Should Wesley Clark Run For President ?

[Dinger]

Simple question, just answer what you feel. You all know I'm a Clarkie, but I just want an answer from all of my DU family. What you say and think matters to me, a lot. I ask that you be respectful. I hope this thread stays positive, because I believe we can disagree and learn from each other (in a positve way) at the same time. After all, while I hope with all my heart that Wes runs, I realize that I have to learn as much as I can about the other excellent Democrats that are running, or potentially running. That way I can make an informed vote. I will vote Dem in the general election, and I don'tplan to "hold my nose" when I do. I will do it enthusiastically.:)

[Adelante]

1. GO WES!!

:yourock:

[Dinger]

2. Damn Right!

But you already knew that:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[yourout]

3. If Hillary is our candidate It will definitely be a "hold your nose"...

while you vote moment.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Hillary went beyond the bounds of "holding your nose" in her NY Times interview

There is no way progressives will vote for a candidate that will continue the war in Iraq in order to protect the OIL and protect ISRAEL. This is what Hillary has said she will do!

No self-respectin progressive will support a Presidential nominee that will put American troops at risk to protect OIL and ISRAEL.

A Hillary Presidency will turn Iraq from a Republican war into a Democratic war. Bush's war crimes will become her war crimes. America will be torn asunder if the nominal opposition party becomes a war party. Mass civil opposition to the government will force Hillary to resort to measures more repressive than the ones Bush has used. Popular response to the government's increased repression may lead to armed resistance. Civil war on American soil will become the nightmare scenario.

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[windbreeze]

35. Whoa........

This is not what I want to read a Democrat is projecting...uh uh...

wb

[mtnsnake]

43. Read this then:

Read what Hillary is REALLY projecting and not what the anti-Hillary pawns would like you to believe:

“If we in Congress don’t end this war before January of 2009, as president I will"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/politics/03candidates.html?ex=1174363200&en=0f7e52f7c3f32b46&ei=5070

[IndianaGreen]

51. That's what she said in February, but this past Thursday she said differently

She told the same newspaper that she was going to keep US troops in Iraq, although not as many as now, she was going to keep an occupation footprint in Iraq. That's not ending the war!

[mtnsnake]

55. You got taken by a deceptive article. Check the 1st paragraph to see what's in quotes

and more importantly, what ISN'T.

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

You might have half an argument if the part about her fighting Al Qaeda was also in quotes. At least find the exact text of her speech next time instead of posting deceptive articles that quote one part of what she said in the first part of a sentence, and then in the same fricken sentence they cap it off by writing what THEY said she said, not necessarily what SHE said. Look for yourself to see what the one and only part of that sentence/paragraph that's an actual quote of her. Jayeeeezus.

[mtnsnake]

42. Enough. You were already debunked in another thread about this

idea of yours that Hillary will turn this from a Republican war into a Democratic war.

She said that if she was elected she would END the war, not prolong it. That is the truth, and you know it, so stop playing your little games of running around spreading your vicious anti-Hillary rhetoric as if it were confetti.

[IndianaGreen]

50. What part of keeping US troops in Iraq do you not understand?

That's what she told the NY Times this past Thursday. Has she renounced her own statement?

[mtnsnake]

52. What part of her saying she'll end the war, if elected, do you not understand?

That's what she said, and she hasn't renounced THAT statement. Do you not understand the difference between 'keeping some troops in Iraq for a while' and what 'ending the war' means? She said she'll end the war if elected, as soon as she takes the oath. That doesn't mean she'll be able to take every last troop out of Iraq that very second. If you think ANY president can do that, once they end the war, either you're dreaming or you simply love ramming anti-Hillary hatred down our throats. I hope it's the former.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Keeping US troops and bases in Iraq is continuing the war and the occupation

Unless Hillary retracts her March 15 statement, which contradicts her earlier February promise to end the war, then you got nothing but a lite version of stay-the-course.

[mtnsnake]

56. See post #55. The article is deceptive. Hillary has no plans of prolonging anything.

They quoted one part and followed up...ah never mind, just read post #55 where I already explained it and then you can tell me I'm crazy if I'm wrong.

