If Clark had held an elected political office would he be as popular?

[fujiyama]

I'm just curious and would like to guage people's reactions considering Clark is so popular among DUers.

Say Clark had held an elected post, whether a legislator or a governor. Wouldn't it have been inevitable he would have pissed more people off based on one policy or the other? Is part of his charm the fact that he hasn't been elected before?

I say this as one that believes Clark might be a good candidate in '08. For the most part he seems genuine and is able to speak clearly about war from a first hand experience so his criticisms of this war are in some ways very effective.

[Raiden]

1. I think it only would have helped

His lack of political experience was probably one of the things that originally hindered his campaign during the primaries

[wakeme2008]

2. IMHO, not being in office is the best thing Clark has

going for him...

Kerry got killed over his Senate votes.

[JNelson6563]

3. He'd be better known in the Real World

instead of relegated to hero status by his on-line fan club.

It'd be great to have opportunity to know more about him through source other than the fan-club or having ot watch Faux News (which I refuse to do).

Julie

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. actually,

I learned the most about Wes Clark from hearing him on NPR and then seeing him on C-SPAN. Those town hall meetings were incredible.

[Adelante]

5. Oh, yeah

It's so sad those town hall meetings weren't seen on MSM by the whole country.

On the OP's question, I don't think Clark's not being a legislator hurts him in a GE. It's getting there that's tricky. Democratic primary voters equate legislative experience with executive experience, somehow, but then in a GE, it's flipped over, because what GE voters look for is leadership and strength. In fact, a president doesn't need legislative experience, at all, with an experienced VP. A president needs to be able to lead the country domestically and globally. He needs to be able to articulate Democratic policy and lead the party. So Wes Clark has a very good background for a presidential candidate. He's led, he's governed, he's worked in government, he's engaged in diplomacy with many other governments. He's already been a commander-in-chief. He's already respected in the world. The Democrats have to look past the primaries when they nominate a candidate, asking not strictly what do Democrats want, but offering the country what it wants, a strong leader.

[xkenx]

6. Wes Clark's Amazing Town Hall Meetings

To piggyback on WesDem's and Lefta Dissenter's comments--I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No" Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

[Auntie Bush]

63. Well said, WesDem. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

7. Oh that's too funny

The great on-the-ground activist only knows about Clark what she reads at DU?

Are you also one of those voters who walk into the voting booth wondering who all the candidates are?

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

9. People Never Change...some can't pass up an opportunity to bash Clarkies!

Intellectual honesty is hard to come by for those who have a hostile anti-Clark agenda here at DU.

The only opportunity some people look for is to attack Clark supporters in the guise of commentary. Grinding axes is a hobby for some here at DU. I know plenty about Dean, for example...and I don't go out of my way to diss his supporters. I am focused on fighting the GOP. I have no desire to keep the primary wars going, unlike some obsessives do. Julie, we know you have only one agenda when it comes to Clark and Clark supporters and you never fail to behave predictably. It's a shame when a person who brags about being a local DNC politico deliberately goes out of their way to attack grassroots supporters/activists. :shrug:

General Clark is a hero to the 1.5 Albanians he saved from genocide. He is the one of only 3460 recipients since the Civil War of the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty, in actual combat against an armed enemy force," of which only 120 are still living amongst us. You may not care about genocide, but Clarkistas do and we do think he's a hero, thank you. Perhaps you need to get out more from local MI politics and widen your field of knowledge and compassion.

Heads-up to the Clueless: Wes Clark has authentic hero bonafides in the Real World, thought it might not seem so to ideologues whose Clark and Clarkie-bashing agenda supercedes any fair analysis on the Loony Left blogosphere.

[xkenx]

10. JNelson, Do You Think

that Wes Clark's on-line fan club or Faux News are the only places to learn about him?? You don't sound that naive, so you must have an anti-Clark agenda which you are unwilling to state. FYI, many posters here back up their so-called "hero worship" with a multitude of references and links re Clark's background, accomplishments, proposals. I am a believer in the "Duck Principle." Ducks don't wear signs labeling them. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., you know it's a duck. Well, Wes Clark's history, actions,
proposals, mark him as a true progressive with the intelligence, character, compassion, and leadership experience to be a great president. THAT is why the depth of his support is what it is. And since, by your own admission, you don't know diddley about Clark, maybe you should make the effort to learn a little. Who knows, you may become a Clarkie.

