Clark was not considered a "real" Democrat by many....

[kentuck]

in the last Democratic primary season, and that hurt him. He was aware of that. In fact, that was probably the major criticism against him. Is he even a Democrat, people asked?

However, he had served under both Repub and Democratic presidents and was required by his position in the military to be independent of Party loyalties. He was shown saying favorable things about Repubs such as George W Bush. That was very detrimental to his campaign, in my opinion.

If the General had been a Democrat for a longer time and people had been more comfortable with him, I think he would have done much better in the primary, although he did quite well even with all the baggage and lack of Democratic "credentials".

If he decides to run again in 2008, I would think he would be a much more formidable opponent. This is just my opinion.

[prvet]

1. He sure sounded like one

When he spoke at the Democratic convention.

[Cha]

34. That was the first positiveness

I had about Clark and it was coming from the man himself.

I was very impressed with Clark at the Dem convention in Boston.

[vi5]

2. It wasn't just his lack of party affiliation....

It was his lack of party affiliation coupled with the fact that he admittedly voted for both Nixon and Reagan AND the praising of Bush. Personlly I don't care and I liked Clark, but the whole thing did go just a little deeper than the fact that he wasn't a registered Dem.

[KittyWampus]

20. He Never Praised Bush. Salutary Comments At The Beginning Of A Speech

where he then goes on to eviscerate the NeoCon vision is not 'praise'.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Clark was a lifelong Independent as are over 95% of all AR voters

I admire him for admitting who he voted for even though he voted Democratic for since 1992 (that's 13 years, everyone) which is more than I can say for alot of Reagan Democrats. Even McGovern who endorsed him for President chalked it up to "youthful mistakes."

I never cared. I admired the man for telling the truth when he didn't have to - that's the type of transparency Wes Clark favors for all people working in government. No hiding of records, no dodging tax record reviews, no avoiding releasing data on who contributed to one's campaign - none of the stuff that plagues politics today.

[Totally Committed]

3. Anyone who read any of his position papers or...

heard him speak knew he was a Democrat, for sure!

Mario Cuomo, a Democrat's Democrat, had this to say about Wes:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question...."

And, George Mc Govern, a Liberal's Liberal, endorsed him saying he was the most "Democratic" of the Democrats running.

I think this Party needs to stop sniping at its own, and aim the guns outward if we are to ever win an election again. Wes Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party... it is time he is embraced by all.

TC

[kentuck]

7. Don't get me wrong.....

I think he has proven his Democratic "credentials" since that time. However, in that short campaign season, I think it hurt him with many voters. I think he would be much stronger if he decided to run again. Just my opinion.

[Totally Committed]

9. I think what hurt him more...

was the media black-out, and his late start. His lack of name recognition was a problem, too, but could have been alleviated if the media had given him his due. But, that is water under the dam! -- Onward and upward!

TC

[sundancekid]

4. and he sure continues to sound like one with extraordinary smarts on all

matter of topics, let alone national defense, national security etc. He has (thankfully for America) continued to be a crisp, clear, and commanding voice for our democratic ideals, speaking up and out in all sorts of forums ... I liked him in 04, and I'd ride that horse again in a spittin' minute in 08.

[Orangepeel]

5. that was my main issue.

I never seriously considered Clark. I was afraid he was an opportunist, and there was no way I was going to support some guy who had not only never run for anything as a Democrat, but had never been actively involved in the Party or with Democratic candidates.

After the 2004 campaign, however, many of my concerns have been alleviated. I thought that Clark did an excellent job as a surrogate for Kerry and as a spokesperson for the Party after the primary.

In 2004, Clark sounded like a Democrat. Now, having run as a Democrat and stuck with the Party after a loss, to me, he now has some credentials as a Democrat and I'd seriously consider him for the nomination.

[Clark2008]

12. Thank you for this.

I get so very tired of the rightwing meme's thrown by DUers about Clark that it's very heartening to see this comment stuck in a Clark thread.

:hug:

[Bandit]

45. I agree with you completely

He will be running in real tough company and I am not sure he offers more than Kerry. Might be a good combo though. Never was sold on Edwards though either.

[Auntie Bush]

6. You're right and I think/hope they know he's a serious Dem now!

He WILL really do much better! If we put him on the ticket...he'd have the best chance to win. Too bad for our country...that more people didn't have faith in him. With a little cooperation from the enemy....I mean the Media...people will get to know him and love him as those who have really researched his positions.