[PADemD]

4. If he doesn't, I hope he is chosen as the Secretary of Defense.

[Dinger]

7. That Would Be Nice, But He Can't

He has to be retired for 10 years, and he retired from the military in 2000. I've read that many times before. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Clark2008]

11. You're correct Dinger.

The law was enacted to keep the military in control of civilian hands; therefore, any Def. Sec. (with only one notable exception during FDR's presidency) has to be retired from the military for at least 10 years prior to serving as Def. Sec.

[windbreeze]

36. or....Congress can waive the requirement...correct?

not that we think they would...but...I think I read somewhere that the requirement, can be waived...
wb

[elleng]

47. Congress CAN waive,

and the new Congress surely would, IMO.

[windbreeze]

58. thank you for confirming....

I thought I recalled this being the case...and WELCOME TO DU ELLEN G...
wb

[Jai4WKC08]

77. I wouldn't count on it

It takes both Houses of Congress. The only precedent is when Truman wanted George Marshal to be Sec of Defense during the Korean War. He got a one-year waiver only, and it was voted down by the Senate the first time thru.

[yourout]

15. Secretarty of State has a nice ring to it.

[Justice]

82. Heck - Secretary of State not Defense - he is a great diplomat!

[sarge43]

5. Yes he should.

He's an intelligent, highly experienced, honorable man. If he doesn't take the nomination, I hope the next president makes him Secretary of State.

[capi888]

6. We NEED WES, respected WORLD WIDE

THIS IS WHERE HE IS THIS WEEK!! World economics. WHEN DOES HE REST...I guess on the Airplanes..TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD, and AMERICA!!!

Source ::: The Peninsula General Wesley Clark

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=March2007&file=Local_News200703172173.xml


doha • The Department of the Faculty of the Georgetown University School of Foreign service in Qatar will be holding a lecture by General Wesley Clark tomorrow at the Diplomatic Club at 6pm, a release said. Clark will deliver a speech titled ‘The Front Lines of International Economics'. In his presentation, he will draw on his experience in current affairs and how the political environment shapes the corporate and economic worlds.


Having been on the front lines of the world's emerging markets, Clark is intimately aware of the political strategy and psychology that dictates corporate bottom lines. In his discussion of the global economy, Clark will apply his experience and skills in leadership, technology, training and organisational development in order to offer a singularly informed and dynamic view of leadership based on honour, conviction and action.


During 34 years of service with the US Army, Clark rose to the rank of four-star general as Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. In his final military command, Clark led Operation Allied Force, Nato's first major combat action, which saves 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and he was responsible for the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia. In September 2003, he stood as Democratic candidate for the US presidency where his campaign won the state of Oklahoma. He returned to the private sector in February 2004.

[Adelante]

17. It would be nice to have an economist

in the White House :)

[capi888]

19. Got that Right WesDem

We need a well rounded, intelligent President. Our Country is facing an economic downfall that will throw us into a deep recession by fall, if we don't stop this cabal in the WH. It will take someone with positive political connections with our foreign leaders, who has the ability to not only deal with the war, but our economical war. I really believe Wesley Clark is the only one that can do it.
Our economy is going down, mortgages default, jobs lost, and we will be victims of what Bin Laden has been hoping for. Ruin our economy...doller not worth the paper it is written on, and world wide devastation. My feelings have always been, that the economy and financial markets are the REAL NEXT ATTACK on AMERICA....and its happening...
I believe Wes knows that too!!! Along with stopping the Iran attack, he knows it would totally put us over the edge!

[PresidentObama]

8. Absolutely.

:loveya: WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT!!

[bobbie]

9. Not just "yes"...

HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!





!

[Hepburn]

10. Of all those declared and all those who could declare...

...IMO, Clark is by far the best the Dems have. Why? Because he can WIN! Yeah, I know that sounds like it could be a bad reason for supporting him. But take a look at what has declared on the Repub side? Frightening, huh? We need to get a candidate that appeals ~~ and Clark appeals. He has that "I like Ike" feeling about him. Btw: I am old enough to remember that era!

Clark's policies are acceptable even tho not as liberal as I am ~~ and although Kucinich is much closer to my views ~~ I am not so offended by any stance of Clark that I would have any trouble voting for him. I would love to see Kucincich as the POTUS ~~ but realistically, I know this cannot happen because too many people see him as far too liberal and to win the WH in 2008, the Dems must have the independents on our side.