[JNelson6563]

11. You may be right

I am certainly open to the possiblity of becoming a Clark fan, at this point I don't have strong feelings one way of the other about him.

You seem to have missed my point. My experience in a broad swath of my state is that Clark is relatively unknown and, as I stated in another thread, never mentioned in the political discussions I hear.

So yeah, you on-line Clark devotees can post all the links you want in your tag-lines, it doesn't seem to be making much of a dent out here in the Real World. So if you want to win more than on-line polls, you may want ot re-think your strategy, maybe broaden your horizons as it were.

Julie

[ClarkUSA]

12. People Never Change....some are so innocent yet continue snarking!

Don't worry so, Julie :eyes: ....where I live, "broad swaths" do know about Wes Clark.

Guess there's always more work to do, but didn't Dean win all the online polls prior to being known in the Real World?

Comparatively speaking, were there local DNC politicos where you live commenting disparagingly on Dean's unknown status relative to the rest of the 2004 field in August 2001?

Wes Clark has not announced his formal candidacy for 2008. He wants his supporters to focus on supporting the Democratic Party for the 2006 midterm elections, so there is no need now to push voters into talking about him in 2008.

It's inappropriate at this point in Real World time to have "political discussions" about 2008 when we have 2006 ahead of us, which is why I am volunteering at Jon Corzine's and Bob Casey's campaign offices now.

FYI... Wes Clark consistently polls higher than Warner, Biden, and Bayh in Real World polls. He often ties Edwards, which is a good sign of Real World name recognition, considering John Edwards' former Senatorial and VP candidate status.

Oh and thanks for noticing my tagline. Nice words by George McGovern about Wes Clark, huh? Click on it sometime if you're really interested in an opportunity to find out more about Wes Clark.

[JNelson6563]

14. I see you're still re-living the primaries

That's too bad really. Maybe when you let go of that you will see real-time political commentary for what it is.

If you don't like observations that are don't fit your desires that would be your problem, not mine.

Can't say I had noticed your tag-line, I was referring to the comment that there are lots of acts available on Clark in the tag-lines of Clarkies.

Perhaps the discussion was a bit too deep. Next time, clear the emotion based thinking fog and try to keep up, k?

Julie

[ClarkUSA]

15. Au contraire, though some People Never Change in bashing Clark/Clarkies

What I don't like is your anti-Clark and anti-Clarkie bias disingenuously disguised as commentary.

Next time, try to add to the discussion honestly instead of disparaging Clark and flamebaiting Clarkies at every backdoor opportunity you seem to enjoy creating.

By the way, Dean is doing great as DNC Chairman.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Julie...

On the one hand, you sound very bitter, and for that I am sorry.

On the other hand, wouldn't you agree that maybe the way to "broaden" our horizons as it were might be to Support Clark in the Way that Howard Dean supporters supported Howard Dean?

Do you remember when Howard Dean was polling at 5% or something lower a year prior to the primaries and nobody had heard of him?

What happened to propel him to national status?

I say it was his supporters....the people. Sure Howard had a message that many hungered to hear...and that certainly helped him out....but it was the Buzz that his supporters created that made the difference for Howard Dean.

So I would suggest that you don't look your nose down at us, cause we started on this wayyyyyy later on this than you and Chairman Dean.


The negative snobby manner in which you attempt to look your nose down at us really says more about you and your hero worship than it does about us. You see, we are not going out of way to find a thread to trash Howard Dean and his supporters.....but you are.

So what does that make you?

[JNelson6563]

20. Whatever Frenchie

Don't you have a hero to promote?

I don't. I'm far too busy for hero-worship. Wish you were too. As far as I know "Deanies" that I work with (many of us moved into positions of authority to help affect change in the party) we're back to calling ourselves just plain ol' Democrats.

Won't relive the primaries with you, sorry, find someone else (besides your own pack) to dance that dance with.

Funny to see the swarm action. Just like the primaries. Theya re over kids, move on.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

23. Wish you could, Julie.....wish you could

take your own advise, and "move on" that is.....

But, when it comes to dissing Clark supporters and Clark, I find that you generally make a few appearances within a Clark thread, to always say the same thing.

Maybe you can fool some of the people some of the time....but you are underplaying your own difficulties with letting go with the attitude you adopted during the primaries, and it shows.

So I do have to agree with other Clark posters, some people never change, although they claim otherwise...which of course, we all know, doesn't make it so.

