asked for your comments on Wes Clark's chance in Arkansas running as Gov.

Far as I'm concerned, I never said I knew....or really cared about Arkansas politics. So there!

[ArkDem]

264. He has less chance of ever being president.

[Clark2008]

253. Bredesen isn't a Republican

Republicans wouldn't try to start a program for preschoolers using lottery money.
I know he gets a bad rap for TennCare, but it wasn't his fault. The stupid neo-freaks in this state won't let us have a progressive income tax. Instead, we're a regressive sales tax state. I don't like what Bredesen had to do and I wish we could work around it (and maybe still will), but I don't know that he had a choice.

[BlueInRed]

258. I don't feel that way about Bredesen

I know all the TennCare stuff, but I still think he is a moderate, although far more conservative than a lot at DU. I think his entire record, taken as a whole, both as Gov and as mayor of Nashville is that of a moderate Democrat in the mold of Clinton.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

53. Just curious

What is it with the deal some have come up with, first governor then whatever?

I don't get this at all.

[flaminbats]

118. Democrats need the best candidates in 2006..

My point isn't that they have to be Governor to run for President, but that voters need a reason to support any candidate for the nomination. People will not support Clark just because he's a General..regardless of his platform. Nor will they back Gore because he was Vice President. Democrats need public officials voters look up to, and who local Democrats shall not flee from during the campaign.

[Stinky The Clown]

63. And then what do they tell the people of TN or AR when they

bail out of the guv's mansion weeks after moving in a start to run for Pres in '08?

Neither man needs to prove jack shit to me. And neither man needs the headache of running for a governor's chair when their talents are so far and away above that. I for one would be mightily pissed off to see either Gore or Clark wasting their time fixing the pot hole in front of Bessie's house.

Both men have long ago proved their bona fides to run for president. What would their winning a state house show you that you don't already know? :shrug:

[flaminbats]

73. enough to win my vote..

"What would their winning a state house show you that you don't already know?"

By defeating Bredesen Gore can prove he supports Tenncare, Clark proves he can win Arkansas..while setting it on a progressive course. Clark and Gore would be telling Arkansas and Tennessee voters they mean what they say.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I'm kind of nervous to vote in this.

I might be accused of "Clarking" it.:D

[FrenchieCat]

18. and? So what?

Whomever votes for Gore, will be "Goring" it. Sounds even to me!

[flaminbats]

71. whomever votes for Bredesen is Goring it..

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Eh.

[Clarkie1]

22. Poll question: What is the useful purpose of this poll at this time? n/t

[Guaranteed]

24. To determine what people's presidential nominee preference is,

between these two men, at this time.

[Clarkie1]

25. And how is that information useful? Just curious? n/t

[Guaranteed]

27. At the moment, it doesn't really mean much of anything.

It's still early 2005.

But it never hurts to look to the future. And I think that the usefulness of polls is pretty evident.

Why wouldn't you want to see this poll?

On edit: Like I said, these are the two guys who, IMO, have the best shot at winning in 2008, at least at the moment. Just wondering what peoples' preferences are.

[Clarkie1]

32. It's just I don't think this should be where our focus is now.

But if it's entertaining for some, o.k. then.

There is no way anyone can predict what the political landscape will be in 08', and a great deal will be determined by events we have not even imagined.

[Guaranteed]

33. No, you're right on all counts.

Just throwing it out there. It's nothing serious, man. :P

[kodi]

23. I will support Al Gore

.

[njdemocrat106]

28. I think Clark would be a better choice

Don't get me wrong, I admire both men, but Gore does have that loser stigma, which sucks. Of course, the Republicans could run a candidate with a ton more baggage than any Democrat (Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Ted Kennedy), and the morans in this country would vote for the Repuke based on "moral values" or other such BS.

[Califooyah Operative]

30. gore.

as of right now, if it was those too. It's so early, i have no clue why i participate in these things.

[ZootSuitGringo]

34. Easy

Done did Gore, looking forward to Clark.

It's all about perception, perception, perception.

Gore lost Tennessee the last time, and I think that he would lose Tennessee again by even more this time.

Gore becoming more liberal in the last few years will not endear him to many in the South that may have begrudgingly voted for him the last time. The South, the SouthWest and the mid-west have become more conservative, not less so. This is the polar opposite of Gore's transformation.

[Guaranteed]

35. Isn't Clark a liberal, too, though? nt

[ZootSuitGringo]

36. Yes, he is.

But when you are a General, you can afford to be liberal, and it will still not be believed by many voters.

In fact, there are still some Democrats that don't believe that he is even a real Democrat, no matter what his policies were, who endorsed him, or what he said against George Bush. This was a disadvantage in the primary, but wuold be an advantage during a general election. And it is the general election that counts at the end.

When there is a range going from Senators Breaux, Lincoln, Prior, and Salazar (before he was elected) endorsing you, on the one hand, and George McGovern, Michael Moore, Madonna, Charlie Rangel and Jimmie Carter (didn't endorse but asked him to run) also on your side, guess it makes it harder to come up with a label that sticks to Clark.

He voted for Reagan and voted for Clinton and Gore. That voting record is not unlike many all over America.

Personally I do think that this is one of the reasons that Bush & company are so afraid of him.

Because of perception, perception, perception.

[BootinUp]

37. Welcom to DU ZootSuitGringo!

Nice post. Couldn't agree more.


:hi:

[Guaranteed]

38. SHHHH!! Well, stop saying that so loud! nt

[Stinky The Clown]

65. Give that man a set of braces and a long watch chain!

To go with that snappy Zoot Suit!

"But when you are a General, you can afford to be liberal, and it will still not be believed by many voters."

Egggg-zackly!

[elsiesummers]

39. Not Gore (and I personally think he's awesome), Clark unlikely

It seems to me that neither have proven they can run a true winner of a campaign. Gore is unfortunately tainted as a loser (I know he didn't lose but it doesn't matter; he and Kerry are in the same position). Gore also has that speaking style that will never be a winner.

Clark has a terrific resumé. He ran a lousey campaign last round - didn't understand the necessity of message perfection and he talked too much, like Clinton, but didn't really talk his way out of minefields, more into them. Clark is also charisma challenged.

Maybe he has learned how to win a political campaign - maybe not.

Not ready to write Clark off yet, but based on past perfomance, I have grave doubts. Really wish I had confidence in his ability to reach the most human and most Democratic core (like John Edwards or like Howard Dean could) because, with his experience plus charisma, Clark could be a winner.

Less than convinced that core Democratic values or charisma can be learned past the age of 18.

I hope I'm dead wrong because there's nothing wrong with a white knight.

[paulbent6]

40. Clark unlikely (?)

<Clark is also charisma challenged.>

That was not my impression when I saw him speak here in Chicagoland.

[Texas_Kat]

87. Welcome to DU, paulbent6!

I agree 100%. Clark delivers like nobody else. How could anyone think otherwise after his speech at the Democratic convention?

He had them on their feet cheering.:bounce:

[x_y_no]

91. agreed

<That was not my impression when I saw him speak here in Chicagoland.>

Not mine either, the two times I met him.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

54. It's all down hill after 18 huh?

LOL!

Clark learned his values at his family's knee in Arkansas. He's lived those core "American" values all his life.

He learned, Honor, Duty, Country at West Point.

He spent 34 years in the military living those values not labling them Democrat or Republican.

That's the kind of leader this country needs IMHO.

[elsiesummers]

72. He doesn't have the Democrat from birth personality, double edged sword...

Maybe you are right - the Democrat from birth sort of personality that inspires me - just because I prefer it doesn't mean it's the best choice in a general election candidate.

I really hope I'm entirely wrong about Clark (being charisma challenged) because at this point all of the possible candidates seem less than ideal. We supported Edwards but also donated some to Clark in 2004. I'm concerned about Edwards resumé just like I'm concerned about Clark's political voice.

Weird Science: If the two, Clark and Edwards, could be melded to one, come from a big red state, latino heritage and a short stint as a action movie star, we'd have an ubercandidate.

None of the candidates impress me as "the one", but it's too early to tell and I'm hoping that, over time, one or more will really stand out.

[FrenchieCat]

86. Clark was born a Democrat.

Clark was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 23, 1944. His father, Benjamin Kanne, was a Democratic politician, World War I veteran, and lawyer who died in 1948 when Wes was five years old (some sources say four years old).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[car54whereareyou]

186. You've just been listening to mediawhore spin

if you believe Clark is charisma challenged. Take the time to see him in person, or watch him on tv and you will lose your doubts, elsie.