Clark has an aura about him that says, "Honest and honorable." Let's face it ~~ with the absolute garbage from BushCo, those words that describe Clark have a heck of an appeal to a lot of people. We need to make sure that the Pubbies have -0- chance of getting the WH in 2008 and IMO Clark is the candidate most likely to be able to pull this off.

Like you, I will vote for the Dem Prez candidate in 2008 ~~ no matter WHO it is ~~ but I would like it to be a vote FOR the Dem candidate and not merely a vote AGAINST a Pubbie.

JMHO

[capi888]

13. Great synopsis hepburn

We must have someone that can pull from ALL sides to win this. He has drawn MANY Repugs and Independants to his side. He certainly is doing all he can to stop this adminstration from creating more devastation worldwide. He is respected worldwide..and is continuing building respect world wide that will ultimately, help with our situation in the world. WE NEED THAT NOW. You don't see them inviting ANY OTHER of our possible Presidental Candidates, running all over to stop this travisty, ruining our reputation, world wide....ONLY WESLEY CLARK!

[Hepburn]

18. Thanks!

You, IMO, said the magic words: WE NEED THAT NOW! Amen!

[capi888]

21. Amen to you too..

Please read my message I just posted, as our economy is another concern of Wesley Clarks and his speech this weekend is about that. your great!!

# 19

[Hepburn]

23. Thank you....

...and I read your post...and I agree. We do NOT need another Bush. We are right on the edge of going over the economical cliff on a major slide downwards. Bush has trashed the budget surplus, is spending us into econ he11 on the national debt, and, yeah, his policies are playing right into the hands of those who would destroy us.

The WMD that people should look at is the econ picture of the US right now. That is probably the biggest lurking time bomb around, IMO.

[capi888]

26. RIGHT ON!!!

ITS THE REAL ATTACK!! I have been fearful of this since 2001, and if he was re-selected, our economy would tank, before 2008. A REAL TIME BOMB FOR SURE!!!
Thanks for your wise analogy Hepburn..

[yellerpup]

12. Absolutely, yes!

He's brilliant, principled, and experienced in dealing with the military. He does not arrive with a truckload of political baggage or debts. Add to that: he's the best candidate going to draw in independents and disaffected (former) repubs, and I think he can sweep the nation.

[sendero]

14. Not only yes..

.... but hell yes. He is brilliant, and maintains his integrity while he's at it.

[Vidar]

16. Yes.

[Cameron27]

20. k&r

yes yes yes yes yes

Clark has the only authentic voice as far as I'm concerned.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Wes Clark must run for President so that his voice is heard during the campaign

If you don't run, you won't have a platform to speak, and no one will hear you outside of your more devoted followers.

[capi888]

24. I truly believe he will...

He is a strategist, and knows we are facing a horrible situation right now. He is working with the people in the ME that has the ability to help stop this group in the WH, rebuild our reputation, and respect. Thus, when he does announce, his platform will be totally different than what we are hearing now, from our candidates. Not that I have anything against any of them, as they are doing the usual political platforms. Popularity, digging at each other, and I believe the American People by fall, will be looking for someone who has the experience to stop what is happening to them, both economically and protecting our homeland. He will have his ducks in a row, and know what the American People REALLY want, SOLUTIONS WITH EXPERIENCED LEADERS!

[subterranean]

25. The hardest part for him would be winning the nomination.

If he could get past that, I think he'd beat the pants off any of the Repub candidates.

[capi888]

28. I agree...

However, IF our country is where I think it will be in a few months both economically and War wise, and my confidence in WKC knowledge and stategy, I believe he will prevail. He has a huge following nationwide, that are not on DU, plus his stumping for many of our new congress people, he can get a huge following...once he announces..he is been in 46 states (I think) stumping for these people...so I don't think he will have a problem.

[jen4clark]

34. True.

There are too many people who are still choosing their presidential favorites due to rock stardom, perceived charisma, and candidates words. Look to their past actions and base who they are on that, not on what they say. We all know politicians are very good at saying what they think we want to hear. Those now in the race are first and foremost politicians and put their political futures above everything else. NONE of them will win in a landslide, or even win at all in the GE. If Clinton, Obama or Edwards become the nominee, we'll have another 4 to 8 years Publican WH.