Your words in the links provided below do not match your words here. Some folks have a name for that kind of thing.....

SEE Here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4268582&mesg_id=4269458

AND Here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4268582&mesg_id=4271378

AND Here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4268582&mesg_id=4273854

AND Here....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4268582&mesg_id=4273901

[JNelson6563]

53. Thank you for proving my point Frenchie

You are often very helpful in that way (though sometimes unwittingly).

So to prove to me I'm just bitter and don't really have a legitimate case on anything I've said you invest all sorts of time and effort searching DU for previous posts by me?

Thank you for showing us all what really matters. Just keep after anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't share your hero-worship! That'll show me and everyone else who really is making good use of their time and who really is valuable to the cause!

Oy.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

54. Actually Julie, finding your snarky comments didn't take any efforts

at all. You see, factual research is something I do quite easily--DU Search engine with Poster (your name), and Wes Clark as words in message brings up your constant negative posts. Took me one minute, if that. But thanks for the backhand compliment of how proficient I am.

We see clearly that you are the one that drops into Clark threads to post your divisive drivel, not the other way around....thus there "lies" your hypocritical dilemna.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. I realize that you're far to busy Saving the World (tm)

to engage in such silly tripe as having any involvement with "hero worshippers" and "personality cultists", other than to drop in very frequently on DU threads and post random bits of snark.

I will say this, just as a matter of constructive advice. One of the absolutely most unattractive traits that can be found in a person is the habit of continually tooting your own horn, talking about how great you are, going on and on and on about all the incredible things that you are doing, while belittling and insulting everybody else for not being as great as you are.

This sort of behavior can be very alienating to people, in the "real world" as well as online.

I'm sure that you are doing very great things and I respect you for that. I would however, try to be more aware of how some of your behavior patterns may be impacting the people around you. In a situation such as the one you are operating in, you rely alot on volunteers. The best way to cultivate volunteers is through positive reinforcement and showing that you genuinely value your work. People don't like to here someone simply going on and on about all the great things they are doing and how generally wonderful they are. It's not that you aren't doing wonderful things, it's about the way people are expected to conduct themselves in interactions with others.

I will just say that there are bigger things at stake that your ego, and I hope that you will keep that in mind.

There are many political activists here on DU. I haven't seen any of them engage in the sort of self promotion that I see from you.

Just so you know, I am not part of a swarm, as you so like to describe many of your fellow Democrats. I just happened on this thread and noticed the discussion taking place.

I'm over the primaries. The sort of bitterness that comes out in your posts makes me question whether you really are. I hope that you will examine some of your motives and behaviors so that you don't end up doing damage where you should be doing good.

Peace.

[JNelson6563]

52. Not bitterness, more like frustration

I love the work I do here in Reality. It's very exciting to come up with an idea, put it into motion and see the results. It's very disappointing to see so many of my fellow Dems (I assume you were referring to Clarkies, many who don't refer to themselves as plain ol' Dems, but "Clarkies"--get where I'm goin' with that?) wasting so much time and energy hero-worshipping, wasting time on 08 polls and various other completely useless, and sometimes counterproductive stuff.

If all would do just 25% less on-line nonsense and apply it to the Dem cause (not the insert-hero-of-your-choosing's cause) I can only imagine how much better off we'd be.

Looks like I'll probably have to stay with that as it doesn't look like things'll be changing anytime soon, if the current swarm action is any indication.

Cheers-
Julie

On edit: CF, I wanted to comment on the "tooting your own horn" remark: A poster (and swarm member) had been in Ohio on the Hackett effort (apparently representing all Clarkies) and I was asked if I had been there too. Kinda giving the impression that anyone who hadn't been prolly hadn't done shit. I figured I would demonstrate that there was important work going on elsewhere at the time, no cameras or spotlights or anything, just basic gruntwork being done by basic people like myself. Anyone who challenges me thusly will probably be given back a list of just what I am doing. Citing efforts is hardly tooting one's own horn, it would qualify as that if the lots of self-praise were included. BTW, that important yet often invisible work is going on all year 'round and I hope all will consider joining the effort. If such had been goin' on in Hackett's district in OH maybe it wouldn't've been such an unwinnable battle.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. My "tooting your own horn" remark had nothing to do with that post.

