Are "We" Feeling Wesley Clark?

[Sistermadly]

I'm just curious - how many of "us" are feeling Wesley Clark as the possible Democratic Nominee for President? I've heard him speak on a number of issues, and while I disagree with him on the gay marriage issue (I support it, he only supports 'civil unions') he has a lot to say that intrigues me. And I must say that it's refreshing to hear from a decorated General who is against the war in Iraq.

So what are your thoughts on Clark or a possible Clark/Dean ticket?

(Thanks Alphas for letting me post this here)

[TonyB06]

Sistermadly,

On behalf of my brothers, you are always welcome to post with the Alphas.

As to Gen. Clark, while I've heard of entry into the race, I really haven't read alot about his positions. As is usually the case with a person of his stature, Time, Newsweek, et al., will do profile pieces that begin to show us more of the candidate.

I'd be interested in your sharing what else you know of him and his candidacy, giving us "our" perspective, of course (smile.)

[Sistermadly]

Hi Tony, thanks for the welcome.

I'm trying to do more research on Clark, but Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post had a pretty good piece yesterday on some of Clark's positions. The link is here .

[Professor]

I don't know much about him. John Edwards from the great state of NC is doing poorly in the polls. I think he trying set himself up for VP. Personally, I think he is crazy to give up his position as Senator.

Oh, back to the post, again, I know nothing about him much like most folk don't know John Edwards.

And - Welcome Welcome Welcome!!!!!

[Eclipse]

I don't know much about him either, but I heard a very interesting thing this morning on the news. While most of America also knows very little about his views they do know that he is a decorated General and he's now leading the polls for the Democratic nomination! How do you say you are going to vote for someone you know absolutely nothing about except they went to war and earned a few metals?

[TonyB06]

------------------------
Eclipse wrote:
... most of America also knows very little about his views .... and he's now leading the polls for the Democratic nomination! How do you say you are going to vote for someone you know absolutely nothing about except they went to war and earned a few metals?
------------------------


I think what you're seeing is Democratic anti-Bush sentiment. Most of this polling is probably being done among hard-core Dem. activists. Clark's a blank slate, not many of his positions are known so it's easy to be "for" him, just because he's challenging Bush.

As his positions become known, he'll have to do the political calculus. Primaries are about playing to the political bases (or the political extremes in both parties). The general election is usually won by the candidate that can get back to the broad moderate of the American electorate the fastest.

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by TonyB06
------------------------
Eclipse wrote:
... most of America also knows very little about his views .... and he's now leading the polls for the Democratic nomination! How do you say you are going to vote for someone you know absolutely nothing about except they went to war and earned a few metals?
------------------------


I think what you're seeing is Democratic anti-Bush sentiment. Most of this polling is probably being done among hard-core Dem. activists. Clark's a blank slate, not many of his positions are known so it's easy to be "for" him, just because he's challenging Bush.

As his positions become known, he'll have to do the political calculus. Primaries are about playing to the political bases (or the political extremes in both parties). The general election is usually won by the candidate that can get back to the broad moderate of the American electorate the fastest.

Thank you for the last paragraph. Whoever the Dems do nominate needs to hit the center, and I'm not sure that Howard Dean can do that. And we know that Sen. Moseley Braun (whom I like) and Rev. Al (who I dislike) aren't going near the center.

[TonyB06]

--------------------
Steeltrap wrote:
Thank you for the last paragraph. Whoever the Dems do nominate needs to hit the center, and I'm not sure that Howard Dean can do that. And we know that Sen. Moseley Braun (whom I like) and Rev. Al (who I dislike) aren't going near the center.
-----------------

**temporary hijack of Sistermadly's Clark thread**
I'm actually surprised John Edwards, D-N.C. hasn't shown better. He's generally viewed (nationally, I think) as a moderate conservative, which is probably the Dem's best horse to ride in trying to recapture the White House, even considering Bush's present political state (if you believe the polling on him). I think I read that Bro. Professor? is in N.C. Maybe he can shed more on the Edwards candidacy.

I agree with you, ST, that Howard Dean may be a bit too left (politically) to win nationally.

