I love the idea of Hillary Clinton for a run .......

[TheDebbieDee]

at the White House in '08. Afterall, she's incredibly thick-skinned and battle-tested after living in the White House with the Big Dog for eight years.

But, being a forward thinking person, I think Wesley Clark presents the best chance for us grown-up Democrats to win back the White House. There would be no senatorial or congressional voting record to hold against him and I DARE the swiftboaters to imply that Clark intentionally wounded himself in VietNam with plans of making a run for the presidency in mind.

Aside from installing Democrats to be in charge of counting the votes in all 50 states, I think Clark is our best shot. Also, it wouldn't hurt if we could get the MSM to give him coverage.

[napi21]

1. I have nothing against Clark, but I'm not sure he's got enough

hardball political experience to be able to do it.

I detest the idea of even having to say that, but that was part of Dean's problem. He was trying to play it straight, and he even said he wouldn't coddle and play up to the media. Unfortunately, campaigns have become a very big game, and if you don't know the secrets, you don't stand a chance!

[murielm99]

3. I don't know about that.

Yes, Dean was skewered for being "blunt."

But I saw Clark do the same sort of thing with media types. He would not let them put words in his mouth. I saw him back Koppel into a corner when he tried. Clark was persistent, but he did it in a nice way.

Clark could run a great campaign, as long as he does not have wimpy managers and advisers. I think the military is plenty hardball.

I am not promoting Clark. But I think he would be fine.

[FrenchieCat]

2. From my "lips" to yours.....

I just love your avatar....and agree with the content of your post.

Those who have a few minutes should definitely watch this video...of Clark's Cornell convocation speech.....
http://www.cornell.edu/video/commencement2005/convocati...
(Wes Clark comes on approx 2/3 into Convocation ceremony)
I (of course) believe that he does have the "right stuff" and is a very different breed from the other Democrats that we have in our corridors.

Here is my review of what one gets from watching this particular speech:

Clark is genuine and endearing. One has no idea of what he will say, until he says it (which makes him fascinating to listen to). It's obvious that he's not a politician, especially in the manner in which he gives a speech. He can be somewhat awkward, at times...but this only makes him appear human and honest (traits not normally associated with politicians). Some, in the Corporate media, have fried him over this issue....stating that this makes him not so "good" on the stump. That's because they want to compare him to those lifelong politicians that are "slick and calculated" and have their memorized speech in the pocket. That is not Wes Clark's style. His is about telling personal stories that mainstream folks can clearly relate to, and then getting folks to see what we could be, and why we will not get there with what we now have.... and that is something that he does achieve, quite simply....at that. He's got vision and style....even if it's not the conventional political style that so many complain about and are repulsed with....yet seem to find to be the only acceptable manner in which a politician should articulate.

Clark on the other hand enounciates in plainspeak, with an unalienating vision of what America could be about, if we would just be brave enough to do what's right.

It was reported that there was a protest at Cornell due to his appearance. However, even the protestors ended up admitting that their beef was not with Clark....whom they felt gave a great speech, but rather with some hypocrisis eminating, in their opinion, from the University.

Here's the negative portion of the article ....
Not everyone in attendance, however, fully approved of Clark as a convocation speaker. Jointly hosted by several student organizations, a demonstration was held outside the Statler Hotel. The demonstrators claimed Clark was not an accurate representation of the values of Cornell University and that a separate "convocation" was needed.

"There are two different Cornells. One runs like a corporation, and the other runs like an academic institution. Since there are two Cornells, it's only appropriate to have two different convocations," said Patrick Young '06, one of the demonstrators and Redbuddies who orchestrated a sit-in at the University president's office a few weeks ago.
snip
While Young believed Clark delivered a "positive speech," he felt the America Clark spoke about was "a myth" and the Cornell he spoke about something the University "should embody" but does not.
http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/05/2...

[DU9598]

4. 2004

I still believe that Clark would have been the nominee in 2004 if he wouldn't have run such a poor campaign - bypassing Iowa was his fatal mistake. He admitted that on CSPAN, so not much debate about it. He is definitely a power in the party - as he should be. I think he and Hillary or Edwards would make a great, winning ticket in 2008.

[w13rd0]

7. Do you realize...

...that the statement: "I still believe that Clark would have been the nominee in 2004 if he wouldn't have run such a poor campaign" is without any meaning? Daffy Duck would have been the nominee in 2004 if he wouldn't have run such a poor campaign. Or Gephardt, or Lieberman. The boosters for each of their candidates can rattle off a list of reasons why Person X would have been a great nominee. Thing is, Kerry was our nominee, and we didn't do a very good job explaining why to the average voter, partly because of the "media filter" and partly because...well, that's another discussion.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I understand what you are saying.....

However, the problems with Clark's campaign were not as much in a failing of Clark as to what he represented....or even what image the man convey...as much as one of logistics based on specific PRIMARY issues, e.g., starting his run four months before the first vote (while the others had been campaigning for a year already); choosing not to go to Iowa because of time and money limitations (Harkin has admitted that he would have endorsed Clark and so did the unions....but neither could once the Iowa decision was made...a decision based on historical data); lack of available Democratic campaign staff (because most were already working for others); the fact that the DNC had already decided, via a truncated primary season, to have the Iowa winners become the "Viable" candidates.

These were the campaign problems which affected Clark in the primary season, and are the problems that led to his losing the primaries....