Just so you know, it's what I pretty much always see you doing on here, while putting down everybody else, painting with a broad brush, and making assumptions about what other people, whom you know nothing about, are or are not doing. IOW, your posts seem to pretty much contain the strong suggestion that if another poster isn't named Julie Nelson, they "prolly haven't done shit". You were insinuating such in your earlier posts, which is why the poster described what she had been doing and tried to give you a little taste of your own medicine.

You don't actually know that people you encounter online aren't just as active as you (who also may be encountered online) are in the "Real World", but you certainly do a lot of presuming. You also seem to make a special presumption about Clark supporters which you don't make about anyone else (and there are plenty of other "supporters" online, just check out the Kerry forum). Maybe you still have some issues left over from the primaries. If so, I genuinely hope that you can move past them.

Once again, I admire the work that you're doing and that you are so active, but I worry that you may be engaging in some behaviors that could be counterproductive to your efforts. Rightly or wrongly, most people don't really care to hear someone talking about how great they are, while speaking snidely and dismissively of others. Just something about how social graces work.

I'm glad we were able to have this little discussion and hope it was fruitful, but I have to go now since I've just started nursing school and need to study. I know it's not Saving the World(tm), but I hope to be able to do some good anyhow.

Cheers.

[wyldwolf]

60. You're "too busy for hero-worship."

Yeah. Right.

One of the biggest and most rabid Deaniacs speaks.

[Clark2008]

28. Why don't you just read his position papers and watch some of his

speeches online instead of bitching about a non-existant "fan club?"

http://clark04.com/issues/

http://www.u-wes-a.com/pre-campaign.html
http://www.u-wes-a.com/during.html
http://www.u-wes-a.com/post.html

Now, you have no excuse.

[Larkspur]

34. Because clark's words are just that words

What I want from Clark is proof that he can put his words into action as a civilian political office holder, an office other than President. He had a chance in 2002 to win the Governorship of Arkansas for Democrats, and he declined. That was a bad move on Clark's part if he really wanted to get into civilian politics, but maybe he really hadn't leaned towards Dems at that time. In 2001, he spoke at a Bush-Cheney fundraiser, so his political instincts still supported Repukes. If he was leaning Dem, at that time, he would not have spoken at that Republican fundraiser.

Clark's word is not good enough for me and a lot of Democrats. I do not trust Clark and neither do a lot of long-time Dems.

[Clark2008]

43. And I don't give a frig about your word, either.

You come on these threads and raise the same tired questions that have been hashed and rehashed - if you want another politician running, fine. You just keep voting for the same politicians who have given us no national healthcare, who have let our country be taken over by corporations (Clark had the fewest corporate donors of any of the primary candidates) and who whimper at the site of Shrub.

I want a leader. And Clark has proven leadership abilities.

[wyldwolf]

59. But Julie, Clark's online fan club will never be as exlusive as..

..those rabid "We're going to create our own website so nobody can bash Dean" Deaniacs.

[Mark E. Smith]

8. If the Laws of Physics Suddenly Changed ...

...would we all dissolve into micro-particles and spin forever in the vast emptiness of space?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

13. Being governor of Arkansas might be a good base for a presidential run

[Clark2008]

30. Why does he need to be governor of a small state?

He already has more executive experience running NATO than any senator.

[Larkspur]

31. To prove that he made the transition from military to civilian politcs

He would also have to run the affairs of that office well and win re-election before I'd consider him for President.

Clark is no Eisenhower and never will be. He's got a Napoleon complex, if he thinks he's in the same league as Ike.

[Clark2008]

33. Methinks someone else on this board has more of a complex

than Clark.

Besides, he's never compared himself to Ike - others have because they were both Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and both fight (fought) to enrich NATO.

[Larkspur]

37. Running for Prez without any previous civilian political experience

is a good indicator that Clark sees himself as the new Ike.

In contrast to Clark, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran for US Rep of Tennessee after retiring from military service and before running for President. In fact Jackson hadn't intended to run for Prez until a group asked him to and supported him.

[Clark2008]

42. He was drafted to run.

WE wanted him to run - he didn't even through his hat into the ring until September 2003, a year after everyone else did.

HE doesn't see himself as another Ike.

YOU make an awful lot of assumptions for someone who has likely never even met the man.

[howmad1]

61. "He would also have to run............."

Well, I guess GW Putz fits that description perfectly. Did you happen to vote for * based on those sterling characteristics?}(

[FrenchieCat]

16. The question you ask is hypothetical and really cannot be answered

With any degree of accuracy.