[what if]

86. Yes. Wes could also bring in many new Dems to the Senate.

He's got coattails in all the states, blue and red.

No other Dem would do as well in red states, and none but Wes Clark would be likely to win big.

Dems need to think big in 2008, so as to capitalize on the many Bush FUBARS. I don't think we can win big with any candidate but Wes Clark.

[Larry in KC]

27. Hmm... for the good of Democrats. Of America. Of the world. YES!

[bonito]

29. This country NEEDS him to run.

[young_at_heart]

30. A far better choice than Hillary

If he can't make president, then how about VP?

[Nay]

31. You betcha. I voted for him the first time around, would vote for

him the second time. Mr. Nay I went to his speech when he came to Richmond and there were plenty of Clarkies here then. I also would like to see Gore run, though, because in the last few years he has really gained my respect. The two of them together in either combination would be a dream ticket, IMHO.

[jen4clark]

33. Not even a question in my mind.

OF COURSE he should -- and I feel confident he will. He knows we need him and has always stepped up when needed.

[summercat]

37. Oh, yes!!

The way I feel, it's Clark or no one.

[Justpat]

38. He's my choice should he decide to run.

[Auntie Bush]

39. Damn right he should.

As a matter of fact...anyone who thinks they can do a good job should...and that includes Wes.

[TSIAS]

40. No

I understand that it may be an unpopular opinion here at DU, but I'd say no. I'm not sure where his fundraising base comes from. While he might be a strong candidate, the reality is that it'll take a ton of money to compete with HRC, Obama, and Edwards. I'm not sure if he'll be up to snuff this time.

[PresidentObama]

41. Never know until you try.

His voice is MUCH needed in this debate though!!

[Adelante]

45. He's a pretty good fundraiser, though

And even people who give to one candidate will often give to a second or third. He's got the contacts just as the others do. I think the money involved is actually obscene, but he's not a big spender, so maybe he can do it cheaper.

[Jai4WKC08]

87. I'm sure Clark has the money figured out

He won't decide to run unless he thinks he can raise enough money, and probably has a string of big donors lined up and waiting. I suspect he knows he can raise quite a bit on the internet as well.

But the main thing is, if he starts campaigning and rising in the polls, the money will follow. It always does.

[Sammy Pepys]

91. Agreed....

I like Clark very much, but I think he better serves us in a cabinet position.

[Forkboy]

44. The more the merrier!

[ksclematis]

48. YES, YES, &YES!!!!!

Of, course Wes should (will?) run for POTUS.....You all have said everything I could have said, so I concur: Wes Clark, first.......... I believe he WANTS to run, and will announce when he has all his ducks in order!

[Seldona]

46. I am a Clarkie to.

I hope he runs as well. This country, and the world, NEEDS his expertise at a time like this. We need someone with experience to tackle the issue of Iraq, and I think General Clark is that man.

Even if he doesn't win, I hope that whoever does brings him in on the cabinet level. I would love to see him as Secretary of Defense, or perhaps even Secretary of State, if he doesn't win the Presidency.

[mtnsnake]

49. If a magic genie gave me 1 choice of who I could put in the WH right now, it would be Clark

I'd feel very comfortable with him as my president for the next 8 years. I like everything about the guy...what he says, how he says it, his awesome wife, what he stands for, even his mannerisms...everything. Clark is cool. Unfortunately, it looks like it's only wishful thinking on my part that he could become President. Hopefully Obama will ask him to be his VP running mate if Obama gets the nod.

[PresidentObama]

57. Thanks for the kind words about General Clark.

However, I think he'll play a major role in this race if he runs. I could see this turning into a five way contest with Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards vs. Clark vs. Richardson.

Wishful thinking, but a man can dream :)

[Labors of Hercules]

53. I'm not a Clarkie, but like him just the same...

and would be REALLY happy with GORE/CLARK '08!!!! :bounce:

[PresidentObama]

59. Oh, how incredible. Gore/Clark. What a ticket n/t

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. Gore/Clark would be great!!!! Either or both.

Clark is brilliant, handsome, charismatic, knows his foreign policy, and is what somebody here in DU called a "stealth progressive".

He was endorsed in 04 by Michael Moore and George McGovern.

I'd vote for him in a nanosecond. Or a picosecond. Or however much time it would take.