[elsiesummers]

208. I watched him on cspan during the campaign and

basically, my husband and I just totally swooned over Edwards. I also believed Clark had a good shot at the nomination. I actually liked Clark at times and found him dull at others.

My husband (who pays less attention to politics than me) saw Clark and said "why did you think I should give money to this guy - I don't like anything he has to say" when Clark was speaking of "a new American patriotism."

I tell you, he is a real up and down sort of speaker - inspiring one moment and dull as dishwater the next.

He really needs to even up his speaking ability or it won't matter what I think, personally, because he won't "take" with the masses.

Like I said - I'm hoping Clark remedies this - because this is a problem - and to pretend it doesn't exist is to bury head in sand.

I'm not married to any candidate - in fact I can't find one that seems to have the winning combination.

I have always been a huge Biden fan (and would have made him my first choice over Edwards if he had run in 2004) but he is from Delaware which gets Dems no where electorally.

I don't see how Edwards will pull off a career move that matters between now and 2008.

And Clark, if he doesn't improve, will not have a shot at winning the next primary.

At least Clark's fault leaves room for improvement - so he still has potential.

Edwards won't earn world leader creds in next 3 years and Biden won't be from a swing state. But, both of these guys know their political voice.

I'm sure I sound pessamistic - but I'm not writing off Clark. Clark needs to find a political voice - profound, sympathetic and unwavering - if he wants to win the primary.

I hope he does because I really really want a Democrat to win and think more from an ABB POV and about winning than in terms of positions of each candidate.

I am very concerned about all the candidates at this point because I have a very open mind, regarding Dems, but see no perfect candidate on the horizon.

I think that Hillary - even with her recent crappola pro-life pandering - (there are times when abortion is not tragic - this was a poor poor word to chose) has a lot to offer as a candidate - but she's loaded with poor (negative) approval ratings.

I also think Evan Bayh - who is completely charisma deficient (makes Clark seem like a rock star) - has terrific creds and is politically savvy and helps the electoral math.

Bill Richardson interests me more than most - could bring a constituency and he is a good (but not great) speaker. A bit worried about the dept of energy security breaches - in terms of political fallout, although I don't blame him at all - he asked for funding and the Republican Congress wouldn't take care of business.

Anyway - my point is not to condemn Clark or write him off. But, if you don't see his chrasima problem then you are not watching with the soundbite mentality that pervades any candidatcy.

[Clark2008]

254. I'm sorry, but I never understood anyone swooning for Edwards

I guess it's because I'm from the South and his overly-pronounced Southern accent (which I don't have, even born and raised here) made me gag.
But, that's neither here nor there. I don't think he'll be a contender in 2008.
Clark is very charismatic. He's just not so sweet that he spews sugar. He's sharp, aggressive and intelligent. And, he's also handsome in an adult way. He LOOKS presidential.
Clark, admittedly, got into the race too late and didn't have time to gain his political bearings; however, if you got to see him speak for Kerry as his surrogate on all those news shows, you'd know that he is NOT a bore.
His speech at the DNC brought the house down - even Tweety was impressed and muttered that Kerry would have to do a lot to beat that speech. And Tweety's not easily impressed.
I think Clark's learned the Soundbite Mentality.
Why don't you go here http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html and download a couple of the programs. You'll see he has "found" his political voice.

[CarolNYC]

194. charisma challenged?

I don't post here often (obviously) but I do read...and the "charisma challenged" remark always puzzles me as charisma is one of the things that I think makes the General so appealing. Maybe it has something to do with seeing him in person, or at least hearing him speak. My first experience with Gen Clark was seeing him very briefly, as he came outside to greet us drafters who were waiting in front of NYU, where he was giving a talk, to try to urge him to run. My first impression of him was that he had an awfully large presence for someone who is physically quite small. I immediately felt I was in the presence of a great and special man. If I wasn't completely sure about him before, I was then. It was quite striking and everything thereafter, for me, was viewed through the prism of that first encounter.

At the DNC dinner in NYC after the first debate that Gen Clark participated in, I watched as a crowd surged around Clark as he moved from the high priced dinner to the low end "after party", for us little people (Gen Clark was the only one of the candidates to attend, BTW, although all were invited to come and speak), everyone trying to get a glimpse. I smiled as I heard one young man in a suit whisper in awe to his friend, "It's the General". After Clark spoke at the party, he was mobbed as he and Gert worked the crowd.

I've heard numerous reports of folks who didn't expect to be wowed by the General being bowled over after attending one of his events. I believe it was Max Cleland who commented, at a Kerry campaign event shortly before the election, that Wes was always greeted "like a rock star."

And then there was the early morning "walk in Queens" during the primaries when Clark was still running. I was one of the supporters who came out very early to accompany him from the subway station (he'd ridden the train from Manhattan) to the Democratic meeting he was attending. He stopped in a bagel shop along the way to buy a bagel and spoke to a couple of older women who were in the shop. They didn't know who he was but they came out of the shop wanting to know everything about him and ready and willing to do anything to help get him elected. They were wonderful and totally taken in by the charismatic General. He makes you feel so special when he looks you in the eye as he takes your hand to greet you. There is an incredible warmth and humanity about him and you sense that he truly cares. I guess it doesn't hurt that he's so damn good looking either (although I promise that is not what drew me to him). :)

As for Democratic values, he hasn't just mouthed them, he's lived them all of his life. He just didn't put a label on them. I believe it was WI Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton who, in a piece she wrote for The Nation, called Wes "an intuitive Democrat".

And I've always liked this little blurb I found on George Loper's website, from David RePass' endorsement of the General:

"And finally, there are those who say Wesley Clark is not a real Democrat; he voted for Nixon and Reagan and is a johnny-come-lately to the Democratic party. I spent a lot of time last fall helping to write a statement of principles for the local Democratic parties. I have followed Clark's campaign carefully and everything he says, every policy proposal he makes,
is as if he had read and internalized those Democratic principles. And he says these things with true compassion and conviction. Listen and watch him on CSPAN or wherever those who control our airwaves allow you hear him. He is truly dedicated to helping all Americans achieve a better future, and to
working with other nations to build international trust and security."

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2004/Jan/913.html

I would just suggest that if you ever have the chance to meet him, you take the opportunity and see what you think. :)

Peace, Carol (who hopes it's OK that she voted in this poll even though she doesn't post much)

[Skwmom]

201. The charisma challenged remark

isn't really puzzling. It's nothing more than stupid talking points that other candidates and Rove use to try to discredit Clark.

Great post!

[CarolNYC]

247. Thanks, Skwmom

[car54whereareyou]

246. Peace to you, Carol!

Thanks for your well-thought out and expressed post. You should post more often!

[IndianaGreen]

41. Anybody but Hillary or Zell Miller

Either Gore or Clark would be fine.

[CWebster]

42. Feingold. nt

[fujiyama]

43. Gore was clearly robbed

in '00 and I'd almost feel obligated to back him were he to run again.

The operative word though is almost. Unfortunately Gore's been defined by the media (same problem with Kerry). He was treated terribly last time and there is no doubt he'd be in for more. Not only that but his genuine change over the last several years would be seen as a "flip flop" or pandering.

Clark is still relatively unknown to most. He entered so late last time that I think many didn't really get to know him. Plus, he was very new to the party and the questions about whether he was a real Democrat may have hurt. I doubt there is any question about that now. He has proven himself pretty loyal, stumping for Kerry and other Dems this election.

So, I give a slight edge to the general. While Nixon surely did come back and win, those were peculiar circumstances. '68 was an odd year, and Nixon won that race pretty closely that too. I think the fracturing of Dems during the primaries, with an extremely disasterous and violent convention put Nixon over. Also as someone else said, the political winds in the south have turned even more rightward. I can't see him winning TN now. In fact, I'd have a tough time seeing any Dem win that state on the federal level.

[Clark2008]

44. I'm in Tennessee and Gore was my first "political crush,"

but I voted for Clark here.

I think Clark can wipe away some of the misconceptions about Democrats that some red-staters have and possibly flip at least two (maybe three) Southern states from red to blue.

BTW, you do realize that the mid-West is stronger "red" than the South, who gets all the blame on this board, don't you?

[sellitman]

46. Nether. Boxer is our best bet

Barbara is a fire brand and female. Both would be firsts for Dems. She as the President and Dean as the DNC leader would be an amazing combo!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Boxer-Kucinich Is The Ticket

eom

[CWebster]

48. Gore-Boxer.

[Poppyseedman]

50. Boxer may be well liked

and respected in California and in large progressive cities in major metropolitan areas. That may win her the democratic nomination.