**end of thread hijack**

[The Original Ape]

I haven't had much time to follow the candidates, but I plan to make time to get to know them all alittle better. There is so much for the Democrats to challenge GW on that this should be a much easier election; but as usual, this party hasn't gotten its stuff together. I think Dean and perhaps Dick Gephardt will emerge as the leading candidates.

[Sistermadly]

From the Rockdale/Covington Citizen in Georgia:

Is Wesley Clark a candidate or an echo?
Stephen Chapman

Wesley Clark is a presidential candidate whose campaign rests on two rationales: his soldier’s biography and his opposition to the war in Iraq. His biography is still intact, but within 24 hours of entering the race, he had managed to turn the Iraq issue into his own personal exploding cigar.

For those of us who are generally skeptical about plunging into optional wars, that’s not the only reason to wonder if Clark offers a real alternative to the incumbent.

His pratfall came in an interview with The New York Times, when he was asked how he would have voted on the congressional resolution giving President Bush authority to invade Iraq. Clark hemmed and hawed, but finally ended up saying, twice, “I probably would have voted for it.”
This was not a question out of left field, on the order of asking him to name the president of Uzbekistan. In the months leading up to the war, Clark was a tireless presence on CNN, analyzing and criticizing the administration’s policy. He wrote several articles arguing that the president should use force only as a last resort and warning of the dangers of occupying postwar Iraq.

Given his expertise on the subject, Clark should have handled the question like Barry Bonds turning on a fastball down the middle. Instead, he finally had to call on his press secretary to explain his position. The following day, he announced, “I would never have voted for war.” Well, of course not, General. Who said you would have?

But there are other reasons to wonder about Clark’s instincts on sending the Marines to solve international problems. Even before the war, he sometimes came close to agreeing with the administration, as when he said that Saddam Hussein “should be held to his pledge to give up weapons of mass destruction, by force if necessary.” His criticisms were sometimes so carefully nuanced that they hit with all the impact of a damp sponge.
Worse, though, is that Clark had already shown himself to be just as eager as Bush to embark on martial adventures – just in different places, and for different reasons. While working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he urged U.S. intervention in Rwanda. That was too much even for Bill Clinton, a great believer in using the military for humanitarian causes.
But Clark’s chief claim to fame was commanding NATO forces in the war in Kosovo, where he proposed to send U.S. ground troops into a conflict that posed no earthly threat to important American interests. So eager was he to pursue his vision that at one point, he ordered a British general to move against an airfield occupied by Russian troops. Replied his subordinate, “I’m not going to start World War III for you.”

Most Americans remember the Kosovo war as a great victory, but the truth is not quite so glorious. The Clinton administration intervened on the assumption that Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic would beg for peace as soon as the first American bombs fell. In fact, he held out for 11 weeks, which was enough time for Serbian forces to carry out a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Brookings Institution scholar Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton national security aide, said the war had some unanticipated consequences: 1.4 million people expelled, thousands murdered and raped, the expenditure of $10 billion plus, and the worsening of relations with China and Russia.”

The long-term results have not been anything to brag about either. The United States still has 2,500 troops in Kosovo, part of a peacekeeping force of 21,000. That’s not enough to make the people there get along any better than before.
Once the war was over, the majority Albanian Kosovars, whom we had intervened to protect, began taking vengeance on Serbs and other minorities. Soon, they had driven out more than a quarter of a million people, most of whom fled to Serbia and most of whom are still afraid to go home.

Amnesty International recently published a report lamenting conditions four years later. “Minorities in Kosovo continue to be denied access both to their basic human rights, and to any effective redress for violations and abuses of those rights,” it concluded. As in Iraq, we’ve found that American military power can only do so much.

But George W. Bush still fervently believes the United States should use its preeminent military power to reshape the world in our image. Wesley Clark shares that faith, and differs only in where and how he would pursue it.
That gives us a choice between conservative imperialism and liberal imperialism. How about a candidate who offers an end to imperialism?

[Sistermadly]

Which Way Does the Wind Blow for Wesley Clark?
http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/d.../3f7d1d5e9b60e

[TonyB06]

Thanks for posting this, Sistermadly. I know we discussed this topic about two weeks ago and your research is appreciated. I haven't read it all but I'll try to.

thanks again.