[PresidentObama]

60. BTW, If you want Clark in 2008....Sign the petition in my sig.

Thanks :evilgrin:

I also have the link to the Clark 08' MySpace I made. If you have MySpace, add me!!

:toast:

[Major Hogwash]

61. I have a question about Clark's position on legalizing marijuana for medical reasons.

Is he for it or against it?

Because after that lady was turned down by the Supreme Court this week, I think that marijuana should be allowed to be used for medical reasons.

[Adelante]

65. I haven't heard him on the subject recently, Major

But it's a good question. I remember him in 2003 as open to legalization for medical purposes. He knew people in bad shape and he said he saw that it helped them. I wouldn't say he supported it, exactly, but more like he would study the science of it and was open to the idea of legalization. He was outright in opposition to the government raids.

Again, it's been a while, so his thinking has probably advanced since then.

Here is something I found on Google

http://www.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=glKZLeMQIsG&b=1173731&ct=1973545

[vankuria]

62. I'd love for him to run

He's got all the right stuff, leadership and diplomacy, not to mention a stellar military career. When Dubya slithers out of the White House he's gonna be handing over a country in much worse shape that when he began (I know thats putting it mildly, but there are no words to describe the messes he's created).

This horrible war has taken it's toll on our country in lives, suffering, economics. A strong military leader may-be the best thing we need to get the heck out of Iraq.

I think he'd be the Dems best candidate and I'd be proud to support Gen. Clark.

[Robeson]

63. Why not? We need a diversity of opinions in this debate.

[dogman]

64. Please! Give me hope again!

Richardson just doesn't inspire me.

[Laurab]

66. I'm not a "Clarkie" but voted yes

I'd love to see him run. Right now I'm leaning toward Obama, but it's really far too early to decide. I don't know enough about Clark to know if I'd vote for him in the primary or not, but if he enters the race, I'll learn more about him.

I know enough about Clark to know how smart he is, how personable he is, and I believe he would be the most experienced, as well. I think people on the right who have woken up, would find him more appealing than at least one, maybe two of our candidates. I'd like to find out.

[mike_c]

68. no-- I just cannot support ex-generals in the White House....

Just me, sorry. I'm also troubled by several of Clark's foreign policy positions.

[NCarolinawoman]

98. He would be the ONLY one who would take on the Military Industrial Complex.

Can you imagine any other person doing this?

His presidency would be our last and only chance to tackle this monster problem, IMHO.

[FrenchieCat]

69. Hell Yeah, he should run......

Because whatever Civilians have done with our foreign policy, Wes Clark, the General.... could undo it!

Like Washington and Ike, the man has it going on, and then some! :patriot:

"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."

[Norrin Radd]

70. Yes. I hope.

n/t

[smoogatz]

71. Sure, why not. The more the merrier.

Wes would make somebody a fine SecDef, or NSA adviser. Running will raise his profile a bit; a good thing.

[mtnHov]

72. run Wesley run,

Humble, smart, and definitely not an awol cokehead. Pretty much the opposite of our joke of a prez now.

[Czolgosz]

73. I hope he runs, but more importantly, I hope he announces one way or the other before Easter.

[lojasmo]

74. I am uninspired by the current crop, but....

A clark run wouldn't change that.

I'd like to see him hold a different office for a while before running for president.

[elleng]

75. What sort of different office?

In addition to becoming a 4-Star, he's done many things. What are you interested to learn about him?

[Hawkowl]

76. He's waiting for Gore

I really think he is watching to see if Gore gets in, or shows significant signs of getting in the race. I don't think he'll enter if he thinks Gore is going to run because he wouldn't have much of a chance. Also, I think he believes, and rightly so, that when he becomes a candidate, his voice on the issues, especially middle east war, will be heard only thru the distorted MSM filter. And he doesn't want his views dismissed out of hand simply because he's not a political front runner. I think he has made a difference already by keeping the potential Iran War on the front burner--which is more than anyone can say about the other candidates so far.

I believe he is a true patriot who puts the well being of the people first and his goals second. He would be my number two choice, only after Gore.

[flaminbats]

78. I'm not sure..

I like Clark, I even considered voting for him in 2004. I believe he could win if nominated, but I think winning the nomination is the real challenge!