She doesn't have snow balls chance in hell of winning the Presidency across all 50 states unless she moves center to lock up the moderate vote.

[CWebster]

51. garbage

That is the mistake the Dems continue to make. Do not back away from their identity! The Republicans have formulated a strategy to market policy that runs contrary to most of America's views. Democrats have the positions on the issues that resonate--they have to sell them with confidence!

[Poppyseedman]

59. The Republicans have formulated a strategy

to market policy that runs contrary to most of America's views.????

You must not get out much. Most people couldn't tell what the rethug policy is except for the sound bit they hear on Fox News.

As far as I can tell the rethugs have pretty much locked into the views a majority of the general population believe. They have made it an echo chamber.

That is why we have lost the White House, Senate and the House plus a majority of the Governors houses and the State legislation houses.

We are losing because our message is not connecting with the general public. If it was, we would be kicking the rethugs ass across all spectrum's of politics.

Boxer, as brave as she is, is considered a left wing loon by the rethugs. The general public isn't buying left wing loon.

I'm not knocking her, but she isn't helping the general pubic to formulate a view of the democratic party that is mainstream.

Like it or not, mainstream politics win.

[Quixote1818]

77. You are 100% right!

[Guaranteed]

79. No, sir. They're CREATING it.

That's what leadership is! That's what they've shown for the past 10, 20, 30 years!

They had a single message, and they stuck to it. They used their wedge issues, NEVER admitted a mistake, NEVER backed down, and they WON. And they're still winning, while we capitulate.

They didn't just say what the culture demanded of them. They CREATED the culture, in particular through the media.

[sellitman]

210. Moderate vote?

I considered Kerry Moderate. He was painted as a Liberal anyhow. I'd rather solidify the liberal base and give this country a choice this time. A real choice. Moderate - smoderate!

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. Clark

with Boxer as VP. :bounce:

[Auntie Bush]

158. That sounds good to me!

[Donna Zen]

52. Change the Image or reinforce it?

The Democrats currently have an imagine problem that is actually getting worse. Weak on defense and weak on values. It is all bullshit of course--in a way that is good news because we should be able to do something about it, but then again, we have to understand what to do.

Gore is fine with me. I voted for him and will be happy to do so again if it comes to that. Nevertheless, Gore reinforces the image rather than changes it. For a Gore nomination to change public perception will require energy and resources that we can ill afford to spend. So why in hell do some Democrats want to do just that?

It is as if the party has a giant hole in their roof and a blizzard is coming. The solution: change the color of the livingroom drapes and turn up the music.

Our values are not only intact, they are better than the rights. Our positions are inline with a majority of Americans. You cannot talk your way out of this hole because its not reality based, but rather a result of slick marketing.

The names of many smart people get included in DU's polls all the time. I am impressed by the messages left by the supporters of those folks. It is truly unfortunate that the political climate in the US is what it is, because it would be nice to talk about poverty and the plight of average Americans. That message will never get out until people are willing to listen; and right now, they can't hear you.

Clark offered/offers a possibility of being heard and changing our image. A thread appeared a few weeks ago in this forum: "Can a liberal ever be elected?" Yep, a stealth liberal--someone whose policies alined with Kucinich's but was memed as a moderate by MSM. Someone whose first name is General. The rightwing cannot stand the fact that the Democrats have a four star among them, and not just any four star but one that holds that "first" from West Point, won a war without losing a single American life, and brings to fight the made for primetime jawline. How ironic that the left cannot stand it either.

Note: He is excellent on the stump, Garrison Keiller called it "burning up the stump." He is extemely charismatic; and anyway, compared to who? Gore? Kerry? no offense but I respectfully disagree.

Until the Democratic party recognizes its problem, I have little hope that they will recognize the solution.

[Guaranteed]

56. Neither. Confront THEIRS.

To elaborate: "Me too" won't work. We have to destroy THEIR image- and that, in turn, will boost ours. It's a COUNTER-image- a reality-based national security image- that we need.

[Donna Zen]

187. Walking and chewing gum:

Yes, we do have to destroy their image, but that does not negate the need or the opportunity to change our own.

Our imagine is weak and 10 hours a day 24/7 fat mouths like rush and hannity make sure their listeners believe it. And never in my post did I infer that we must be "me too." In fact that would be make it worse. First, remember that we are not changing what is in the package, only the brand association. Our image must include fighting for the true American values: food on the table, fair play, worker protection, strong backbones, and yes, a strong commitment to keeping the country both economically and physically strong. That includes an educated work force and a clean environment. And most importantly a devotion to our Constitutional freedoms. Strength is not a sell out position. All of this must be wrapped up in a red-white-and-blue package.

We cannot blow holes in their package with mean attacks on their ties to the religious right no matter how sick we find them. Ditto the basic American icon identifiers that they have been using: NASCAR, country music, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. The voters buying into this product find any assault on a republican as a personal rejection of themselves.

The republicans are vulnerable on their ties to big business corruption, and a disregard of the middle class.

Our weakness is national security which has morphed into an image of unAmerican and God-hating behavior. Theirs is greed and more greed.

I see no other candidate on the horizon who can both change our package, take anything--McCain, you name it--they can come up with, and come up the winner. Clark's story is a great one: orphan rises to the top. Gore's story has already been told and twisted and reinforces the buyer rejected product, the Democratic party as a national party. We must become a full-service party.

Again, if you want to spend your time, money and energy rehabilitating Gore when there is so much to do, fine. I like Gore, but chose to look else where. Besides, when it comes down to the all important Q factor, Clark wins hands down.

[AntiCoup2K4]

57. Why not a Gore/Clark ticket?

As long as the general public actually gets it through their fucking heads what a failure the Chimp pResidency has been, I believe Gore's chances are excellent. Comparisons to Nixon coming back in 1968 after a narrow loss in 1960 would be warranted - even though Tricky Dicky lost by actual votes and not a Supreme Court decision.

I just don't see Clark winning at the top of the ticket with no political experience. Yes I've heard the Clarkie arguments about how his position in Europe was "equivalent" to a mayor or a governor, and I'm not disputing the validity of the comparison, but the way that it will be played in the corporate whore media.

On the other hand, 8 years as Gore's VP would certainly put Clark in great position for the next election.

[mtnester]

58. I am with you on a Gore/Clark ticket.

I think that is the winner there. Why force a choice between the best two candidates out there? With Dean as the Dems head cheerleader and fundraiser, the state Dems ready to rumble, this is realistically and reasonably the best combo.

Especially if we are still at war somewhere, which you can rest assued will be the case with the nutjob we have in the WH now.

[ThorsHammer]

60. From those two choices, Clark

[BlueInRed]

61. Like both, Al would be better Pres, but Clark has better chance to win

I like both of these guys. I wish Al had chosen Clark as his running mate in 2000, or one of the other candidates, perhaps Edwards, or a centrist governor like Vilsack or Bredesen. I think a Gore/Clark ticket in 2000 would've kicked butt.

But I think the reality is that Al is damaged goods in the media and a lot of people have formed their opinion of him based on the horrible media caricature of him in 2000. I love Al, have worked around people (including lots of Rs) in Nashville who really liked him personally, and if that was the image he had in the MSM, I'd have voted for Al in this poll. But sadly, the MSM has butchered him into an unrecognizable caricature.

So, I cast my vote for Clark based on the fact he's better perceived in the media. And now the party has realized that the MSM can butcher anyone's reputation, whereas back in 2000, they tried to make it all about Al. So, although the MSM will try to butcher Clark or anyone else, at least Clark will be more prepared. The damage to Al's reputation is already done.

If Gore somehow manages to reverse his media image in the next 4 years, I'd vote for Gore, with Clark as his VP. That'd be my first choice. Or Edwards as VP. If Gores out, I'd like Clark/Edwards or vice versa.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

62. Interested in you reason

for feeling Al would make a "better" president.

[BlueInRed]

67. My reason

I think Al's experience in both the legislative and executive branches better prepares him for the office. Clark's experience is military and although he's had to deal with the legislative branch during his career, he does not have the breadth of experience and knowledge Gore does on domestic issues.

I think Gore's choices will have a broader foundation in the history of the laws on ALL subjects. Gore was in Congress since his late 20s. He knows how most of the laws got on the books today, what compromises were made, how they were argued, and how to get things done in Congress. Gore's policy experience runs the full gamut of domestic and foreign issues. In addition to legislative experience, he also knows the reality of being the decision maker, the chief executive. He's been in the White House when they were under constant attack from the GOP. I think no matter who we choose, it's going to be a shock for them to see how it is to be under unrelenting attack by the GOP and still have to get your job done. Clark's never had to face that; Gore has lived through eight years of that.