[Totally Committed]

8. Anyone who saw his speech at the DNC Convention...

knows he's a Democrat, and that he's become a great orator. He worked his heart out for Kerry, and yes... stuck with the Party, and continues to ask those of us on his E-mail list to do the same.

TC

[Auntie Bush]

10. That speech was the greatest!

I hope the RWM (Right Wing Media) shows that speech again if/when he runs again. That speech needs to get attention!

MDH...who was an ardent Deaniac...commented for the first time...how impressive that speech was and I think he finally regretted he didn't vote for him.

[bonzotex]

11. Clark deserves some respect

He was too new in 2004. He's shown his stripes and they are true Dem Blue. Who cares if he voted repug long ago? Things have changed and we are the big tent party. Smart people drift into the Democratic fold all the time.

We could do a LOT worse than Clark heading a Dem ticket in 2008. Imagine Dr Dean at the DNC and Clark in the WH, Reid and Boxer riding herd in the Senate and a big swing from repugs to Dems in House in 2006 and 2008. Would that be so bad? Sounds good to me and I think very possible.

My main problem with Clark was I'm extremely reluctant to see a 4 star general in the White House. I'm ex-military, very clued in, and most 4 stars should be shuffled into the darkness quietly and never ever ever be given any public political office. Clark is an exception. He's brilliant and walks the talk. I'm converted. Read his book. Listen to what he says. We could do a hell of a lot worse with some of the creepy, status quo, sell-outs jockeying for a 2008 bid.

[janx]

13. I've always admired General Clark, and I have a great respect

for the military. I have no qualms about someone from the military running for president. But it's going to be tough for Clark. No matter what he says or does, the Repubs can pull out that tape of his praising Chimpy and the administration--over and over and over again.

[Clark2008]

17. And that matters, how, in a general election?

Dems need to focus on that - not the primaries.

But, in any case, that particular tape will be old by then.

[janx]

21. It'll get played

over and over and over again, unfortunately.

There are just some things you can see coming.

[Totally Committed]

22. All he has to do is say...

how wrong he was, and point out that at the time that tape was made, most people in the U.S. were on Bush's side. Then he could say -- in lurid detail (and knowing Wes, he will!) -- what a mistake it would be to trust Bush or the Republicans for anything, at any time, and why.


There are also tapes of him calling out Karl Rove, by name, on RNC policy. Wes isn't afraid of anyone, and he's a compulsive truth-teller. That will add up to sound-bites that will draw blood!

TC

[janx]

26. If he garners the nomination,

I wish him luck.

[Cha]

36. Yeah, there could always be

ways to counter saying something nice about bush at one point.

There's a lot of evidence to bring up on how bush lost his credibility to the World after all the sympathy he had for 9/11.

[ClarkUSA]

32. At the time, every single one of the 2004 candidates were praising Bush

Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc. all have on-the-record praise for Bush then.

It occurred right after Afghanistan.

RNC did a selective "splice-and-dice" on the tape and sent it to FOX News for wide play just days after Clark announced his candidacy. They cut out the part where Clark warned the Bushies about going further.

GOP smear tactics work so well on leftie liberals, don't they? :sarcasm:

[Clark2008]

15. I think I'm going to quote you everytime I see someone here

say, "I won't consider putting a former general in the White House...".

Clark is no ordinary general, no ordinary four-star general. He knows the trappings of the military industrial complex, and, istead of merely using those trappings as bait for success, he's using what he's learned after 34 years of service to pull us out of the circle jerk of war-for-corporate-profit. We know he didn't attend Bilderberg this year - he was too busy talking to more inclusive world groups, college students, Congress and rank-and-file Democrats. :D

Speaking of which, where were Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Evan Bayh this week (to name a few)?

[cobaindrain]

14. what also hurt him was stronger, more seasoned candidates

if kerry doesn't run, edwards doesn't run, hillary decides it's not worth it and bayh backs out then Clark will likely inherit the nomination.

actually I think if we have a smaller field in 08, and it's Kerry v. Clark as the two big names, Clark will likely get the nom.

[Clark2008]

16. You mean, if the media doesn't black him out whilst covering

all these "big name" candidates, don't you.

I think Clark, if he's heard, could beat any of those folks you just named in a rout. People are thirsty for a non-politician: someone who knows what it's like to provide for a family on less than $50,000 a year and someone who speaks plain English (but actually speaks English, unlike Shrub).