If Wesley Clark ran for the Republican nomination on the platform he ran on in 2004, I think he would win allot of votes and would get much more publicity. But we have a crowded field now..and I am wondering why so many of these candidates are afraid to even criticize Bush, the war in Iraq, or embrace positions like universal healthcare.

I think Wesley Clark would make a great nominee, but fear his campaign might only give Hillary an unintentional boost.

[Greyhound]

96. I don't understand your opinion, would you explain it for me?

How would Wes Clark's candidacy give Senator Clinton an unintentional boost?

[SteppingRazor]

79. Sure, why not?

I wouldn't give him much chance to pull off the nomination, but I certainly wouldn't say he shouldn't run, either. More power to him.

[rocktivity]

80. Take a wild guess...

Hmm, maybe the reason he hasn't announced yet because it's already been decided that if Obama wins the nomination, he'll take Clark as a running mate?

:think:
rocknation

[LSophia]

81. Absolutely!

He'd make a great president, but, also, he'd raise the bar of the debate, away from this idiotic "American Presidential Idol" we seem to be playing right now. Also, he can meet and address legitimate National Security concerns, instead of leaving that entire issue to the Republicans.

I love Gore, too, so I'd be happy if either if them run. If not? Meh. I'll vote for whomever the Dems put up (probably), but will concentrate my attention on local races.

[Justice]

83. Not Sure. I love Clark, Would love him as President....

but think the field is very crowded right now and so are the messages - Mostly, I worry, where would his money come from?

I believe he has more influence on policy right now by not declaring a run, but prefer him to all others running.

Finally, I think if Gore runs, that would be it. I would love a Gore/Clark ticket. It would be in my view - unstoppable.

[bamacrat]

84. I think he would make a good VP, Clinton/Clark, Obama/Clark

His military experience is actually positive, the conflict he commanded had no US casualties.

[Greyhound]

97. Problem is that the Veep is only as effective as the President allows.

There is a reason that so few VPOTUS are known, the office of POTUS necessarily requires an enormous ego, and most of the time this hinders the effectiveness of the VPOTUS, just look at Gore's 8 years in the shadow of BC. What did he get done other than giving us NAFTA and GATT (I like to think that, if it were up to him, he would have let both of these monstrosities die).

[rep the dems]

85. What's the opposite of no? YES!!! nt

[Wesin04]

88. I'm waiting for Wes

Have known for 4 years he's the one to do the job and do it well. I have no second choice to fall back on, so I will wait for his decision, and in the meantime, help him raise awareness of www.StopIranWar.com. :patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. The moment Clark enters the quality of public debate will rise

Wes Clark never minces his words when discussing important issues, he never talks down to an audiance, and he never retreats behind platitudes and slogans when real answers to questions are needed. Our political process can only be enriched by Wes Clark's entry into the Democratic Presidential race, and all of us as citizens will be better off for it.

The media has no intention of seriously discussing any Democratic potential candidates at this stage other than Clinton and Obama, and sometimes Edwards. Clark has missed very little by waiting so far. Given the media induced attention deficit disorder Americans suffer from, pretty soon the public will be wanting new names to talk about for President.

My opnion remains that Wes Clark is the President that America needs right now, but even if others disagree, Clark's voice needs to be part of the public debate that a Presidential election always brings.

[DemDogs]

90. Well, he might. 134 votes must sound like a lot to him today. (N/T)

[Clarkie1]

92. Hmmm....depends if Clark thinks he should or not.

I believe he is in a continual process of evaluating how he can best influence policy now and support the Democratic Party. He's very worried about Iran. He believes the unless the policy is changed a confrontation will come before the next election. He's worried about bigger issues, not so much Democratic Party Politics.

He will do in the end whatever he believes will do the most good, I believe.

[dae]

93. i'm for Wes, and won't settle for less! Sorry to much damn

basketball. :)

[Dr Fate]

94. I vote yes- the more Anti-war Liberals in the debate, the better. n/t

n/t

[Greyhound]

95. Obviously not my first choice right now, but a very close second.

Intelligence, integrity, competence, these are all primary reasons to support him. In addition, he probably has the best chance to win in the general elections because of his broad geographic and idealogical appeal, combined with cross-party attractiveness.