I think Clark is a quick study. I think he's learned a lot on domestic policy. But Gore doesn't have to learn any of this. He already knows it by heart and in intricate detail. With the mess that * has made of things, I think Gore would be better prepared to fix the mess. After all, he was part of the team that turned the mess around left by Reagan and Bush I. I imagine he knows what needs to be done to turn it around a second time.

Anyone we elect will have a learning curve on the Presidency. But Gore's will likely be less than others because of his background. In general, I think Gore's decisions will be sounder because of the depth of knowledge. Now, as for charisma, I give that one completely to Clark, and that does count for something in getting the job done. Sometimes the person who is the best manager, the best at the actual mecahnics of running a country, isn't necessarily the best at the public image stuff.

[Auntie Bush]

106. Seems that charisma wins over knowledge.

(example- Bush won...but Chaney pulled the strings). Let Clark win the election for president and Gore can advise him if on domestic issues and the ways of congress IF and when necessary....but Clark's knowledge can't be learned by anyone else. He'd make the best wartime president ever! America and the world need him!

[BlueInRed]

145. still think Al would be "better", but not more electable n/t

[jswordy]

64. NEITHER -- Wish you had included that as an option

Our next presidential nominee is virtually assured to be someone who has not yet stepped onto the national stage, but who is working the background in our party and climbing the stairs to that stage.

The nominee will be a white man, and he will either be serving, or have served, as a governor.

It is generally more likely that the nominee will have served as governor of a Southern or Midwestern state, but that is not necessarily a preordained outcome.

There are several people I am watching at present who fit those qualifications.

[Pithy Cherub]

66. Clark would get my vote.

Because his intelligence, vision, and charisma are necessary for broad leadership in difficult times. Among his credentials are strong values positions, FP and national security. Wes taught economics and executively administrated NATO with all the political peril inherent in that, at a time of war.

[Arkana]

68. The two of them together--Gore/Clark or Clark/Gore

A former five-star general from a southern state who made "moral issues" (real ones, not fake Republican ones) the center of his campaign and was not afraid to call himself a liberal, and a former Vice President to one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century who is looking for redemption, not to mention an outspoken opponent of Bush's war.

This ticket would crush all opposition.

[robbedvoter]

69. Clark.

[ArtVandaley]

75. Why Gore?

I like Gore, but he ran a terrible campaign in 2000, I'm not lookin for a repeat of that.

[davidinalameda]

76. I don't dislike Gore

but he had his chance and he lost

yes, I know--Florida was stolen, blah blah blah

but he lost West Virgina, Arkansas and his home state--any of which would have put him in the White House


he ran away from Clinton in the race and he picked Liberman as his running mate

[JohnnyCougar]

80. Feingold.

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. Gore is going to bring up too many bad 2000 election memories for

swing voters in the next election. I would be interested to see why you think these two have the best shot in 2008? Try as I might, I cannot see the reasoning behind it. There are several others that many would say have a better shot at this point. If this is all we have...we might be in trouble. Although I think Wes Clark would blow Gore out of the water in a primary heat.

[Guaranteed]

82. Who do you think would have a better shot?

That isn't Dean, I mean. :P

[ScreamingMeemie]

83. I think, at this point, we're growing a pretty good stable.

In my heart of hearts, I always wanted Carl Levin to take a stab at it. Age is a factor there, sadly. I truly like Russ Feingold and think he could have a chance. I would love to say Barbara Boxer, but I still think much has to be done before we can successfully run a female candidate. :hi:


And look! No mention of Dean...because you asked me not to. :P

[Guaranteed]

84. Look, I love Feingold and Boxer just as much as the next guy.

And, I hate to say this- neither of them have the right image. Boxer...god, I think I'm going to puke saying this....she's too liberal. :puke:

And, Feingold...he's great, but he just doesn't have that leadership quality. I mean, it's like me, or Kucinich- I'd run for President, but people would take one look at me and the way I am and they'd just go...uhhhh...no. He doesn't have the...physical presence, I guess. Maybe he's not loud enough. I don't know.

I know what you're saying, and they're both names that come up in my mind when I think of great Democratic leaders. But, on a national level, I just don't think they've got what it takes. Gore, Clark, even Dean (IMO ESPECIALLY Dean) have what it takes in their "presence."

You know what I'm sayin'? :P

[ScreamingMeemie]

85. Except, I truly worry that we wouldn't get any swing voters with a Gore

ticket. That's what worries me about him, as much as I truly admire him and the work he has done. Gore is a hero in my eyes for making such a public break with DLC politics, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat...I'm just not sure my neighbor would.

On a side note...said neighbor would have voted for Dean...instead, she stayed home. ;)

[Guaranteed]

88. Yup, I know that neighbor, too.

It's a big secret, but Republicans actually LIKE Dean. ;)

[Placebo]

92. CLARK. WILL. NEVER. BE. PRESIDENT.

I know it pains many on this board, and elsewhere, to hear that, but it's the truth.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Karl Rove sure hopes so, too.

Thanks for sharing. :tinfoilhat:

[wesrose]

196. Clark is Rove's worst nightmare.

[Auntie Bush]

259. Welcome Wesrose

:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

97. A word to the wise.....

NEVER SAY NEVER!....

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

The RNC and the media were and are still betting against Dems picking Clark, as they take for granted that Democrats are not that smart about winning. The GOP bets that we would be and even now are afraid to put up a real intellectual fighter that also happened to big a great military strategist. They have determined that they have the Democrats pegged down tight, exactly in the box they want them in, and that Democrats would never do such a thing as unexpected as nominating a General...cause it seems so obvious. On record, only the GOP tends to do the obvious, which is why they frequently win.

But I will also say that both the RNC and the corporate media were somewhat surprised to see Wes Clark rise from various Dem voices, nevertheless. Even with the slimes and the ignores, Clark still hung in long after he had been deemed "not ready for primetime" and "the fading candidate" by the media...and it is true that with the help of both parties, Clark was brought him down last time (had to be done during the primaries)....but we can make him rise back to the top....where he belongs!

It's all a mind game, and the Republican have determined that the Democrats are pretty predictable....and the Dems actually proved that they were. However, I do think that Howard Dean as DNC Chair is the first chink made to that predictability theory that the GOP hold so dear in their calculation of staying in power. Depending on Democrats, and how well we have learned the lessons, maybe we will see some more positive unpredictability.

That said, your mindset and announcement of Clark never becoming President only shows that it may be sometime before the Democrats grow a set of balls that will actually function. What you are saying, IMO, plays right into the "predictability factor" that the Republicans wager on.

Just like from the outside looking in, when I read folks saying that McCain or Jeb Bush will never be the Republican's picks; to that I say, don't underestimate the Republicans' will to win. Unlike Dems, they are willing to do what's required and nothing less.

I, for one, will never be saying never.

[Auntie Bush]

109. WHY???????????????

[Guaranteed]

112. Whoa!

Hey, just one guy's opinion. Don't do anything crazy. :P

Look, you're even winning the poll! ;)

[Clarkie1]

131. What a stupid thing to say

About as stupid as saying

(insert name of any dem here) will never be president.

[Guaranteed]

139. That's not our focus, here, though, anyway, right? nt

[Clarkie1]

146. Right. n/t

[faithfulcitizen]

170. OUCH!....

you're mean! :hurts:

[cestpaspossible]

220. I'd be willing to bet that he never runs for any office again.

[BootinUp]

260. Does your crystal ball

work better than Placebos? <g>

[ultraist]

93. Edwards/Clark!

The perfect balance of strong on domestic and strong on war & foreign affairs!

Neither are 'inside the beltline old time Washingtonians'.

It's great to see so many new people here. Welcome! :hi:

:kick:

[Clarkie1]

134. I really don't think Clark would ever be interested in being VP

He has better ways to spend his time, whether it be inside the whitehouse or out.

The president is leader of the free world. In an international crises, it would not make sense for Edwards to be the chief decision-maker with both of them in the white house simply because Edwards lacks the experience.

Clark has said he is not interested in the VP position anyway, and it wouldn't help that hypothetical ticket. All it would do is highlight the other candidate's lack of international experience and gravitas.

[Skwmom]

212. Strong on the domestic front?

How does giving a "Two Americas" political speech make you strong on domestic issues? That's always puzzled me. If I go out and give a written speech on football will that qualify me to serve as the NFL Commissioner?