The media's already trying to margainlize him - they're either not covering him, or when they are, using terms like "goofball," to try and push him back. He scares the bejezzus out of 'em.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. More seasoned doesn't mean that they are stronger

Clark had bad strategists, which frankly at this point, it's looking like every dem candidate had bad strategists.

Clark also had no experience with a political campaign.

That aside, I think that he was a strong candidate and a strong politician otherwise.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I agree that the claims that he wasn't a "real" Democrat

may have hurt him in the primaries...although lack of reporting on what he had really achieved in his life didn't help either. Clark had to play Gotcha with reporters (left, right & middle) for most of the campaign instead.

The biggest irony is that Clark's lack of long standing partisan party affiliation would have been a "good thing" during the general election, IMO.

Democrats said that they were looking for someone "electable" and yet they passed him up for John Kerry. I think that "electable" meme and what it ought to have meant was distorted by the media talking heads. What should "electable" have meant? Who could get more votes in the general election? Why was Kerry given that tag? Why would one have thought that in the general election, Liberal Northeasterner patrician John Kerry could get more votes than Southern self made non partisan General Wes Clark? Who actually arrived at this conclusion?

I just think that we really cannot trust the media to steer us where they want us to go any longer......because it does appear, without a doubt, that they will lead us astray everytime. I doubt that things will be much different in '06 and '08. The media will continue to promote who and what they want to see happen. Why? Because they can....and it's relatively easy for them.

[dogman]

23. Sharpton imparted wisdom along with wit.

"As the only New Yorker, I want to welcome General Clark to New York and I want to welcome him to our list of candidates. And don't be defensive about just joining the party. Welcome to the party. It's better to be a new Democrat that's a real Democrat, than a lot of old Democrats up here that have been acting like Republicans all along."

[paulk]

24. what hurt him the most was a late start

I'm not sure the "is he a Republican" thing really hurt him that much. Once Iowa went to Kerry in an upset, Clark's strategy of going for NH didn't work - the momentum was against him. Clark never really got to run a campaign after that.

I have a hard time seeing Clark as a serious candidate in 2008. He doesn't have the name recognition or governmental experience to compete against the field in 2008. Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Biden, Warner - plus, who knows who else could run? All of the aforementioned candidates have more experience and name recognition.

[kevsand]

33. I would disagree in part.

Among most rank and file Dems nationwide, only Kerry and Clinton on your list have any significant name recognition. The others are relative unknowns to an average voter, and I'm also not seeing much in the way of executive experience from most of that list. Now I'll grant you that the folks in Iowa and NH are a little better clued in than Dems elsewhere, but they've all already heard of Clark, too. ;-)

[kevsand]

25. You've stated the issue quite well,

and in a reasonably fair, evenhanded, and non-inflammatory way. Thank you for that. While I might disagree on a nuance here or there along the way, I completely agree with your conclusion.

And again, please accept my apologies for what happened to your thread on DU's political leanings yesterday. Except for the side trip, I thought it was most interesting and insightful, and completely undeserving of the tangential flame war that ultimately engulfed it.

[davsand]

27. Kentuck, thank you.

I've respected you for about as long as we've been here--I have always seen you to be pragmatic and pretty much willing to speak up when it needs saying. I do thank you for saying this about the General. You are a stand up guy.

Clark may not play to everybody's tastes on here. I know that his military service plays badly with some of the DUers. I understand that they look at him and see somebody that was part of the "war machine" even if I don't share that view.

I know that some look at him as too closely allied with the DLC. (I wondered about it myself when I first looked at the candidates in the last primary.) After hearing him speak a few times, I came to the opinion that I think he's honest to gosh serious when he talks about the role of government in terms that are consistent with my Dem views.

Oddly enough, if I'm taking those "candidate identification" tests, I register most strongly with guys like Kucinich. I realize, however, that I am not your garden variety Dem. I KNOW I am one of the lefty gang and I accept that not everyone in this country really agrees with my views one hundred percent.

I seriously feel that Clark is someone that will play well with ALL voters, not just the Dems, not just the "lefty dems" like me. THAT, for me, was one of the most important factors in my decision to support him in that last primary. Clark, IMO, is a person that many of the "independent voters" will feel a comfort with once they get the chance to hear him speak and become aware of his values. THAT is how you win races, IMO. He's good on the issues that matter to me, and he's good on the mainstream issues that the rest of the voters will look at.