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected, Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raised, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media's own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn't get elected because he was an experienced senator, as much as because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rhetoric (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor's record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest (after Watergate), thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn't run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don't have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark? It would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office could be seen as a plus, but remember that to some, it's a minus...and one of the excuses they give for not supporting him. So the issue of holding an elected office is a mixed bag.

The facts are that Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, this is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage that do make Clark "elect able", because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm
----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151

Some surely also say that beside not ever having won an election (although he did win Oklahoma through sheer grassroots power).... Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

Did his "policy accomplishments" take place in an office? The answer is No.

Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Testifying against a war before both houses of congress when you don't have to, counts as an accomplishment in my book.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Is standing up to the Pentagon and trying to get done "what's right" an accomplishment? I think so.

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details.
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
".....Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
---------------
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
--------------

I think that the below Awards speak volumes of Clark's policy accomplishments...although they may not have been for being the Governor of a small state...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
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.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....

[dansolo]

18. Would he have run as a Democrat?

Aren't we making a big assumption that prior to 2004 Wesley Clark, if he ran for political office, would have run as a Democrat? I'm not calling him a Republican, but the fact is that until recently, his support went more towards Republicans than Democrats. But, if he had been elected as a Democrat, I suspect he would be more popular, for two reasons. Two of the biggest criticism of Wesley Clark is his lack of experience and his ties to certain defense contractors. By holding public office, he would have gained some needed experience, and he wouldn't have been working in the private sector.

[ClarkUSA]

19. At least he wasn't a DLC member for a dozen years...

Wes Clark's was a lifelong Independent until 2003....just like me.

You must be pretty old to be describing 13 years of straight Democratic
voting as "recently": that's Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.

Yeah, he voted for Nixon...but so did Jeanne Shaheen, who was Democratic Governor of NH and who was the head of Kerry's National Campaign Committee.

Edwards said he was going to vote for Nixon, according to a friend of his from college. Edwards now won't say who he voted for in 1972. I could care less and don't think who someone voted for in the past disqualifies them at all in the present. Maybe you do. If so, then I'd give up trying on getting crossover voters for 2006 and 2008. Then again, Hackett did pretty well last week didn't he?

McGovern forgave Wes Clark and endorsed him for President last year as the "best Democrat" in the 2004 field. Michael Moore, a 2000 Naderite and lifelong Independent, thought the General was a great choice of candidate, too.

Yeah, General Clark voted for Reagan, but so did millions of other Democrats. So what? Unlike many a Reagan Democrat now, he decided it was wrong to vote for Republicans and has worked his ass off for this Party AND defended Dean recently when some lifelong Democrats were dissing him, so let's have some appreciation for a good Democrat sticking up for your guy when no one else did.

Wes Clarkcampaigned for Democrats prior to ever being a 2004 Presidential candidate. He also advised Howard Dean during the spring/summer of 2003
on Iraq as well as other aspects of foreign policy as national security.

He hasn't held public office, I would agree with you. I tend to view that as a plus rather than a negative. The latest Gallop poll shows that the American people are fed up with Congress, Democrat and Republican alike. I think Gen. Clark is articulate, strong, photogenic, and more importantly, he has integrity that I think voters will respond to once they hear his message. Not to mention the fact that being Supreme Allied Commander of Europe NATO is a VERY political position...you don't get there without knowing how to speak the language of politics and side-step landmines (literally and figuratively). That's just my opinion though and, essentially, I think we need to be concentrating on our party's message for the next few years in order to lay the groundwork for '08 (i.e. winning back Congress in '06) rather than worrying about who's going to get the nod.

I'll take a guy who ran the world's biggest military organization, who took care of hundreds of thousands of troops AND their families, who ran a war where not one US soldier was lost, who was a Rhodes Scholar, who was top in his class at West point, and is telegenic, forceful and articulate to boot. As far as I"m concerned, that's a whole hell of a lot more experience than some legislator who votes up and down on this or that for years....35 years in the executive wing of government is so easily discounted by some, but I and many other Americans respect it and trust it greatly.

[Texas_Kat]

56. You forgot President Jimmy Carter

was one of those who asked him to run in 2004 before he threw his hat into the ring.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. He wasn't eligible to run for political office until his retirement

from the military in 2000. At that time, he had been voting Democratic since 1992. He also had some very bad experiences with Republicans during his time with the Clinton administration.

While no one can say anything with metaphysical certainty, I think it is extremely unlikely that he would have run as a Republican under the circumstances.