[mandyky]

94. Neither for me

Richardson, Bayh or maybe Feingold would be good.

[bigwillq]

95. Of those two-Clark!

I think Clark has what it takes to be a good prez.

Gore is old news in my book but I still think he would've made a great prez!

[CJCRANE]

100. Clark

(I'm British but) I like Clark. He seems to have that "All-American Hero" aura about him that the American MSM generally fawns all over (except some of the RW press were calling him the "wacko general" for some reason).

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. I like Gore just fine but I choose Clark

Clark scrambles Republican radar, they are not used to defending against Democrats who can come at them from some of the directions that Clark can mount offensives from. Clark is a Liberal career military man who led this country in War. He is personally respected by virtually all of America's allies. Clark is a self made man with Democratic Heartland values and a progressive vision.

I think both Clark and Gore would make excellent Presidents but I think having Clark head the ticket would help our entire Party the most in 2008.

By the way let me invite anyone who is supportive of Wes Clark to visit the Democratic Underground Wes Clark Supporters Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[mdmc]

111. Gore has run a national campaign

:kick:
Clark is good too!

[julialnyc]

128. I think Bush is going to ruin our FP

and the world will "buy" Clark better at keeping them safe. Particularly if the neo-cons take us to Iran.

[cobaindrain]

129. Clark has bigger things to worry about

Clark vs. Gore? How the heck is Clark going to get past Edwards in the primaries. Or Bayh who would be even tougher.

The Clark candidacy was a dud in 04, he will not be a formidable candidate in 04. I mean the south totally rejected him.

not to mention if Hillary or Kerry decides to run again, Clark will finish 6th again.

[Clarkie1]

142. You dont' have a clue what you are talking about

At least Clark won a primary that wasn't in his home state.

I am sure Clark would have won Arkansas, had he not done the right thing at the time and supported Kerry.

Lieberman was a dud. Clark was no dud...his candidacy took off like a rocket and quickly caught up to the rest of the field after a late entry. At one point his fundraising even surpassed Dean's, and like Dean's his average contribution was from average people.

Really, Clark's performance in the primary was quite extraordinary. I don't think any non-politician who started that late has ever done so well.

[cobaindrain]

147. ha! Clark finished WAY behind Edwards and Kerry, for all the hoopla

Clark was a dud, he tried to upstage edwards with his little announcement and ends up being booted out of the race by edwards. justice was served.

and even Oklahoma was a razor thin victory that saw edwards close a 20 point gap in 3 weeks.

look at Clarks putrid performance in Missouri, South Carolina, and other southern states, he finished near the bottom everywhere! He only received primary votes in 5 states? he finished with 57. Dean had 170, Edwards had 534! How the heck will clark beat them in 08. How will he deal with Hillary and Bayh.

you guys are delusional, his support is limited to DU and only DU, the primary results should've told you that. Will you guys ever learn?

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cobaindrain]

151. not missouri, not tennessee, not virginia, not georgia

he was still in the race when those states were contested, where was Clark? battling it out with Sharpton and Kucinich for 9th place? how about states like Michigan, Maine, Idaho, and Delaware. All finished behind Edwards as well.

Edwards stayed in the race because he outlasted everybody else, he still had a chance while Clark was licking his wounds.

some of the Clark supporters make it sound like he lost the nomination to Kerry by 1 delegate...

[Clarkie1]

154. Please stop spreading disinformation on this board

It makes me suspect you are a freeper, because normally only they are so loose with the facts.

Clark threw his support to Kerry on Friday, February 13th (a very unlucky day indeed for the democratic party).

The Georgia primary was on March 2nd. And what about North Dakota, Arizona, and New Mexico. Wasn't New Mexico considered a "swing state?" Clark trounced Edwards in those states.

Edwards only managed to squeak by Clark in Tennessee by 3%. Face it: Edwards only "outlasted" everybody else because he was a VP wannabe. He was not going to get nominated in a post 9/11 world. Everyone was talking Kerry or Clark because of their military backgrounds. Unfortunately some didn't realize the difference between a lieutenant and a general (and not just any general).

[cobaindrain]

156. enough with the revisionist history by clark supporters

Clark was a VP wannabe too, there is no shame in that. He met with Kerry, and he was rejected by Kerry and the Democratic party. Clark may have finished ahead of Edwards in 5 states, big deal, Edwards finished ahead of Clark in 40+ states.

[BootinUp]

159. Thanks for your input. But the primaries weren't even the main dance.

We all lost, remember? :eyes:

[cobaindrain]

165. indeed

so how do we win in 08? with one of our weakes candidates in 04?

Evan Bayh could be the one with the broadest national appeal.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cobaindrain]

172. anybody who doesn't support clark must be a freeper right

you guys continually overestimate his popularity nationally and among Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

173. Not at all.

But anyone so obsessed with undermining a particular one of our STRONG democratic candidates is certainly under suspicion.

Why all your focus on Clark?

I have no idea if Clark will run in 08' or not, but I intend to focus on the here and now for the time being. Only freepers would have such an interest in labeling one of our strongest voices "weak."

[Sparkly]

177. In that case...

...relax!!

[Clarkie1]

168. More disinformation from you....

Edwards did not finish ahead of Clark in states Clark was not running in after February.

Also, Clark never wanted to be VP. That's one of the delusions that cost the democratic party big time.

[BootinUp]

155. Where to start?

He pulled out before Georgia. I live here.

Clark did not spend time or money in Missouri. Missouri voted how the tv told them to. TN and VA were heartbreaking to be sure, and we can argue over why he didn't do better than a close third, but your characterization is plainly distorted.

[cobaindrain]

157. clark ran out of money and support

without those, you can't really run a campaign

sure the support on DU is strong, but that's the only place really.

[BootinUp]

161. Waste of bandwidth....

cya

[Quixote1818]

166. Actually Clark trounced everyone in a recent poll on Ed Schultz

website. Kerry had momentum and because he had military experience he took away too many of Clark's votes which allowed Edwards to stay alive much longer than he should have. However out west Edwards did lousy compared to Clark. Edwards even finished behind Dean in New Mexico. And buy the way, Edwards ran out of money as well however Clark raised a hell of a lot more money than Edwards in the first place.

[cobaindrain]

174. how about non-website polls that aren't freeped by clark supporters?

the one's that post links to the clark blogs encouraging them to flood the polls. paper thin internet support didn't get you far in the primaries. Show me a real scientific poll that shows clark as the frontrunner in 08 or any old poll that shows clark as the favorite to be VP.

yes, edwards did not do well out west. But he did trounce clark in the delegate count and the total votes

[FrenchieCat]

183. So where have you been all of this time?

Almost no posts....but knows what's going on the Clark Blog, etc....

Can Clark bloggers be members of both DU and CNN (Clark blog) or is that against your law?

yes, edwards did not do well out west. But he did trounce clark in the delegate count and the total votes

Do you know what that sounds like? Clark dropped out...Edwards didn't. Clark had not media; Edwards did. And even with all of the media noise all about Edwards, he still couldn't beat Clark in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Delaware, etc. My point? Clark beat Edwards and did it without media help. Edwards had all of the free publicity galore, and still couldn't beat out the General in most places where they both competed.

In my humble opinion, much do to about Edwards was not much more than a media creation....that the media dropped Edwards soon after he was named VP is the clue. Can you say GOOD PR for whatever the reason kept Edwards in the race and got him a promotion as VP? If not, then you are in denial.

Remember the convention? Remember how all of the pundits kept saying that Edwards would talk owls out of a tree?...but come his big one in a lifetime speech....and the owls, all of a sudden, appeared were very skeptical indeed.

Edwards didn't even win his county in the General Election. That's where he lives FYI. That's was not a good thing, now was it?

[Quixote1818]

214. Well, why don't you get your Edward's supporters together and

make some noise on some internet polls? Why? Because their are only two of you perhaps? Edwards is not likely to do very well in four years because he does not have the grassroots supporters that Clark has and because of his average performance against Chaney in their debate. With Dean out of the running Clark will likely pick up many of his supporters because Clark and Dean were the two candidates who wanted to stand up to Bush and were against the war from the start. Something the party base likes. Edwards also runs away from being called a liberal which Clark embraces.

[wesrose]

184. I loved that poll because Big Eddie didn't even include

Clark at first and then when he did Clark trounced it!