I will state right here, and with absolute surety, that no matter how the primary turns out, I will back the Dem ticket. I AM a Dem, and that is the bottom line. I would hope that all of the DUers could/would offer that same pledge before the primary ever starts.

Bless you, kentuck, for speaking your mind. We don't always mesh one hundred percent, but I still admire and respect you for being a stand up guy from the early days of DU. This thread on Clark is a classic example.


Laura

[Just Me]

28. Honestly, I wish we could trash "parties" altogether.

I'd much prefer "platforms" rather than "parties". Moreover, I wish we could force "platformers" to actively pursue their platforms via a "people's impeachment" process for breach of oath,...or something like that.

[cestpaspossible]

29. To establish credibility with me

he would have to run for office, win, and serve in some elected capacity, generating a record that could be compared to his rhetoric.

[dogman]

31. His supporters hope to achieve that in '08.

So hopefully you'll be on board for the re-election.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[hopein08]

43. For me, Wesley Clark was unknown and new

and that was the problem.

kentuck perfectly phrased how I felt about Clark during the primaries. It seemed like he decided that he wanted to be president and there was a sitting Republican president so he decided to run as a Democrat. The list of Republicans he had voted for for President didn't help either. It all seemed to convienent.

I completely agree with cestpaspossible that Clark can only establish credibility by getting some type of record. I have absolutely no doubt that he could handle the military aspect of the presidency but I have yet to see evidence that he could handle education, health care, the environment, etc. If anyone wants to give me some evidence to look at, I'm always open.

Just in case someone is going to notice by One America banner and bring up the fact that Edwards (my first choice in any election) doesn't have an elected office now, I will say that he did before and the poverty initiative that he's working on now covers a variety of topics.

But I've never quite understand the Clark fascination and I think I'd like to.

JMHO

[sharonking21]

37. I think it did give him problems in the

truncated (for him) primary season. I also think there were other elements such as media stonewalling him and the far-right's fear of him as a candidate. I hope that he can become visible enough to where the media will not be able to do that again.

I've often asked myself why I did not respond to him that way. I mean I was an early Clark supporter, yet I'm "out there" on the leftish-libertarian scale. Moreover, I am a yellow-dog Democrat. Further, when I was much younger, I had the same stereotypical view of the military--especially of "Generals."

However, since that time there has been a lot of personal water under the bridge. I guess that is part of it.

Also, I live in Texas and I saw a lot of people waver back and forth as to votes, thinking, at first, say that Bush was a moderate. I'm all too happy to welcome these people back as "born-again" Democrats. Thus, later, when I found out about his previous voting history, it didn't faze me at all as to his being a true Democrat.

Although I had no idea he was even thinking of running for President, I first became more than tangentially aware of Clark when he was the CNN military adviser during the Iraq war. I could tell from what he said there that his views were much like mine as to foreign policy and he was the only military adviser I could find broadcasting who I agreed with and who was also willing to actually say something about it.

So, fascinated, I started tuning in every time I could to see what he said. One night he didn't appear on time and I sent Aaron Brown an email saying something like "Okay, where's Clark? Did our own Republican Guard come and get him?"

I was also watching when he was asked about protest against the war and when he said something like "Okay, keep in mind-- that right to protest was a part of what I was fighting for." I was impressed at his unhesitating and stalwart defense on-air of of our civil liberties at a time when faux-patriotism was running so high.

I had actually come to like him very much.

But, all through the first part of the war, I had absolutely no idea he had political aspirations and Democratic ones at that, and was therefore stunned when on April 15th, Aaron Brown mentioned this. My first response, like many, was to run off and Google him.

The first thing I found was the amicus brief in support of not ending affirmative action. The second was some quote of his about civil rights and women's rights. By this time I was really interested.

I found one the of the websites urging him to run and put a letter up there saying I wanted to know more about his domestic policy stances; I was then directed to other links where I could find out more about this side of him. I soon found that I could agree with most of his positions (although not every single one--I no longer require that of a candidate).

Also, there was just something about him that was convincing. I found that, at least with me, he had character "cred." By around May, I had found out enough about him and believed in him enough to start sending money (unusual for me, previously).

Perhaps that credibility factor plus my experiences here in Texas with swing voters inoculated me against being particularly dismayed when it turned out he had said a few things nice about Bush. By then, I knew enough to be absolutely certain he was a real Democrat.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. That was definitely an issue

Let's also remember that with the idiotic top-loading of the primary season, the de facto primary really started early in '03. He jumped in late, and that's always a calculated risk, but having done so with much support and very little track record, he was vulnerable.