Most of the elected Democrats that I'm aware of, especially those with Presidential aspirations, made millions in the private sector, or else inherited or married same. All of this while Clark was making around 50,000 per year working in public service.

The biggest criticisms that can be found about Clark on DU probably do not match the biggest criticisms that would be found about him in the real world. I don't think that most people in the real world would begrudge him making a little money in the private sector after a lifetime of public service. Especially if they don't begrudge the millions that people like Edwards and Warner made before channelling all the money they made into running for public office after years in the private sector. It would be a real mark of hypocracy if they did.

[Larkspur]

32. Clark could have run for Gov of Arkansas in 2002

In fact the Dems in Arkansas offered him the Dem nomination, so he would not have had to compete in a primary to win that Dem Gubernatorial nomination. He would just have had to compete against the Repubulican opponent. But Clark declined.

And since Clark in 2001 spoke at a Bush-Cheney fundraiser, it would appear that Clark favored Republicans, not Democrats at that time. And that is why a lot of us Democrats want Clark to prove his Dem credentials by first running for political office other than president.

[Clark2008]

35. Clark also spoke at a Democrat fundraiser at around that same time.

For the 50 millioneth time - he was pretty non-partisan until he was drafted by thousands to run for president.

[Larkspur]

38. So Clark is a mercenary in civilian politics

It fits him.

[Clark2008]

44. This makes no sense

Why don't you try to find out a bit more about the man before spewing half-informed bullshit about him, huh?

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Oh, don't mind her.

She's in love and just can't admit it to herself.;-)

[Jai4WKC08]

48. Not a "fact" at all

Where you wrote, "...until recently, his support went more towards Republicans than Democrats."

That's just not true. He campaigned for a number of Democrats in 2002 (Max Cleland is one that I remember). The only "support" that went to Republicans were some polite words at a single Republican dinner in Little Rock, when he had just moved back to the area. About a week later, he did the same for a Democratic dinner. But he never campaigned for any Repubs, and made no financial contributions.

Now, if you mean by "support" voting for Repubs, good lord that was almost 20 years ago. Why not go back 40 years, when he "supported" JFK (altho I think maybe he was too young to vote). But that's pretty slim "support" in any case. Certainly nothing like the real "support" he gave Clinton when he needed it most.

He also had no "ties to certain defense contractors" (plural). He lobbied for one company, Axiom, out of Little Rock, for something like 6 months, and not long after 9/11. And actually, they weren't a defense contractor until they came up with some bright idea to track people on airlines. But in any case, Clark severed any "ties" to Axiom, well before he began his campaign. One reason he got caught up on the CAPPSII issue--that all developed long after he had left the company.

Point being, it's pretty unfair to paint Clark as some sort of military-industrial complex pawn when nothing could be further from the truth. The list of former Democratic candidates with Defense contractor donors is extremely long, but Clark ain't on it.

[JHBowden]

21. If Clark won a governorship, yeah

The most important criticism of Clark is that he is a total newb with the political stuff, while others have won successfully in red states.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. My first notion of Clark as a potential leader for our country

was when I was told his name by a friend of mine from Holland! That was back during the run up to the Kosovo war ... before it made any headlines. My friend, an old guy like me, asked me about him, saying he really admired the guy for his diplomacy (note .... for his **diplomacy** .... not for the number of stars on his collar!). I started paying a bit of attention to him way back then.

I recall clearly thinking of him and Eisenhower in the same way. I no longer see him in that same light. Ike was unique in one way. Clark is unique in another way. I also recall wishing that Gore would have tapped him in 2000 ..... but Clark had little if any name recognition back then, so that pipe dream of mine had no chance of being reality.

As to Clark's need to have held elective office, I do not see it as a plus ... or even a benefit. Our president needs to be a leader. While elected officials are arguably leaders, they're not the only type of leader. Clark has a strong record as a leader .... one appointed by Congress, but not elected by the citizens. But that's not any significant difference, if you think honestly about it.

Whether or not one considers Clark a viable candidate or even in line with their thinking is certainly a legitimate question everyone needs to answer on one's own. But the notion of elective office somehow being a prerequisite for candidacy is just plain simple-minded thinking. It proves nothing and demonstrates nothing. Some argue that it proves 'electability'. We had 'electable' candidates in 2000 and 2004. We all know what that got us.

What we **really** need is a liberal with very broad appeal. Many think Clark is such a candidate.