Another factor I both like and fear, is his profound understanding of the American military. He knows with certainty that the military has some serious problems that must be addressed sooner or later, but I do worry that he might hesitate to implement those changes because he has spent most of his life within the system.

[xkenx]

99. Wes Clark is all about "Duty, honor, country."

The military needs fixing; he'll do it. You know all you need to know about Wes Clark when you know how he publically ripped Peter Pace for his homosexual comments and urged doing away with "Don't ask, don't tell." Clark, to paraphrase, said that all patriotic citizens who want to serve should be allowed to serve with dignity and respect. This is the same Wes Clark who, in the ultimate act of political courage during the 2004 primary season, appeared on the COVER of the Advocate magazine (gay/lesbian rights mag.) in T-shirt and bomber or motorcycle jacket. Who better to take on the bad/bloated aspects of the military than someone who is an expert and not afraid to act on his knowledge and his conscience? And this is a former military general who knows the horrors of war and espouses "War only, only, only as a last resort." Contrast this with the Rethug chickenhawks and Dem. candidates who have to make it look like they have they have what I call "war cojones" to compete with the Rethugs.

[Greyhound]

100. No argument here, just a concern about his willingness to take on the

chiefs, who will scream bloody murder at the first indication of any administration implementing the changes to their structure and, more importantly, to their budget.

The issue of gays in the military is a good example and he has shown his willingness on that one. My concern is that when/if he starts to restructure the actual forces, which will entail far fewer but more highly trained and more expensive forces and the elimination of the many mega-bucks systems designed for a war that is no longer possible that they have in the works and a drastic reduction in the many non-military, budget inflating, functionaries, he will succumb to the pressure they will exert.

[xkenx]

101. Clark will do whatever is right for America--Duty, honor, country.

Simple answer, but I have learned enough about Wes Clark's character and integrity to trust him. Sort of like I was lucky enough to grow up in an intact family knowing that my parents loved me unconditionally, trusting that they would be there for me if I needed them, and they always were, even long after I had grown up.

This next is from a DU mother, posted a year or so ago:

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.

[Jai4WKC08]

102. Let me ask you something

Let's suppose a Democrat gets elected president in 2008. If he or she tried to reform military policy or cut back military spending, and the service chiefs started to squawk, who do you think would be most likely to back down? A retired 4-star general who can make a credible case to the public as to why policy A is justified, or spending cut B not endanger security? Or someone who has never served in the military and will be afraid the Republicans will call him or her a military-hater in the 2012 re-election.

Now, personally, I think you might be disappointed in what Clark might have to do to build the military back up if/when he is president, because Bush has practically destroyed our ground forces. But it won't be because Clark is backing down to the other generals (most of whom were fairly junior when he was in), and I don't think you'll find him approving expensive aircraft and missile acquisitions when what we'll need are basic infantry soldiers and the equipment that protects them.

But if any of the others are president, I think you very well could see them saying to the Joint Chiefs, "if you say you need a new bomber, I guess you must know what you're talking about." Because they won't really know what's needed, and because they can't afford to look "weak."

[xkenx]

103. Great take on this, Jai

[Jai4WKC08]

105. Well, that's pretty much what happened to the Big Dawg

He wanted to open up the military completely to gays and lesbians. But he had to back down because he didn't have the credibility to buck the military leadership at the time.

[Greyhound]

104. Very good point. As I said, I think he has the best chance to win the general

and get his policies implemented. The military enculturation concern is really academic his greatest challenge, like any progressive/populist candidate, will be getting through the primaries and the powers of corruption that generally control the process.
:kick:

[Jai4WKC08]

106. We certainly agree there

There are powerful forces that want to make sure our nominee is someone who is beholden to and will never challenges the establishment elite.

[xkenx]

107. That's actually the scariest thing for me when Clark declares,

that even the Dem. establishment will try to shut him out because his integrity trumps "politics as usual." Wes Clark is not beholden to the special interests. Which is why it is so important for "we the people" to be involved. One hope might be that Howard Dean is independent enough as DNC chairman to not try to shut Clark out. Hillary's stooges tried to oust Dean after the November election for that reason. And that was after Dean's 50 state strategy was so successful, both in that election, and for setting the stage for 2008 and beyond. Amazing how some species will try to "eat their young."

[DuaneBidoux]

108. Every dem that wants to run should run. That's the way democracy works.