It definitely hurt him, and there were some unfortunate incidents that could be picked out and highlighted, as they were. Politics is a life, not a profession, and even a very smart novice will stumble a bit when dealing with the pros; this is precisely what happened.

His crossover appeal was higher, but his base support was correspondingly lower due to things he had and hadn't done. There are a lot of candy-ass liberals like me who can't hear "I voted for Nixon" without a full-on, down on the knees repentance with specifics. That tweaks many of the bigotries in people like me that everyone has, and had he been more seasoned as a politician, he could have finessed the moments better.

Yes. You're right.

To be fair, like Smedley Butler, his mind was set in the groove of the soldier for all of his adult life. Upon entering (not re-entering, but entering for the first time) society, things take on quite a different look.

On the other hand, he tried to make an opportunity play at the crucial moment in a diffuse field, and it didn't work. It was a shrewd move that was badly played at many junctures. Still, it shows strategic sense, and he comes out of it only mildly scorched.

What the future will bring is anyone's guess, but he's vigorously moving the ball forward and he is a great asset to the team. More than anything, he's not a prima donna, and his actions since withdrawing from the primary have been very helpful; both he and Dean are providing a great service to us all.

(To those of you shocked at this, I've been saying basically the same thing from the beginning and a long string of posts will confirm it; my objections to certain actions in the primary have been very consistent too, but my general rancor has been more against his staff and the most strident of his supporters' tactics, not him.)

[kevsand]

39. Interesting points, and well said.

I tend to agree with the overall assessment, and pleased to see your recognition of his value to the team moving forward. Hold that thought...

[KoKo]

40. The fact that he's never run or served in any political office bothers

some of us more than his past affiliations. He would be beholden to the "machine" if he managed to win the presidency and he doesn't know how it works from the inside. It could be a disaster.

As fine a man as he seems to be, I just can't support someone for President who doesn't "know some of the ropes." Someone from outside would never have enough influence with the Senate and House to do anything. Look at the terrible time Carter and Clinton had because they were Democratic "Governors" from GASP...The South.

I would go with a Governor again, though. But, Clark would face worse than Clinton and Carter because he's never had to work within a party organization. DC doesn't like lone wolfs and his military experience just isn't he same as having to be a politician who has to handle folks who don't agree with him because they have loyalties to their constituents. Military is top down. Government should be "bottom up." Just my 2cents.

We all hope for a "reformer" who will come in and do a "clean sweep." But how could anyone realistically do that given the Lobbyists, Think Tanks and entrenchment of the Beltway Media. :shrug: It's just not realistic to think he could accomplish anything. He would be perfect as a Cabinet appointee, though. Secretary of State?

[CarolNYC]

42. Wes Clark on military as "bottom up"

KoKo, your comment reminds me of this Wes quote from a May 2001 piece:

"The military works from the bottom up. If you're a general, you go out and talk to the troops. You say, what's it look like out there and what do you think is over the next hill. Generals aren't supposed to know that. How bad is the artillery falling on you, this is World War I stuff. The general then goes back to his headquarters well out of artillery range. But occasionally he comes up and talks to the troops to find out what's really going on. World War I stuff -- from the bottom up. When military commanders give orders -- maybe it's not true in the Navy and the Air Force as much -- but in the Army we always know that ultimately the commander on the ground is going to be left with the order. He may have to come back and modify it. You can't go that way, you told me to go on this trail, this trail shows on a map, boss, but there is no trail there. Give me a bigger sector, give me more artillery, give me engineers to clear the trail. It works from the bottom up."

http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/military_reform.htm (The Civi Military Affairs and U.S. Diplomacy: The Changing Roles of the Regional Commanders-In-Chief(CINCs) May 2001 link)

[wyldwolf]

41. Consider this: "many" is a relevant term

Nader won "many" votes in 2000 but in the grand scheme of things, it was a very small percentage.

I would say that the "many" who didn't consider Clark a "real" Democrat are the same ones who voted for Nader. Now, how "real" were THOSE Democrats?

And I'm not knocking other Democrats in the primaries, but didn't Clark do better than most of the others?