[leyton]

24. At some point, to get things done, he would have had to compromise.

And the tiniest compromise seems to alienate many a politician from DU.

[Clark2008]

36. That's just funny.

A man who headed NATO forces from 19 countries and you think he doesn't know how to compromise?

Oh, brother! :eyes:

[leyton]

49. Well, it's funny how you missed my point.

His compromises were not really public. If he were a Governor or Senator, at some point he would have voted for or signed some bill or measure that would have infuriated a number of DUers.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

27. A fair question to ask-- he's something like an Eisenhower

in the way he's positioning himself. Lack of political experience can be a disadvantage at crunch time, but it can also be an asset by shrouding one's stands a little bit-- which can really work only if he has something else to back up his candidacy. In Clark's case, that "something" is the experience of being a decorated war hero who nonetheless knows enough about the tribulations of war to avoid it as a commander himself when possible. Also, Clark has smart economic stands that are both pragmatic and sensitive to Americans' needs.

Plus, he apparently speaks fluent Spanish (among other languages) which could turn out to be a pivotal asset for us in 2008. I met a campaign worker a few months ago who said that quite a few Dem (and GOP, for that matter) candidates are requiring their staffs to either speak fluent Spanish or learn quickly-- it's critical to communicate concerns about healthcare and education to Latino communities, especially recent immigrants, in as much detail as possible, and those votes can make the difference between victory or defeat in these close elections that are ever more common. All in all, I'd rate Clark as one of our best prospects for 2008. He's a formidable force.

[Larkspur]

29. Clark won't get my support and the main reason is that he didn't bother

to build a resume as a civilian political office-holder.

Clark suffers a Napoleon complex. He likes to think that he is the same as Eisenhower, but he's no where near Ike in national popularity and qualifications.

Ike could have been President for either national party. Because he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, who helped lead the Allies to defeat Hitler and Mussolini, Ike had national credibility and popularity from the millions that served in Europe. His management experience dealing with the Allied pompous A-holes, like our own Gen. Patton, Britain's Montgomery, and France's DeGaule gave Ike immediate respect from world leaders.

Clark is not a national hero, like Ike was. Most in America never heard of Gen. Clark until he entered the 2004 primray race late in 2003. Clark's performance on the campaign trail was sub-par. Ike didn't have to campaign in 1952 because his reputation from World War II was unbeatable. Clark doesn't have that kind of political capital.

[Clark2008]

45. I don't think it's Clark who's suffering from a Napolean complex

I think there is someone on this board who probably isn't a psychologist who is making an awful lot of assumptions about someone she doesn't know and who is stinking up the board with said psycho-babble.

I think the "complex" here belongs to someone else.

[Sparkly]

39. In many ways it is a PLUS that he hasn't been a lawmaker.

He's not a "Politician" as most people think of politicians -- and that's fine with me. He doesn't have the strings attached, isn't beholden to any lobbyists, isn't saddled with a voting record to pick apart, and popular opinion of politicians isn't exactly high, anyway.

Public opinion of the military, however, is pretty golden. Clark's worked in the Pentagon, worked effectively as a Diplomat, carried out successful military strategy, and is a brilliant thinker of everything from foreign policy to economics. I see no need to have someone with his stellar credentials go from head-of-state status to road-building projects before running for president.

There's no President School. And if there were, I'd think 34 years of Clark's career would carry more credits than six years pushing paper, making speeches and cutting political deals.

[quinnox]

40. Not sure but in the real world Clark isn't popular

and I think some of the reasons have been said by previous posters, if he had held political office before he might be more popular. But in every poll I have seen, (note: real polls not internet ones) Clark pulls in around 2% of Democrats, near the bottom. And that is if his name even appears on the poll at all.

For an example - Here is the latest poll I found by googling news stories, it is a poll that has typical results similar to others I have seen :

Polling Data

Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008?
(Democrats only)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

37%

Al Gore

15%

John Kerry

13%

John Edwards

7%

Ed Rendell

6%

Joseph Biden

5%

Wesley Clark

3%

Evan Bayh

1%

Bill Richardson

1%

Tom Vilsack

1%

Barbara Boxer

1%

Undecided

10%




Source: Strategic Vision
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,200 registered Pennsylvania voters, conducted from Jul. 29 to Jul. 31, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.


Link: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8379

[Clark2008]

46. Yeah, but I have to question these polls because I know

absolutely NO ONE in the Real World who supports Hillary - so where are they finding these people they poll?

