Should Wesley Clark (or someone else) challenge Mark Pryor in the Arkansas Senate Primary?

[DemKR]

In response to Mark Pryor voting against getting out of Iraq, I'd like to hear thoughts.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I can't imagine the General stepping down to a Senate Seat

[tblue]

6. Yeah, his experience is in executive leadership. Though I would vote for him if he ran for Pope

or King or anything else.

[BOSSHOG]

8. If the General gets in the race

I'll have a horse to ride. I'm sitting on the sidelines right now. I'll definitely vote for the dem nominee but so far none of those declared have stirred me up in a positive way. Nothing negative about any of them, but I want those fours stars at the top of the ticket.

[loyalsister]

40. Down?

He's never held elected office.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Yes, down

The Supreme Allied Commander is considered a head of state in international protocol, and for the reason that he operates at that level of responsibility. No one expected Eisenhower to run for some other office first before he ran for president. Clark may not have fought as big a war as Ike (so he's not as popular, or even as well known), but he held the exact same office, at the exact same level, and quite frankly the non-military aspects of his position were far greater than anything Ike had to deal with.

That all said, I don't believe status has anything to do with why Clark would not want to run for Senate. For one, I doubt he would ever challenge a sitting Democratic senator. As strongly as Clark worked for Lamont in CT, he didn't support Lamont publicly until he'd won the primary. For another, being a senator would add nothing significant to his qualifications or resume. And finally, Clark is not a legislative branch kind of guy. I doubt the idea of becoming one interests him much. That's not to say senators don't (or can't, if they choose) do important work. It's just that some people are better suited for one kind of work than another.

The presidency is an executive job; it involves running the largest organization of any type in the entire world. It takes administrative, management and leadership skills that have nothing at all to do with legislating, and anyone who had spent a lifetime developing those executive skills, gaining that executive experience, especially having done so with the degree of success that Clark has, would be highly unlikely to want to set it all aside to do something completely different.

[loyalsister]

48. Accountable to?

An insular organization prepared to protect you at every turn. The military is a private organization when it comes to personnel especially at the highest levels.

Taking on a public position is totally different.

Regardless of what people expect. He would be accountable to a more diverse group of people. He has not been part of bottom up lawmaking for our country. Where a constituent could come to him in hopes of getting a law passed.
He would be accountable to a more diverse population. Accountable to civilians and what their daily lives require.

To imply that being tested and vetted via election and held to public scrutiny by the citizenry is a move down is to imply that the citizenry is by it's nature inferior to the military.

I am sick to death of soldier worship.

The truth is he does not make a good candidate for president. He might do okay in a Senatorial race with a state party focused on winning his seat. But, he is not very good at courting many people but military worshipers and the Clark faithful.

[Jai4WKC08]

49. Ultimately accountable to the people

You are completely mistaken about the nature of the military organization, especially at the highest levels. Promotions are highly competitive, and a commander is only supported by the loyalty of his subordinates if he or she has earned it.

Senior commanders aren't voted out the way elected officials are. But if they don't accomplish their missions, they don't get promoted. And if they don't take care of the people under their command, over the course of a 30+ year career they don't accomplish their missions. An officer may be able to fool his superior commanders in some cases and in some circumstances, but eventually it catches up with him.

I see no disadvantage to the fact that Clark "has not been part of bottom up lawmaking." Presidents do not do lawmaking. They are the head of the executive branch. Obviously they play a part in setting an agenda for the legislative branch, but that doesn't take having been an legislator. To the extent that such knowledge is helpful, there are MANY people in the administration to perform that function, not the least of which could (and should) be the Congressional leadership of our party.

It's total nonsense for you to infer any idea of civilian inferiority to the simple facts of international protocol. The Supreme Allied Commander was established as comparable to a NATO head of state for very specific, tangible reasons. But aside from that, the suggestion that the most senior military commander is already qualified for the next step into the Oval Office is just a historical fact in US history, whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with "soldier worship," and it seems to me that YOU are holding military officers to a higher standard than you would any civilian candidate.