[bobthedrummer]

44. No, he won Oklahoma but imo didn't fare that well in the primaries.

Maybe someone could post a chart to prove otherwise. He was beat by Dean and Edwards and Kerry over and over.
His joining the Democratic Party as a candidate in 2004 has been a mixed blessing.
He would make a wonderful asset to a Democratic administration but not as POTUS imo.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Bob here is some research I saved in a post on another thread

I think it speaks to your question:

"Clark dropped out after the 2/10/04 primaries in Tennessee and Virginia. He did not compete in Iowa. That leaves a total of 13 Primaries and caucuses in which Clark was a candidate. During that time Clark won the third highest cumulative total of votes, after Kerry and Edwards. Clark received 50% more votes than Howard Dean, who was the 4th highest vote getter during those 13 contests (Clark 376,687 vs Dean 254,031).

During those 13 contests Edwards had One first place finish, Four second place finishes, and Two third place finish. Clark had One first place finish, Three second place finishes, and Three third place finishes. Dean had Four second place finishes, and Four third place finishes.

Kerry had Eleven first place finishes, One second place finish, and One third place finish. It seems to me that Kerry ran away from the whole field during the time that Clark was still a candidate, and so Kerry should be in a category all by himself. Edwards and Clark made up the second tier of candidates, with very similar results, though Edwards had a slight edge. Dean followed fairly closely in a third third tier all by himself, and after that the numbers fell off sharply for all other candidates who were competing during that period.

Clark's showing, before he withdrew, was certainly not pitiful when compared to Edwards. You could say that Edwards Clark and Dean had pitiful numbers compared to Kerry if you choose to make that point. All three men swamped the rest of the field during that time, which included two leading Senators, Lieberman and Graham; and the former House Minority Leader, Gephardt.

For your information the break down of States in which Edwards, Clark and Dean finished in one of the top three slots, in races in which they all were candidates, is interesting. Edwards was in the top three in Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Michigan. Clark finished in the top three in New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. Dean was in the top three in New Hampshire, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington, Michigan, and Maine.

Edwards finished first or second in South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. Clark finished first or second in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Dean finished second in New Hampshire, Main, Michigan, and Washington. Out of those States, the States which Kerry lost but where Bush was held to 55% or less of the final vote include Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri and Virginia, but only New Mexico (Bush 50% Kerry 49%) was considered "close" (if you trust the totals)."

And another post:

"Regarding delegates won, in the 13 states in which Kerry Edwards Clark and Dean all competed, Kerry won 354 delegates, Edwards won 113, Clark won 77, and Dean won 67. If you use that as a standard then one could say there were only three tiers; Kerry in the first, Edwards Clark and Dean in the second, and everyone else in the third."

[bobthedrummer]

47. Thanks for the info. It helps me understand what happened here in WI.

better.

[wyldwolf]

52. In your humble opinion?

As we just read, he wasn't beat by Dean over and over.

How has it been a mixed blessing??

And your reply doesn't speak to the issue at hand. "Real" Democrat.

[harpo]

48. This feedback is why I didn't/won't vote for Clark unless he wins primary

I generally don't trust him...he is a former military person and military people IMO have a certain ewww about them. Call it what you want, karma maybe, but I don't feel comfortable with him like I didn't with Kerry but I did vote for Kerry once he was nominated! Maybe he could change this and be more expressive or passionate about things which would make me change my mind about him.

[sharonking21]

51. Okay Rambo, I gave you my feedback

on another thread about what I think the strengths and weaknesses of your candidate are. Please see my post above where I tell about previously feeling as you do, and then tell me in more detail what Clark would have to do to change your mind about the military issue. Just what would he have to do to win your basic trust--which I think he deserves--even if you never entirely agreed with him on all issues?

Here is my earlier post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1770299&mesg_id=1770850

[sharonking21]

55. Excuse me--I mean Harpo

(Too late at night for me, obviously)

[wyldwolf]

53. this is generally why Democrats lost in 2002 and 2004

Democrats are percieved as thinking "military people have a certain ewww about them."

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. He's a Dem

And a good one. He's also just as liberal or more liberal than some of the other 2004 candidates.

[derby378]

50. Yeah, I think Clark's a Dem

But he needs to drop the AWB rhetoric or the only Southern state he'll ever pick up is Oklahoma.

I'd like to see Clark run in 2008 - I'm dismayed that Hillary Clinton is apparently considered the front-runner by a mile, and she still hasn't announced.

[sendero]

54. If Clark is not a Democrat...

... then why is his progressive rhetoric head and shoulders above any of his peers?

People trying to play the "he's a Republican" card have either never heard him speak or are too stupid to bother with.