Should Wesley Clark jump into the fray...

[King_Crimson]

and seek the Democratic nomination for President, or would he be better off as a consideration for vice-president? General Clark acts as if he wants to jump in but also shows that for some reason he is intimidated. What do you folks think? www.draftwesleyclark.com

[greyl]

1. I think Dean/Clark would kick ass. :) nt

[StClone]

5. Clark/Dean is alphabetically correct :-)

Maybe correct for other reasons too?

[King_Crimson]

8. That combination makes sense to me...

but I think he would make an excellent frontrunner too!

[Nashyra]

2. Most Definetly

Read the articles in Newsweek and the new Esquire

[priller]

10. The Esquire article indicated

that the VP job is the more likely, since he doesn't have the organization to raise enough funds to make a Presidential run himself.

And, unlike many VP candidates in recent years (Cheney, Quayle), he's someone who would make a very good Presidential candidate in his own right later on.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

3. the more the merrier

and he's an honorable man that could silence chicken-hawk carping about dems' "weakness" on military issues very quickly.

[Capn Sunshine]

4. I Think Clark is sending signals

That he is "available" in the case of a brokered convention ( where there is no clear winner after the primaries)

I know several Dem Party analysts who have predicted this outcome.

[patmacsf]

6. Don't be silly

There will never be a brokered convention. The party rules will not allow such indecisivness to be displayed during the convention on national television. What a fiasco that would be for Democrats to not have a clear candidate three months before the general election!

[ronnykmarshall]

9. Stranger things could happen.

Right now there is no front runner. I think more and more people are starting to realize that the conventions are nothing but a big show and mean nothing. I think a REAL convention could shake it up. If the party is UNITED at the end of it and the supporters of the losing candidates don't act like children and get behind the nominee it would be good for the party and the nation.

[patmacsf]

12. Wow, talk about living in a fantasy world

It's a basic fact that roughly 25-30% of the population is guaranteed to vote Republican and 25-30% is guaranteed to vote Democrat (look at polling numbers, when it comes to a party vote, one side will never go below 25%). A convention is a showcase for a party to display its nominee on national television for a full week in front of the 40-50% of the electorate that really matter. If you think the Democratic party is going to allow for a brokered convention a mere three months before the national election you are just deluding yourself.

You can claim that it will show the undecided voters how "democratic" our party is, but the Republicans would take that stupidity and shove it (rightly) down our throats and roll to a landslide victory in November. Any "Democrat" who thinks a brokered convention is a good thing, please step forward for re-education!

[ronnykmarshall]

18. Point taken,

But do you have to be so rude about it?

<<Any "Democrat" who thinks a brokered convention is a good thing, please step forward for re-education!>>

May I suggest a copy of "Miss Manner's Guide To Internet Debate" for a start?

[patmacsf]

21. Sorry, no offense intended.

Winning the White House (and the Congress) back in the next election is just too important to our country to not recognize the realities of Republican attack tactics and how easily our party has been getting eaten alive by them.

Let's play the game ... we can be liberal once we're back in control!

[ronnykmarshall]

23. Amen!

You're right about that. We have to play the game as well. One thing that worked so well for Clinton in 1992 was the brilliant convention the Democrats put on. Compared to the hate mongering in the GOP convention that year.

Let's see if W's using 9/11 and New York City backfires and bites him in the ass!

[Capn Sunshine]

20. IF THERE IS NO CLEAR LEADER

Post-primary, exactly WHAT do you expect to happen? Everyone goes home? BY no clear leader I mean, no one with enough delegate votes to win. It's happened many times, and the wheels never came off before...where do you get this irrational fear?
:nuke:

[patmacsf]

24. Sure, in 1878 maybe

The very nature of modern, 24/7 news, electronic mass media'ized elections will not allow our party to not have a clear candidate by the end of the primary season and expect to win the general election in the Fall.

Folks, this is the right-wing spin point that our party has too many candidates and we're being pulled in too many directions to be taken seriously. If you seriously think that we're going to have too many candidates once the primaries begin next year (or I guess D.C. now has a December primary?) or that there will still be the same number of candidates after the New Hampshire (Iowa, New York, etc) primaries and that we won't have a clear candidate by June then you're just living in a fantasy world.

We need to quit repeating the Republican spin-points! We have lots of highly-qualified candidates, but our party will have one and only one candidate at the end of the primaries in June or we will not win in November. There's just no way around that.

[southernfried]

14. all conventions are brokered to some extent or other

and there have been many instances where there was no clear front runner.

The only surprize I've seen in the last 25 years is when Dole had to cowtow to the fundies on abortion after he made it clear that he did not want it on the platform. And it cost him just as he knew it would.

[patmacsf]

16. Sure, let's use the term loosely

If by "brokering" you mean setting the rules for the convention at least a year before the event then, yes, I'd agree with that. The very nature of a modern convention is that they are staged pageants for the already determined candidate whose team probably was able to get the most delegates on the rules committee the previous year in order to guarantee that the convention would not be splintered or appear uncertain.