Or maybe it's just Clark you hold to a different standard, given how relative little elective experience the three current front-runners have. Clark was a very good candidate indeed last time around, as evidenced by his performance in the primaries where he out-lasted and out-fund-raised MANY opponents with far longer professional political careers. Your failure to recognize how good a candidate he was shows you either don't know much about him and his 2004 campaign, or your own feelings about soldiers affects your perceptions.

But if Clark runs again, you'll have a chance to see that "soldier worship" has almost nothing to do with his success. I hope you'll be open-minded enough to let new data shape your opinion, but since you now confuse that opinion with "the truth" despite existing evidence to the contrary, I sort of doubt it.

[SteppingRazor]

2. If a sure-fire thing like Clark ran, then OK. But the "someone else" worries me

And, since I doubt very, very much that anyone could get Clark to run for the Senate rather than the White House (Clark may have many great qualities, but humility is not one of them), I think that's probably a moot point.

[mitchtv]

3. Yes, then his supporters would have

something positive to do.

[JNelson6563]

11. Good point.

:popcorn:

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Always enought time to take a shot at Clarkies, eh? n/t

[mitchtv]

13. well deserved

they act like they are the only Democrats.

* Notice, not one negative word about the good general.

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Oh right /sarcasm

That's just silly. How on earth do we act like "the only Democrats"? :shrug: I'm not even sure what that means... we sure wouldn't hang out here if we were the only ones.

[Divine Discontent]

32. I can't believe those two are saying that crap?

perhaps they realize the General is tenured enough at running for office and so well spoken that he blows away anyone running for president when it comes to matters of international affairs other than Al.

They're jerks for saying that stuff unrequested.

[Clark2008]

45. No - only bad words about his supporters - which is forbidden

on this board.

[JNelson6563]

15. I gather you disagree with the point?

:shrug: :popcorn:

[dogman]

17. Point?

Pointless. But there are many who really aren't concerned about a possible war with Iran. They would rather trash other posters for having an opinion.

[CarolNYC]

18. Come on dog...

Quit worrying about stopping the march to war with Iran and do something positive, like following other DUers around and throwing snark...Maybe you could become a member of the DU bad behavior police patrol. You must know that's so much more important than some little pending military confrontation with Iran.... :eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

24. Obviously I do, but...

I didn't comment on it. What I commented on is the hypocrisy of someone who repeatedly attacks Clarkies as a group for the exact behavior she engages in by doing so.

[Sparkly]

26. Thank you. nt

[JNelson6563]

28. Really?

I write threads attacking Democratic candidates? I jump in Dem candidate threads to smear Dems? I write posts that are suppose to look like "innocent questions" and then act shocked when people call me to task for flaming? I play the martyr if called on my constant negative attacks on Dems?

:rofl:

I do those things? I must've been in a trance because I have no memory of such behavior.....

To be honest though, it doesn't bother me as it did 4 years ago. I spend so much less time here for various reasons. It is a fun case study kind of project though to effortlessly throw out an occasional comment and watch the reaction. Predicatble? Yes, but not boringly so. Rather entertaining, especially the secondary peanut gallery player types.....

*sigh* Ah but back to reality.....lots of work to process thanks to yet another fundraising mailing here in my world for the local party. I'll never tire of sending out letters and people sending lots of money and offering to volunteer in return.

Maybe you should try it sometime, it's very rewarding.

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

36. "Constant negative attacks on Dems..."

Doesn't that include Clarkies? Or aren't we Dems too? But you don't mind "constant negative attacks" on us. As a group. Those "constant negative attacks" don't count.

I don't "write threads attacking Democratic candidates" or "jump in Dem candidate threads to smear Dems" or "write posts that are suppose to look like 'innocent questions' and then act shocked when people call me to task for flaming."

There are probably several hundred hard-core Clarkies who are DU regulars and I daresay none but a few have EVER done those things, and I doubt that any of us have done it any more than the some of the supporters of other candidates. But I don't believe I've ever seen you criticize any other group of supporters. Oh no, you reserve your criticism for Clarkies, ALL Clarkies, and Clarkies alone.

