Why can Clark rise above the outsider-governor electoral trend?

[hellhathnofury]

A few basic facts to start out with:
4 of the last 5 winners have been governors.
We haven't elected a general since 1956 an you have to go way back to find another (Garfield?).

The conventional wisdom for the trend is that since Watergate-Vietnam the public doesn't trust the Washington government and governors can sell themselves as outsiders. A governor can honestly say "I'm not part of the problem in Washington."

Now consider Wesley Clark. He hasn't ran a true outsider campaign and doesn't seem to intend too. There are no furious insurgent cries of corruption and decit in Washington. In fact, Clark's only true political expierence was in Washington (Pentagon).

Does this trend matter? Can Clark defy or break it? Why?

[Jack_Dawson]

1. America has elected twelve (12) generals to the office of President

That's a lot.

[hellhathnofury]

4. Not since 1956 though. Politic's ain't what it used to be in the 19th cent

[Jack_Dawson]

6. People are still people

And we still love governors and from judging the recent poll numbers, we still love generals.

[Printer70]

18. People are now better educated

They don't want to be led by someone who starts wars, but someone who prevents them.

[KittyWampus]

22. Someone Who's Educated Would See Beyond Clark's Uniform

and go beyond the stereotype of a General as someone who wants to start wars.

Clark is brilliant intellectually with an innate capacity to achieve excellence. Happily, he also comes across as a regular guy.

It's obvious Clark is no War Monger...

"Republicans like weapons systems & Democrats like people" Wesley Clark

[ClarkGraham2004]

24. I like his tax plan and his strategy for Iraq.

Also his incredible leadership qualities.



www.clark04.com

[Printer70]

26. Clark has started wars though

...none of which were a matter of national security or involved an imminent threat.

[Jack_Dawson]

31. Did Clark start wars or was he following orders?

C'mon man...that's an incredibly lame accusation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Was he following orders or does he have foreign policy experience?

C'mon man...it can't be both!

[dfong63]

28. beyond the uniform and stars, the're nothing to see

Clark is brilliant intellectually with an innate capacity to achieve excellence.

that's not enough to be president. Clark has no track record in electoral politics, and no track record as a democrat. and if he's so damn brilliant, then why did it take him so long to stop voting republican?

[JVS]

2. He could run for governor first

:-)

[ClarkGraham2004]

3. The governor trend is due for a loss.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. Not this year. Not now. Not ever.

Sorry, after the Eisenhower disaster, history teaches us that generals do not make good presidents.

Hawkeye-X

[ClarkGraham2004]

8. Eisenhower was a disaster? LMAO

He won two terms and oversaw the end of the Korean War and an enduring economic recovery. The Democrats courted him prior to his White House bid.

Yeah, it was HORRIBLE.


btw, so Governors will ALWAYS win? lol OK

[hellhathnofury]

11. And ignored civil rights. Cold War didn't go to well under his watch eithe

[ClarkGraham2004]

14. It didn't go any better under a Democrat, oh wait

we basically didn't have a Democratic president during the 30 year Cold War. Save Jimmy Carter and Jack's 2 year run.

Funny thing is, that's where you want to keep us. Out of the White House.


Btw, Eisenhower was a fine president, especially for a Republican.

[hellhathnofury]

16. Oh my...

"we basically didn't have a Democratic president during the 30 year Cold War. Save Jimmy Carter."

Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter.

Eisenhower was okay, whether he get's credit is another thing. It's hard to hate him and he rode off of FDR and Truman's programs. His vision and civil rights record really are poor considering context.

Fine, not great.

[TacticalPeek]

25. Ordering the 101st Airborne into Little Rock

was not exactly ignoring civil rights.

[hellhathnofury]

30. He was still no Kennedy or Truman...

Eisenhower didn't want to rock the boat too much. He acted only where he had clear cut authority. He did near nothing to expand voting rights.

[Dookus]

10. YOU may

hate Eisenhower, but you're in the distinct minority.

Most Americans and historians give his presidency very good grades.

[Dookus]

12. more...

http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/

Cpsan did a survey of historians of all political persuasions. Eisenhower's presidency ranks 9th out of all the presidents.

Hardly a disaster.

[HFishbine]

5. "no furious insurgent cries of corruption and decit"

In the words of Dennis Kucinich, "Helllllooooooooo?"

[FrenchieCat]

9. When was the last time

we had a Pearl Harbor?

When was the last time we had a stolen election?

When was the last time a president was impeached?

When was the last time voting machine without papertrails were used?

[hellhathnofury]

13. Okay I'll play the game

1. 1941
2. 1872? Hayes-Tilden
3. 1998
4. 2002

Edit: My bad, I let the history overtake me. 2002 Georgia, BBV.

[LiberalBushFan]

15. How many generals have run since 1956?

That's important to consider as well.

[hellhathnofury]

17. Haig, I believe. MacArthur and Powell considered.

There might be others.

Maybe there was a reason for them not running?

[FrenchieCat]

19. Maybe....

Maybe not....

Doesn't appear that a point was made via this thread...IMO :shrug:

[hellhathnofury]

23. General's don't run well.

We have one governor in this race.

[KittyWampus]

20. We Are Over Due For An Outsider-General

Just like a "Perfect Storm"... one comes along every so often to buck the trend.

[maxr4clark]

21. Clark's political experience

...was largely in Europe, where he represented the US military to NATO. I understand he was quite well-liked there.

The people who didn't like him were the neocons at the Pentagon, like Shelton and Rumsfeld.

[dfong63]

29. Clark has no track record in electoral politics

[TacticalPeek]

27. And three of those four were SOUTHERN governors.

And CA ain't VT.