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

167. The primaries ended nearly a year ago.

Why don't you just let it go already.:eyes:

[Skwmom]

203. The local right wing talking heads where pushing Edwards.

Of course they always added if he can't get the nomination, he should be VP. Do you really think they pushed Edwards because they supported him? The hair combing video alone would have done him in. They are already pushing him for 08 because Rove's goal is to demolish the Democratic party.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

226. Clark Was Amazing For Having Never Run For Anything Before

and if he'd started earlier, he would have done much better. I don't think it's just about who makes for the best media darling. It's not about who is the most skilled politician or who has the slickest media hype. Where America is headed over the course of the next 4 years, we are going to need someone with great intelligence, devotion, knowledge and courage.

I see no one on the scene in America with the qualities of Wesley Clark as a leader.

[NDailyNews]

130. Definitely Clark

[Guaranteed]

135. The Daily News?

That's a bad word around here, man. :P


But WELCOME TO DU!!!!! :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

140. Isn't that the name of one of those newspapers that's part of the

Noise machine that you are so concerned about? :scared:

Maybe it's not as bad as you thought then?

[Guaranteed]

144. Huh??

I'm sorry, what are you saying again? And what in the hell are you basing it on?

What on EARTH are you talking about?

[FrenchieCat]

162. I repeat.....

Earth to BullGooseLoony
Earth to BullGooseLoony

Can't read you.....

Hey, I think we've lost him....

Earth to BullGooseLoony!

Nope...no response...just some static...

Well maybe all is not lost....Maybe he's just out to lunch.

I'll try back later.

[Skip Intro]

160. Like 'em both, wanna see who else is about when the time comes

I was for Gore in 2004 since late 2000. Wish he'd have done it. 2008 wont be the same situation. I have to say its too early to pick yet.

[Lena inRI]

163. Clark, the Democrat's ignored gift. . .

because the Party favors egos (Gore,Edwards, Hillary Clinton)seeking revenge or entitlement to Presidency before what is really needed to put a Democrat in the White House.

Though Clark had 3 foes in 2004--Repukes, Dem DLC, and media---Clark had strong showings in NH, OK, AZ.. . .why?

I say most people, like me, see him as a refreshingly genuine person. . .not a typical politician with an angle or axe to grind.

If only the Dems would stop being his 3rd foe, in 2008, Clark would meet the other two foes easily because he is a centered, keen-minded opponent. . .so awesome that the Repukes would die to have him on their side.

Like the politicos always say, take your opponents strength and turn it into a weakness. . .Clark the Democrat would have them shakin' at the knees.

BTW, zootsuitgringo and mrs grumpy nailed Clark's greatest appeal which is effortlessly winning over the swing, southern moderates. . .Gore, Edwards, Hillary Clinton are nowhere near Clark on this point. Period.



:kick:

[no name no slogan]

180. The DLC was NOT against Clark

In fact, there's evidence to suggest that Clark was the Clinton's man to take down Dean. He had (and still has) many ties with the DLC, and fits in their mold nicely.

Personally, I've never drank the Clark Kool-Aid, or the Dean Kool-Aid for that matter, either. The whole Presidential Candidate as Saviour trip is very juvenile, IMHO, and verges on cultish behaviour. It sure as hell doesn't do any good to the party rank and file.

If the party is strong, and has a message that resounds with voters in ALL 50 states, we will win in 2008, no matter who gets the nomination.

The cultlike behavior of a few zealous candidate-backers does nothing to endear your candidate to the rest of us, who care more about the future and direction of our party than who it's next posterboy will be.
:eyes:

=======================================================================
FULL DISCLOSURE: I supported Kucinich in '04. If he runs in '08, I may support him again, depending upon who else is in the running.

[FrenchieCat]

185. Well for me personally,

I don't have a problem staying on the defense if that is what I am forced to do. It's not about kool-aid for me....that's too sweet, and I was raised on Wine and water anyways.....not kool-aid.

But I am sure that if there was thread in where Kucinich was being denigrated or somehow misrepresented, you'd add in your part....I would hope. I think that is what you are seeing in this thread.

Notice plenty of Clarkies here, yet no Dean bashing.

[Lena inRI]

190. Well, well. well,. . .

my first slap in the face on DU. Been warned about this.

I'm not juvenile or cultish or zealous; I'm a lucid Clark supporter after sound, conscientious consideration of all the Dems running in 2004.

I must have said something that really caused a cognitive dissonance in you, "no name no slogan". . . you protesteth too much.

[wesrose]

193. Get ready for more attacks.

:eyes: They happen all the time.

[Lena inRI]

195. Much appreciated. . .

all the back up from you, Frenchie, and ClarkUSA.

I may be new at this but I'm sure not intimidated by anonymous insulters after 33 years of public high school teaching.

:pals:

[wesrose]

197. I'm new too but I'm a veteran lurker!

[ClarkUSA]

199. Anytime, Lena

Welcome to both you and wesrose.

:grouphug:

[Crunchy Frog]

206. Welcome to DU Lena.

I see you've been here awhile, but I hope we'll be seeing more posting from you in the future.

I don't know if your experience teaching high school will be of much use here. This board is more like Jr. high.

[no name no slogan]

244. Yeah, especially if you were a Kucinich supporter in '04, like I was

Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for the Clarkistas making the 'victim' claim. Flame away, as you will...

[CarolNYC]

248. Oooh,

I was a Kucinich supporter first (I do still love Dennis) and then became a Clark supporter...do I get flamed double? :P

[ClarkUSA]

192. Wes Clark was asked to run by President Carter, among others

"In fact, there's evidence to suggest that Clark was the Clinton's man to take down Dean. He had (and still has) many ties with the DLC, and fits in their mold nicely."

You have your "facts" mixed up with innuendo. Where's the evidence. Direct quotes, please. No hearsay from secondhand sources.

He was endorsed by the founder of Earth Day, the Native American Times & a VT tribal nation, the Latino Congressional Caucus, the head of the Human Rights Commission, Michael Moore and George McGovern. Doesn't sound DLC to me.

Your snide remarks do not endear us to your sense of courtesy or respect. There was no need to get personal. Have you read the Message Rules?

"Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger."

Fortunately, I won't hold it against Dennis that one of his supporters took the first opportunity to insult Clarkistas. :eyes:

[Donna Zen]

198. In a recent interview Clark named names:

of at least some of the people who called him: Biden (now that was a surprise with Kerry in the race) Rangel, and Pres. Carter. Pres. Carter is not exactly a Clintonite...at all. Apart from Rangel, who has had a close relationship with Wes before now, I don't see any Clinton names.

The Clintons do like Clark, and I would expect them to since they've all known each other for years and years. Wes and Hillary met while students at a conference in Paris. Of the people in their age group, these were the kids who stood out--they were singled out because they were/are brainiacs. Does anyone here besides me know and like people from their past?

The DLC was committed to its members, not Clark. Terry McAuliffe, Carville and Begala were horrible to Clark throughout the campaign.

[Crunchy Frog]

207. Wow, all of those guys backed Clark?

Well I always suspected he was a Republican stalking horse, but this proves it conclusively.
<heavy sarcasm>

[Donna Zen]

209. Jimmy Carter, who was once president:

thought Wes Clark would have made a good president--maybe a great president--apparently didn't think that he should run for governor of Arkansas first. But if one were being sarcastic: what the hell would someone who had done the job know about the demands of the Oval Office? Can anyone channel Eisenhower and get his opinion?

[wesrose]

181. Clark, definitely.

While I admire Gore, he will be eaten alive all over again by the media, they'll just use the same strategy as last time.

Clark offers a bold new vision, gravitas, and the national security and foreign policy experience we need in these troubled times. And he can flip some red states blue.

[union_maid]

188. Clark

I just love him, but that's not the only reason. Gore's delivery is still goofy. I'm sorry. It just is. He's a fine man and would make a fine president, but the only time he doesn't come across goofy when on a podium is when he's on a magnificent rant. He does that very well, but you can't do that for a whole campaign. He's fine when he's doing an interview, too, but not when he's giving a speech.

[CAG]

200. Gore couldn't even beat an idiot with no personality

2000 was the boring stick vs. the village idiot. Could you imagine what would have happened if Gore actually was put up against a decent adversary with any level of personality, charm, or intelligence to the general public (ie, McCain, Eisenhower, Reagan (personality))? It would have been Reagan/Mondale 84 all over again.

Gore may have been a good choice for president, but that doesn't get him any votes.