If you have a problem with the behavior of a specific Clarkie, then my all means, criticize that behavior. You'll have more credibility if you criticize the same behavior in others too... not that credibility seems to concern you much.

But remember two things. Criticizing us as a group is nothing more than simple bigotry. And we have the right to criticize behavior too. Even of other Democrats.

[Cameron27]

33. Thank you from me also.

[Divine Discontent]

31. that was idiotic. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

30. well that was a JERK smart alec thing to say! what a dweeb. n/t

[R_M]

4. I would prefer to see him in that white house on Pennsylvania Avenue.

But, yes, he would make a better Senator than Mark Pryor, though Pryor is better than any Republic party freak.

[sandnsea]

5. Wes Clark should have a good long talk with Mark Pryor

The Pryors are very popular in Arkansas, I don't think it would be a good idea to challenge him. I do think Clark should organize a group of Democrats IN Arkansas to get people to pressure him though. I'm really disgusted with his vote.

[loyalsister]

7. Definitely

The best way to bring about the kinds of changes we want to see is to challenge the people who don't vote our way.
Getting a bunch of letters, phone calls, visits is one thing. Losing their job or at least having it put at risk is another.

[depakid]

9. Someone needs to knock him off

as should be the case with any far right enabler in the party.

[Spirochete]

10. I'd like to see Pryor gone

and a real Democrat in that seat. Pryor's even worse than Ben Nelson.

[TSIAS]

20. Who would replace him?

I'm as liberal as they come, but what non-incumbent could win a Senate election in Arkansas? I'd be for it if a Democrat could take the seat.

[Spirochete]

21. I just have the wish

not the answer. Sorry.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Clark won't challenge an incumbent Democratic Senator

[Clarkie1]

16. Clark has no interest that I know of in being a U.S. Senator. nt

[TSIAS]

19. He won't

While Pryor isn't exactly the most liberal Democrat, I doubt anyone will challenge him. But on the plus side, he's on the bottom side of vulnerable Democrats in 2008. There aren't many Democrats in AR who could win a statewide election.

[TheConstantGardener]

22. Sure but he should give it up if he is to become Secretary of Defense!

THAT is the perfect spot for him.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. LOL! For the 1000th time...

Clark can NOT be Secretary of Defense. The law prohibits him from holding that office until after the summer of 2010.

Besides, it's not "the perfect spot for him" and I've never heard him express any interest in it. The perfect spot for Clark is in the Oval Office. Barring that, the next less than perfect spot would be Secretary of State. After than, probably Secretary of the Interior, because of his environmental work. Or maybe Director of Homeland Defense, since that organization is in total shambles and needs strong leadership to get it functional... but then, that's true of the entire federal government, which is why we need Clark in the White House. Experience counts.

[TheConstantGardener]

27. Clark is too militaristic for those offices, IMO

Everything about him is military mindset; why doesn't he stick to that. His campaign in 2004 was basically "Look at me I'm a general" No thanks for the White House, bud.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Maybe it is those who have spent a great portion of their lives in the military

who understand better than those civilians that you'd favor that war is not the answer!

Kucinich aside, those who are running today, the majority voted to go to war in Iraq; Some co-sponsored the quest, and others supported the action until just a year or so ago!

With your blinders on, you will not see anybetter than those to the right of you. Stereotypes of anykind made by anyone makes one a bigot, regardless of what avatar they sport.

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."--Wes Clark, 2003
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/
"We're faced with a very serious deficit problem..... We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs."

What other "civilian" but Kucinich has said something similar to what "Militarist" (retired for the past 7 years and waging peace ever since) Clark is saying here?......btw, things Clark didn't just say yesterday.....but years ago. :patriot:

[Jai4WKC08]

39. And what exactly does "military mindset" mean?

Was it a "military mindset" that won Clark an Audubon Society award for habitat preservation? Or was it a "military mindset" that led him to create such excellence in the K-12 schools for which he was responsible that the state of California to invited him to run their department of education? Maybe he uses his "military mindset" when he plays the violin?