[Jai4WKC08]

47. What I find is that a lot of people don't know who the hell he is

Polls this early are mostly about name recognition anyway.

In Clark's case, he does much better in polls that label him as "General Wesley Clark" as opposed to just Wesley Clark. There was an Ipsos poll back in January, I think, where they used all of the candidates' titles and Clark got 11%, within the MoE of Edwards, and not that far behind Kerry. Some of that's just fallout of the military association which is usually favorable, but a lot of it is, "Oh, you mean General Clark. I know who he is, and yeah, I like him."

As for the PA poll in your post, below is one conducted in GA by the same people, using the same methodology, conducted a couple days after the one in PA. You may remember that Clark did some major campaigning for Kerry in GA, back before Super Tuesday. As you can see, he does somewhat better; whereas Biden and Rendell practicly fall off the chart. It all boils down to the name. Clark got such a late start in his 04 campaign, he's just not well known outside of a handful of states.

But he is well-known among activists on the internet, and I bet if you could figure out a way to scientifically poll the 'roots, he'd do every bit as well as he does at DU, dKos and the other net polls. Obviously, that will not be enough for the 2008 primaries, but it's a place to start.

For the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, who would you support? (Democrats only)

Hillary Rodham Clinton ....... 33%
Al Gore............................ 15%
John Kerry........................ 11%
John Edwards..................... 6%
Wesley Clark...................... 6%
Bill Richardson..................... 3%
Evan Bayh.......................... 3%
Joseph Biden...................... 2%
Ed Rendell.......................... 1%
Tom Vilsack........................ 1%
Barbara Boxer..................... 1%
Undecided......................... 18%

Source: Strategic Vision
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 800 registered Georgia voters, conducted from July 31 to Aug 2, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8396

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Yeah, wasn't it Joe Lieberman

who was always at the top of the polls early in the last cycle? That sure said alot about how the primaries would play out didn't it.:eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

50. The only reason I'm not totally 100% behind Clark as my first choice

is because what else has he done? Just military service (which is great) but I don't know how he'd do. I have nothing to base it upon. Here in my town in April there was a woman who was running with no experience either and I didn't vote for her either. How do I know how'd he do? Just because he has a (d) next to his name doesn't mean he automatically has my vote.

[FrenchieCat]

51. What else has he done?

Remember, Kerry ran on his 35 year old Vietnam service more than his accomplishments in the senate. Now why was that?

At least Clark planned, led and won the last Noble war (according to the late Pope) the US Fought. That was 6 years ago. Commander in Chief means just that!

What Clark offers the Democratic Party in 2008 is a Southern, self-made, nation-first, values orientated intellectual thoughtful telegenic honest old fashion Democrat who understands National Security and Foreign policy, has done executive experience, has no voting record to distort, and is not afraid to do and say what it takes to defeat the enemy (GOP). A man who is so honest he will reveal whom he voted for to his detriment.

Wes Clark had been in charge of other people’s lives for a long time, as a commander is responsible for the well being of his troops. Caring for those he lead has always been one of his virtue, which is what we want in a President.

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected, Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raised, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media's own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn't get elected because he was an experienced senator, but because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rhetoric (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor's record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest (after Watergate), thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn't run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don't have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark? It would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office could be seen as a plus, but remember that to some, it's a minus...and one of the excuses they give for not supporting him. So the issue of holding an elected office is a mixed bag.

The facts are that Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, this is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage that do make Clark "elect able", because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearch...
----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Some surely also say that beside not ever having won an election (although he did win Oklahoma through sheer grassroots power).... Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

[Auntie Bush]

64. Well.........Why don't you read up on him?

There's lots of information about him! Read some of the articles he has written, read his books, view some of the video's posted on DU, read the transcripts of his TV appearances, check out his educational background, visit his website and you will have a very good idea of what kind of president he would make. Guaranteed you will love and trust him as we do.

[StayOutTheBushes]

55. Everyone I know has been with Clark since he exposed

bush's prewar agenda.

[Clark2008]

62. Clark's pretty damn popular in my neck of the woods, too.

He came in second behind Kerry in the primaries here.

[fairplay]

65. I liked Gert!

I liked Gert! I just imagined her rolling up her sleeves and leading a group of ticked off army wives, down the street, to solve some problem on some base.

[LandOLincoln]

66. Yep, she's impressive, isn't she?

She will be one fantastic First Lady. She's the antithesis of the Stepford wife.