[BlueInRed]

217. I think that's unfair when you consider the results of the 04 election

I'm not saying he's the most electable choice or that he ran a perfect campaign. But he's not as bad a you make him out to be, especially when you look at how this last election played out, Bush's rep as a "straight shooter" in 00, and the impact of Monicagate in 00. Much has changed since then, and although Gore "lost" Florida, he was the undisputed winner of the popular vote.

[montana500]

221. Gore/Clark

Here is why:

the right wing media machine NEEDS fresh meat for 2008. Their smear and crap campaign only works when there is shock factor (swift boat lies, etc).

Sending Gore back at them would render all smears useless and make the GOP look tired and cliched.

Imagine the delight of sending the monster they made right back at them. No one would ever expect it.

[Silverhair]

222. Clark's problem:

Is in winning the nomination. Many on the left don't trust any military person unless they have solidly repudiated their service like Kerry did. Clark has not, and will not, apologize for serving.

With the general public I think Clark would have won handily in the last election. I live in a red state and I know a bunch of W voters who said they would have considered Clark. That doesn't mean they would have voted for him, but that they would have thought about it. They were against Kerry as soon as he was nominated because of his protestor baggage.

[ClarkUSA]

223. It's not Clark's problem as much as the Democratic base's hangup/prejudice

I understand what you are saying, tho'. Never mind that national security is our
Party's Achilles' Heel, perception-wise.

[Donna Zen]

225. Try this analogy

The Democrats are like someone living in a house with a huge hole in the roof and a blizzard is coming so they decide to change the color of the livingroom curtains.

Hmmmm?

Many bush voters I know were as one fundamentalist woman told me ready to "cross the street" to vote for Clark. Why? Because people do not pay attention to the policies, they vote with their instincts. They vote the way the buy things: the package. Many bush voters held their noses.

No_they hated Kerry...and Gore...really didn't like Gore. (shrug)

I personally had great difficulty getting past the Four Stars until I realized what a gift we'd been given. A liberal General that the media keeps identifying as "moderate."

I doubt we will ever see another one. Honestly.

Note: If your in Houston, General Clark is doing a fundraiser for Texas Dems 2/11/05. Go and see him...even if you have someone you like better. He's a trip.

[kath]

227. Clark voted for Nixon in 72, Ford, Reagan (twice), &Poppy Bush. In May2001

he gave the keynote address at a Repug fundraiser and PRAISED W. and praised a key Bush economic advisor. This was BEFORE the Sept 11 attacks. In Jan 2002, at a speech at a university in Arkansas, he again praised W.

[Skwmom]

228. Clark voted for Clinton (not Bush I). e/o/m

[BlueInRed]

229. That explains why

some Democrats don't like him and also explains why a lot of independents do like him. Most independents have voted for people from both parties.

So the question is whether he is so unpalatable to more liberal Democrats that they wouldn't vote for him b/c of those votes. Since I'm more moderate (but not DLC), I just don't know the answer. I like him. And I think he'd draw in swing voters, but would he turn off the base.

Any true blue liberals or greens want to chime in?

[Crunchy Frog]

230. My whole family are lifelong liberal Democrats

and we all supported Clark in the primaries.

It's sort of like asking whether Reagan turned off the Republican base because he had once been a card carrying Roosevelt Democrat. Apparently he didn't.

It's really never bothered me that he once used to vote Republican. I recognized that it was because of his perception at the time that they were better for the military, not because of his overall ideological outlook. I accept that as he matured and his outlook expanded, he realized that he was more in tune with the Democratic orientation, and has been voting that way for more than a dozen years.

I figure that if George McGovern can forgive his past votes, that I can too.

[BlueInRed]

232. I'm glad to hear that

I also think people can switch parties and be perfectly loyal to the new party. What matters is what you think now, not what you thought then. :hi:

ps - Note to Clarkies, I know Clark was never officially in either party until recently. :)

[kath]

236. But to vote for Reagan TWICE?? And then for Poppy Bush, after all the bad

shit that happened during 8 years of Reagan???! Or have too many of you bought into all the crap saying that Reagan was a great president? Gimme a break -- 12 years of Reagan-Bush was awful for this country. But apparently Clark was okay with at least the first 8 years of it.

Another interesting tidbit: in a Sept 2003 issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reported that in Jan. 2003, Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

[FrenchieCat]

237. Clark did NOT vote for Bush 41....

You should at least keep your facts straight when trying to denegrate a great Democrat.

This stuff you are asking about is clearly Right Wing bullshit. It was put out there to turn the left against Wes Clark long ago. But why are you using this, a full 18 months after he announced his run? Considering that you are upset that Clark voted for Republicans....why help by pushing the GOP's hate for us to buy?

What's up with that? Do you read progressive publications? that's what I want to know? Or do you just read RNC Propaganda exclusively? Newsweek is at the end of the Republican Noise Machine chain.....Didn't you know this?
--------------------
http://calpundit.com/archives/2003_09.html
IS WES CLARK A DEMOCRAT?....There are plenty of legitimate questions about Wesley Clark and whether he'd make a good president, but the question of whether he's really a Democrat is surely one of the lamest. Here's all you need to know about it:

The Republican National Committee on Friday circulated a transcript and videotape of Clark's May 11, 2001, speech before the Pulaski County Republican Party. Clark had gained attention as NATO supreme commander in the late 1990s, but his party affiliation was unknown at the time of his speech.

Here's the easy formula: if the RNC is pushing this, Democrats should stay away from it. Yes, that means you, Joe Lieberman. Find something else to attack him about.

This is really one of the silliest things I've heard since — well, since the recall debate a couple of days ago. I mean, Clark was talking to a Republican Party gathering. Of course he said nice things about Republicans and didn't say anything about Clinton. If I were giving a speech to the Cato Institute I'd probably skip lightly over my admiration for Franklin Roosevelt.

If this is the best the RNC can do, Clark is in great shape — especially since this kind of stuff probably helps him in the long run. But even if they can do better, let's not help them out, OK?KEVIN DRUM
----------------------------------
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/old/sept0304.html
The backdrop to the Clark-bashing from the White House and its helpers. This from Charlie Cook's weekly newsletter "Off To The Races" ...

For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." That is without a Democrat with any credibility in national security having thrown a punch. A credible Clark could inflict some very serious damage on this president, particularly after Bush's admission last week that there was no direct connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein. That was news to 69 percent of Americans, who told Washington Post pollsters in August they thought a connection was likely. The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months, whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines. This isn't rocket science, people. This is how they operate. Don't think it's random. If you go over to the Fox News website, you can see their featured video clip (page down on the left) with Brit Hume repeating the ridiculous Standard-peddled phone log canard : "White House phone logs suggest Wesley Clark is telling tales once again." You've seen this before. As I say, it's how they operate. The only question is whether the legit press gets dragged into it, as they have in the past. It's a test for them.
-- Josh Marshall
-------------------------------
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_09/002210.php
A MODEST REQUEST....According to Newsweek, a few months ago Wesley Clark told two Colorado Republicans that, following 9/11, "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Clark says he was just kidding, but Newsweek reported it seriously.

However, even if Clark was serious, he was obviously speaking metaphorically here, since the very first paragraph of Newsweek's story had already told us that "when GOP friends inquired , they were told: forget it." So Clark himself didn't call Karl Rove, his friends did.

Matthew Continetti, writing in the Weekly Standard, doesn't much care about this. He just wants to prove that Clark is a lying, lying, liar:

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

Obviously this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but what caught my eye is that the White House is apparently willing to search Karl Rove's phone logs upon request by reporters. So I've got a request of my own: will you please search Rove's phone logs to find out if Robert Novak called him on or about July 14? Thanks!
—Kevin Drum
-------------------
http://backpagesblog.com/weblog/archives/000058.html
Dirty work
As Ken Parish notes, perhaps the clearest signal that Wesley Clark is on the up and up is the way in which he already "has the loony right … in full-on attack dog character assassination mode". Ken was referring to an article in William Kristol's Daily Standard, the link to which EvilPundit supplied as evidence of Clark being "busted telling fibs".

The main charge refers to the story that has been put about by a couple of Republicans, who allege that Clark told them in January that he "would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls".What's interesting is the history of the story, which originally surfaced in Newsweek. Clark openly admitted to the line, but said he was just joking ("a humourous tweak"). Newsweek didn't quite accept this, and added assurances from the two Republicans that Clark was serious ("He went into detail about his grievances ... Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked.").