Let me tell you something, bucko. There's no such thing as a military mindset. Those of us who have served in the military are just as much individuals as anyone else. We love our spouses and our children, we appreciate the arts, we read great literature. Or not. Some of us probably drink too much, smoke too much, and spend too much time in front of the TV. But none of it has anything to do with having been in the military. So lose the stereotype.

Wes Clark is a great man, a brilliant thinker, and a dedicated patriot. He campaigned on restoring constitutional rights and liberties, protecting the environment, creating jobs, reinstating a progressive tax system, and providing healthcare and education opportunity to every American.

It's only people like YOU who see a general and think "ooh, military mindset" instead of seeing the man himself, his accomplishments, and his character as an individual.

[sampsonblk]

34. Yeah, he ain't one of us-nt

nt

[PresidentObama]

35. If he doesn't run for President, yes.

Otherwise...

Run Wes, run!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. Yes.

Get Clark a job.

[jcrew2001]

38. No, Clark does not want to be a senator

He's fine doing what he is doing now. Leave Clark alone.

[njdemocrat106]

41. I still want the man to run for President

However, I'm afraid it's already too late for him to jump into the game, even though it's about 20 months before the election. I don't know if he could catch up to Hillary or Obama in the fundraising department at this stage (in a perfect world, though, money wouldn't buy political office; the merits of the individual running would be the sole decider).

[Jai4WKC08]

43. Money isn't everything

It's important of course. Even essential to a point. But if the guy with the most money always won, Dean would have been our nominee in 2004 and Republicans would still control Congress.

There's still plenty of time for Clark to jump in and start rising in the polls. If he does, the money will follow. Maybe not as much as Clinton and Obama have, but enough to win one or two of the first few states. Winning will bring in more than enough money and free media for the rest of the primaries.

[Clark2008]

44. Other: No - because it would be a considerable waste of Clark's

talents.

Arkansas doesn't "do" foreign relations and diplomacy and national security.

Clark would be wonderful in writing a budget, but his more prominant role in healing the entire nation from the foreign policies of this mal-administration would be hampered by restricting him to just one state.

[Bombtrack]

46. Do you know what a Senator does ?

They don't run a state. They're elected to represent a percent of Americans on matters that effect 100 percent of Americans. State specific issues take up very little policy attention of a Senator in actuality, most of their campaign politics, not their policy.

I've been a Clark supporter non stop since the '04 election was over, but he isn't being given much of a chance in terms of his '08 nomination hopes.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Not given much of a chance by whom?

The corporate media and beltway pundits? Didn't they tell us Howard Dean had the 2004 nomination all sewn up? Didn't most people assume they knew what they were talking about and just accept it as gospel?

It's still awfully early. Clark didn't enter the 04 race until Sept 17th of 03 -- there is almost a month and a half MORE time between now and Sept 17th 07 than the entire length of Clark 04 campaign. And you know, in the 4 months between Sept 17 03 and the 04 Iowa caucus, Clark reached the point where he was out-fundraising Dean, and catching him in the NH polls.

More importantly, Clark is lightyears ahead of where he was when he jumped into the race in 03: in political experience and knowledge, in contacts throughout the party and around the nation, in exposure to the voters (altho he still has a long way to go there), and in having prepared plans and policy statements -- something every professional politician starts out with but Clark had none when he started.

That last shouldn't be under-emphasized. It's not enough to have opinions or even facts to campaign on. It all has to be put together into something that resembles a coherent platform so you don't go tripping over yourself in front of an audience or camera. When Eisenhower ran, the GOP did that for him. Clark otoh had to spend several weeks' worth of manhours and lots of money developing policy papers and having them reviewed and vetted by subject matter experts. That was time other candidates were able to spend on the stump, kissing babies, meeting donors, or catching up on some much needed sleep.

My only point is, don't underestimate how much Clark can accomplish in what may seem like a short period of time. I think he's going to surprise a lot of people.

[KingFlorez]

50. What would be the point?

A primary in a safe state could only lead to a weakened Democrat in the general election, allowing an extremist (think Jim Holt) to win the seat. I don't see the point.