However, these are not problems that he would have experienced in a General election...hence the poster to which you responded to was alluding to in saying "things would have been different if Clark would have been the 2004 nominee".

As you know, the picture changes dramatically from primaries to a general election. Kerry was tops and "electable" during the primaries, but failed to connect on many levels during the GE...although he had all that would have been required; the money, the manpower, the momentum, the media coverage, and ultimately the wherewithall logistically speaking. It was at that point that Kerry's mistakes were his own...whether it was concentrating too much on the "Hero 30+ years ago" theme; the let's not attack Bush/let's not make too much noise about the war Convention theme; Wait till we see the white in their eyes before getting back to those Swiftboat accusation theme; the choice of campaign staffers; promoting the McCain for VP, yet picking "optimistic but light on NS/FS Edwards as VP; stating that he would have voted for the war.....etc. These were issues that did not help Kerry....and were specific to decisions Kerry made.

So we can think that all potential nominees would have had the same problem as Kerry had they been the nominee....but I don't really think that losing a primary tell a lot about what could have happened in the GE.

A good example of this McCain on the GOP side; because although McCain would have a good chance in the general election to win the presidency....his overcoming the Republican primaries is where his problem lies. That's the problem with most cross over candidates (those who would appeal to both sides) Clark really had that same problem....plus his "late entry" logistical problems, IMO.

[Clark2008]

9. I don't think it was necessarily a "poor" campaign.

I think it had more to do with the fact that he got into the race so late. The focus was entirely on the primaries at the time he threw in his 'cover,' and any missteps he had were covered with a microscope. The other candidates had missteps early on, too, but they started running one, sometimes two years in advance when the media wasn't focused on them as much.
He was a novice of this type of political arena, too, but he learned quickly and now would be one of the most formidible candidates in the field.
His only problem is that the corporate whores in the media are frightened to death of him because he absolutely embodies what people believe America can and should be, so they refuse to give him much coverage.

[longship]

5. Hillary must run...

if for no other reason to draw fire away from the candidate who will eventually get the nomination, hopefully Wesley Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Stalking Horse....uh?

Well why not, hey?

[Clark2008]

11. LMAO!

After all the crap spewed that Clark was the stalking horse for Hillary, it would be absolutely hilarious if the opposite actually occurred.

:rofl:

[ThomWV]

10. It Would Be A Slaughter. We Would Loose.

You clearly have no idea how ill the will is towards Hillary out here in the country. Perfectly good yellowdog Democrats would abandon the party in numbers you can not even immagine. Charlton Heston would do a lot better running as a Democrat out here.

[Clark2008]

12. Did you read the rest of her statement?

She clearly acknowledged this and is promoting Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

13. But it would be a Hillary slaughter...nevertheless.....

so the post is accurate.

Many may want to read this article and understand the difference between Bill Clinton in 1992 and a Hillary run in 2008...

"The Spirit of '92"
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003507.html#3507

I think it does make one understand that a Clinton nominee now...is not getting what we got in 1992.

I hope that the general populace becomes more astute before it's too late.

[Eloriel]

14. You folks are incorrigible

ANY angle to wedge in yet another way-too-early Clark advert. This one was especially manipulative. I feel used.

And have you ever heard of candidate fatigue? You guys are pushing it. Hard.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Candidate "fatigue?"

Literally. :rofl:


Or is that "fatigue" candidate? :freak:

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Who do you mean when you say "you folks"?

I don't recall ever seeing this particular individual posting about Clark before, but maybe you regard her as one of the great Clark wing borg whose members are all indistinguishable from each other. I guess I qualify as one of "you folks" since I'm a Clark supporter, even though I've never, ever, started a thread advocating his candidacy.

Or maybe "you folks" is all the people who post threads pushing one candidate or another for 2008.

I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify. I want to know if I'm one of "you folks" or not.

Maybe you regard all of us as the same since "we all look alike" to you?:shrug:

(I've got candidate fatigue too by the way.)

[Skwmom]

23. The Rove/Media machine are already pushing it hard.

Are we to remain silent and let them once again determine the Democratic nominee?

[tnlefty]

16. Could you please define a "grown-up Democrat"? I don't think

that I've ever heard this phrase before and I don't know what it means. Thanks.

[TheDebbieDee]

17. I meant "grown-up Democrats" in comparison to the

self-absorbed, sexually-repressed, thought-controlling, lock-step repukes that currently inhabit our great nation.

[tnlefty]

18. Oh, so you mean putting the "real adults" back in charge!

As opposed to those who are currently ruining our country. Thanks for the clarification.

[aspberger]

20. a woman candidate is the key

a woman candidate would be are curve ball for for the miscreant rovites. it would be harder target for them to spew their venom at. i think wes clark would be a good v.p. choice for a woman at the head of ticket. a tough lady like boxer or clinton would give the rovebots a challenge.

[aspberger]

21. a woman candidate is the key

a woman candidate would be are curve ball for for the miscreant rovites. it would be harder target for them to spew their venom at. i think wes clark would be a good v.p. choice for a woman at the head of ticket. a tough lady like boxer or clinton would give the rovebots a challenge.

[aspberger]

22. a woman candidate is the key

a woman candidate would be are curve ball for for the miscreant rovites. it would be harder target for them to spew their venom at. i think wes clark would be a good v.p. choice for a woman at the head of ticket. a tough lady like boxer or clinton would give the rovebots a challenge.