Let's not kid ourselves ... the people writing on this board are the 25-30% of voters who will vote Democratic regardless. Our opinions don't mean shit to a serious candidate. It's pandering and posturing for the remaining 40-50% of truly open-minded (I like to think wishy-washy or stupid-lemmings) voters. If we think that appearing indecisive during a three day (and growing smaller as the television networks balk at all the free air-time) infomercial for our candidate who we don't even know who he (she) is will win us the election ... then we might as well just give up now and wish "W" a happy second term.

[ronnykmarshall]

7. I'm all for it!

I think he is waiting to see what happens. Not to slam any of the other candidates, but there just isn't the ground swell of support for any of the current folks in the running. I think that Dean has the most active and visable supporters out there. But I don't know if that is translating into votes just yet.

While the media is playing up this "Bush is unbeatable" bullshit, I think that people are really looking for a candidate that can offer a real change.

I think Gen. Clark could be that. We'll have to wait and see. I'm not strongly behind anyone at this point. I like Dean a lot, but I've said it once and I'll say it again, who ever is the strongest candidate to get rid of Bush is my pick.

[Kahuna]

31. Right. Undecideds are the majority in the polls. I think that

Clark can snap up a huge percentage of the undecideds and siphon a huge percentage of support from other candidates. I know this is true because a lot of DUers have pledged to flip if Clark runs. And, if you read the letters on the draft Clark petition, you will see the same thing. If Clark runs, he kicks assss! And not as anybody's VP choice either. And let's dipense with the talk that he's running for VP. People don't run for VP. They run to either win or to gain name recognition for future races.

[Brazosboomer]

11. I think maybe

Clark knew he wouldn't be able to raise a boatload of money to compete in a long primary. However, as a foreign policy commentator he's getting airtime that no candidate could afford to buy. I think that's great planning.

I think America views him as serious, thoughtful, trustworthy, and intelligent.

I'd most assuredly consider him a leading candidate.

[greyl]

13. Interesting Freep conversation about Clark: 9/10 - 9/12/2001

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519814/posts

[otohara]

15. OMG They Hate Him

They hate everyone - He'd better not run as a republican. I thought all military guys were loved by the right.

[Dob Bole]

17. He shouldn't...

He's almost guaranteed to be the VP pick, since he's not an incumbent Senator. He does need to eventually declare himself a Democrat, though... but not yet. People give him more cred on the Iraq issue right now because he's one of the only people talking about it who's not flaming partisan.

[Mz Pip]

19. Yes!!!!!!!!

I think he would bring much to the process. I've been very impress with what I've seen.

MzPip
:dem:

[Armstead]

22. No. He can't even commit to which Party.

Someone who has never held elective office and has such a hard time answering the question "Would you run as a Democrat?" has no business being a presidential candidate.

Maybe as Defense Secretary or Secretary of State.

[ronnykmarshall]

25. Not so sure about that.

Ike was neither Democrat or Republican before he ran.

[Kahuna]

32. Again. His experience as Nato Commander is just as valuable..

as being an elected representive. Commander in Chief if a BIG part of the job, is it not? So what prepares YOUR candidate to be CIC?

[patmacsf]

26. And for the record ...

I think the guy is brilliant. The freepers be damned, this guy is dynamite for our party and would kick W's draft-dodging, drunken, ass in a one-on-one election.

[ronnykmarshall]

27. Not to mention the debates!

Oh my god! THAT would be priceless!

[jarab]

28. If Clark should declare

I think we could be assured that there are no skeletons. All his actions (personal records) from birth to his retirement are in the possession of the Feds.
I would consider Clark seriously either #1 or #2.
...O...

[Kahuna]

29. What? No poll? The one truly legit poll question..

and you fall down on the job. You... make...me...sick! :P

Just kidding. Though the poll feature would have been nice. :D

[Kahuna]

30. ABSOLUTAMENTE! The sooner the better!

[Catherine Vincent]

33. Kerry/Clark 2004

How does that sound?

[midnitemoleman]

34. Clark and any Dem candidate would kick Jr's butt!

enough said

[poskonig]

35. No.

He is a good VP pick and would give those with weak foreign policy experience credibility. However, I'm not sure if we want to pass up Graham's juicy electoral votes. If Florida goes Democratic again, the GOP has serious problems.

[wheresthemind]

36. I'd like to see it!

It would make things more interesting... I think Dean would take a hit though.

[dfong63]

37. he should announce one way or another

his coy lack of commitment was getting old a long time ago. if he wants to run, let him declare so openly. let him debate, let him be subjected to the same scrutiny, let him be judged, along with the other declared candidates.

if he's not going to run, he should break the news to his supporters so they can devote their energies to a real candidate.

hiding behind a "draft" movement is cowardly bullsh*t, at this stage. there is enough support for him to run, if he wants to. but by keeping his own options open, he's hurting the other candidates. and he hasn't even (AFAIK) committed to run as a dem if he runs.