Now, it seems to me that this spin strikes at Clark's base-building, which is where, after all, the primaries are being fought out ... suggesting that Wes is merely just another politician, being an opportunist with no real convictions, let alone left convictions. OK, one small unbalanced hit, but this is where the Standard's story comes in, and gets funny. The entire unedited reference, which is the story's lead, is as follows:

WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

OK, let's quickly go through it. The Standard has (1) dropped all reference to the sources being Republicans, (2) failed to mention that Clark said it was a joke, (3) proceeded to actually substantiate that Clark was joking by checking that he was absent from the phone records, and (4) perversely used this fact to spin a fresh allegation that … he lied!

Can't wait till the story is repeated by an Australian columnist (which one? place your bets). It's going to be a long season folks. I could go through the other two pieces of crap in the Standard's article, but it's shooting fish in a neocon barrel. Suffice to say that the anti-Bushies can take heart. The enemy is rattled. Meanwhile, over at Calpundit, Kevin Drum has noted the more salient fact about the article, which "is that the White House is apparently willing to search Karl Rove's phone logs upon request by reporters". As you might guess, Kevin's commentators have been coming up with some good suggestions.
------------------
more of the same....
http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000839.html

[kath]

240. He DID vote for Bush41 in '88. See this NPR interview with Bob Edwards:

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/clark_trans.html

Excerpt: EDWARDS: Can Democrats be confident that you're a Democrat? You voted for Bush the elder, you praised the Bush administration just two years ago at a Republican fundraiser. When did you become a Democrat, anyway?

CLARK: Well, in the United States Army you never have a party, at least most of us didn't as far as I know. You just voted for people that were strong for national security. When Bill Clinton ran in '92 and I listened to him and I had of course known of his record from Arkansas, I found him extraordinarily inspirational and I voted Democratic.


So before you accuse ME of not keeping my facts straight, why don't you get YOUR facts in order? I found many, many sites saying that he voted for Poppy Bush in '88, and *nowhere* could I find evidence that Clark ever denied this. He sure didn't deny it when confronted pretty directly with it by B.Edwards in the above interview.



From the Newsweek piece about the KarlRove-phone-calls crap:

Messaging Newsweek by BlackBerry, Clark late last week insisted the remark was a "humorous tweak." The two others said it was anything but. "He went into detail about his grievances," Holtzman said. "Clark wasn't joking. We were really shocked."

________

This part of your post (and the end of the preceding paragraph) comes pretty damned close to a personal attack:
"What's up with that? Do you read progressive publications? that's what I want to know? Or do you just read RNC Propaganda exclusively? Newsweek is at the end of the Republican Noise Machine chain.....Didn't you know this?"

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I sure as heck don't need you questioning my reading material or implying that I am a Freeper. (I haven't read Newsweek in years, except for an occasional very brief look-through in the dr's office, not as if that's any of YOUR business) And nowhere is it written that we can't quote Newsweek here. The piece in question sort of ends up as a "he-said she-said" kind of thing, with Clark saying it was a joke, and two Colorado Repugs saying it wasn't. But in the context of Clark's recent conversion to the Dem. party and speaking at a Repug fundraiser as recently as *2001* it seemed worth pointing out.

[Crunchy Frog]

242. So don't support him then, geeze!

Oh, and the little fourth hand anecdote is just that. Do you believe everything that you read in the corporate media or do you just find Fineman a terribly credible source?:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

250. George McGovern endorsed him for President and so did Michael Moore

Gore told Barbara Boxer and the CBC not to stand in challenge in 2000.

Even Kerry didn't do that in 2004.

Howard Fineman is a GOP mouthpiece who was quoting two GOP supporters
and we know how reliable they are, right? Gov. Bill Owens is head of re-elect Bush/Cheney04 in CO and you want me to believe him????

Anymore GOP talking points? FYI, if you want to hear what a Democrat says about his idea of "the best Democrat is", read this:

"Senator George McGovern Remarks For Endorsement

Manchester, NH
January 18, 2004

Thirty-two years ago, thanks to the support of Democratic and Independent Voters right here in New Hampshire, I proudly stood as the presidential candidate of our party -- the Democratic Party.

Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark...

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive...Wes Clark.

Thank you."

http://clark04.com/press/release/193/

[CarolNYC]

249. Well....

I grew up in a family where the political philosophy was "the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican". I think we're all pretty darn liberal....and every single one in my family was a Gen Clark supporter...from my 70 year old life long Dem mother to my 3-yr-old niece (who, BTW, can only be calmed when in tantrum mode by watching video of Gen Clark speaking, even when she has no idea what he's talking aobut...maybe it's the calming voice). Cool thing is, even my Republican brothers-in-law supported the good General. It is the only political thing we ever all agreed on.

[Crunchy Frog]

231. Alot of Democrats were saying nice things about W

right after the selection, and again, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. If that's going to be a disqualifier, then you've ruled out most potential candidates right there.

By the way, there was a greater context to Clark's remarks in May 2001 in which he was actually subtly critiquing Bush's international policy. He was also still officially nonpartisan at the time, and was being courted by both parties. He attended a similar Democratic fundraiser not long afterward.

[Donna Zen]

233. Nice things about bush?

Hell_the Dems are saying nice things about Torture Guy and Baby Jane Rice. Wait a minute!

The Dems all voted to approve that 2001 batch of losers and said very, very nice things about them. Gore called bush "his president." This is coming back to me...I don't even need an RNC out of context tape.

[Crunchy Frog]

234. I also think I recall Howard Dean

saying he had really liked Bush back when he was head of the Governors association. That's sort of coming back to me too.

Guess we'd better just kick 'em all out of the party.

[googly]

235. A seasoned politician Vs a political virgin? Not much of a choice!

[ZootSuitGringo]

239. I'll take the virgin, thank you.

While you can have the calculating, non principled, "don't stand for much unless the coast is clear" politician.

I give Gore kudos for standing up against the Iraq war earlier than most politicians (but not earlier than Clark), but this author says for me.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0925-01.htm
I've never been a great fan of Gore. He kept changing his mind so often in the campaign that he lost a race for the presidency that he should have won. He was oddly AWOL last year when Bush was claiming a mandate for extremist policies that he never earned. Gore is often described as one of the most ambitious, calculating, and poll-driven people in American politics.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

[BornaDem]

251. Just my 2 cents....

I think Gore is over. He had his opportunity and could not capitalize on it. It's been over 50 yrs. since the Dems re-nominated a candidate who lost a presidential election. (Adlai Stevenson) I think Clark is not ready for prime time. He should run for Senate or Governor or set his sites on some smaller job. Very few people who were not in political life have run for president and won. I know. Eisenhower and he was a general too. No. He was a FAMOUS general that the whole country loved and wanted to reward. Clark was just another general that nobody ever heard of until he was urged to get into the primaries to keep Dean from being the nominee. He didn't do well and I don't think he'll do any better in '08 if he runs again.

[googly]

252. Good points, and IKE did not have 24/7 CNN to answer to

on campaign trail. Like I said in another post, if Clark gets
himself elected to be a governor or senator or even a congressman
I would then support him.

[Romberry]

241. If those are the two choices, it has to be Gore.

All Al Gore has to do is point to his 2000 platform and say "We were right."

[NicRic]

243. Gore/Clark ticket !

Thats sounds pretty good .I know I would prefer either one of them ,of course ,over the idiot in office we now have ! I did not realize what a terrible choice Liberman was for Gore in 2000 ,and he still won the election .With a Gore Clark ticket you would have Gores exprience on the economy, and Clark on the milatary . I dont know it sounds like a possible winning combo ,what do ya think !

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

245. Gore's gotta appease the disenfranchised....

His attempt to be noble if face of defeat, turned to shame among those who sought his help to challenge the FL electors in 2000, imo. Twice more, the DNC has deafened their ears.

Dean's rise to DNC, ought not "gaurantee" Gore's presidential bid through his supporters, as Al belched through his hearty endorsement and episodic scream, NOT what I wanted to hear. Otherwise, be prepared for a 3-peat for 2008, and a return back to Party loyalty and mistakes thrice more.

En'I says it befores, en'I'll says it again,....if they goes a'hollerin like that again, ...I shoot me' blasted cannons thru the deck o'me own ship,... and sink her w'dignity, ...rather than Party a sail through 2012 in the land of neocons and hear da'screams from a country no'more...

[leesa]

255. Neither one. Don't we want someone effective and progressive?

[FrenchieCat]

263. obviously...

but you are missing something else. You are missing the "winning" part.

Don't know what you consider "effective". Why don't you tell me about that.

Effective how? and what has this effective progressive elusive candidate you would want done? Let me know. K?

[Cozmosis]

262. Of those two - Clark