Do you think Clark would run as Dean's running mate?

[Postman]

IMHO a Dean-Clark ticket locks up the White House for 16 years.

[Nashyra]

1. I like a Clark/Dean ticket

could still lock up the WH for 16years

[imhotep]

2. Why not get Schwarzenegger?

He and Clark both have zero experience and have the same position on the issues, and neither are a democrat.

[Pastiche423]

4. Most excellent idea!

[Kahuna]

9. No experience? It's not like America electing a general would

be something that has never happened before. What have we had? How many generals have America elected? I heard it was eleven. That number seems kind of high. But obviously Americans do equate military leadership with political leadership. Even if you don't like it.

[Cha]

13. That's not logical at all!

[ping_PONG]

16. Not a Democrat...

How do you figure? So only the people that YOU support are Democrats? I guess your rigid ideology is the only one that has any hope of ever having any validity.

I can tell that supporters of other candidates have a problem with Dean supporters here. I can relate to the frustrations that people have towards the overzealous Dean supporters, but what the hell do you accomplish with posts like that?

[imhotep]

18. When did he announce he is a democrat?

He must be ashamed to admit it or he isnt one.
By the way, this has nothing to do with Dean or any other candidate but nice try to change the issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Aren't You Ashamed To Compare

Arnold with Wes Clark.

If Arnold was first in his class at West Point

If Arnold was a Rhodes Scholar

If Arnold was the Supreme Allied Commander and managed the militaries of nineteen countries which require immense political skills

I would take him serious as a gubernatorial candidates.

The more you trash the military the more you make Dems look like girly men in the eyes of the American people.

[Pastiche423]

25. Why are you so afraid

of being thought of as a "girly man"?

Do you have problems in that department?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I

don't think being viewed as a girly man is an asset if you are running for president.

Do you?

Also, at the risk of being vein I am a very manly man. People mistake me for the Terminator-:)

[Pastiche423]

31. That was not my question

Btw, which candidate are you calling a girly man?

For that matter, what IS a girly man?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. A girly man is an effete man

[Pastiche423]

42. And what is wrong w/an effete man?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Random House College Dictionary

effete- 1 exhausted of vigor or energy: worn out 2 lacking in wholesome vigor, decadent 3 unable to produce ,sterile

[tameszu]

38. It's a line from Saturday Night Live's "Hand und Franz"

a parody of an insult that Ah-nuld might use on those of us who less "pumped up!"

You know, like a joke?

:party:

[imhotep]

32. Clark is not "the military"

And as a veteran I am deeply insulted that you people would even try to politicize it.

[tameszu]

43. You're completely right, Clark is not "the military",

he's a potential leader with a military background. But some of his critics on DU (as opposed to his supporters), which is what Demsincebirth was responding to, seem to equate the two and attack him on this basis.


See RichM's post (#5).

There has been, for better or worse, a deep suspicion of the military on the left, and worse, a strong trend toward conservatism in the military, ever since Vietnam. Clark hopes to ameliorate both trends, which I think would be a good thing.

[Woodstock]

3. I think it's a spectacular ticket - if Clark is a Democrat?

That worries me. Clark is likely seen as not wanting to be a Democrat? Is there something wrong with us? The longer he waits to declare this, the more Rove can use it against him?

I'd love a Dean/Clark ticket. Every interview I've heard of Clark echoes Dean's positions nearly exactly. While Dean is the energizing firebrand - and his decade plus as governor gives the ticket governing and executive experience - Clark adds a military and national security presence. It will be tought for them to paint Dean as a peacenik or to fault the ticket for a lack of foreign or military experience.

[diplomats]

6. Clark is a Democrat

Colin Powell was coy on his party affiliation until finally announcing he was a Repub, and that didn't hurt him.

[Woodstock]

34. The Dems played nice with Powell

Rove WILL use it against Clark.

If Clark is a Democrat, let him come out and say it.

[tameszu]

50. No, Clark doesn't think there's anything deeply wrong about the Dems,

it's just that he has spent most of his life officially non-partisan and wants to remain "label-free" as long as possible before running, to avoid being negatively branded by the media and to maximize his gains among independents.

But Clark will eventually declare himself as a Democrat. He's a pragmatist and he knows that the political system in America also relies on parties.

[RichM]

5. There's a big problem with this idea - it's tantamount to an admission

that the Democrats have no idea what they're doing, who they are, or what they stand for.

The message would be: Dean, because we support the idea that the war against Iraq was wrong & unjustified. But Clark, because we're scared that otherwise the country will think that being against the war was "unpatriotic." So we "cleverly" try to handle this by being on both sides of the issue simultaneously.

Thus the bumbling confused apologetic mixed message sent by the ticket: "We ARE against the war, but we're NOT REALLY so against the war. We ARE against US militarism, but NOT REALLY. We're kind of FOR it, too, if you like that better."

If Democrats are so ashamed of Dean's antiwar position that they need to grab for the cover of Clark's general-hood, to compensate for it, they shouldn't run Dean in the first place.

The issue is US militarism & empire-building. You're either FOR it, or you're AGAINST it. If you're AGAINST it, don't try to disguise it by tossing in a celebrity general to appease those who will accuse you of lacking patriotism.

[Postman]

11. Rich, I understand where your coming from ...

but its about getting elected. The hardcore left and hardcore right will never change their ways. It's the swing-voters in the middle who need to be targeted.

You are correct in your assessment though. In a perfect world we would have a "pure" ticket. We have to win in 2004.

[Kahuna]

12. Do you prefer another 4 years of bushco? They way you attack

the candidates it appears as if 4 more years of bushco wouldn't bother you in the least.

[Cha]

15. Dean isn't lacking in the skills for foreign policy, IMO!

You will not see me advocating General Clark for a VP position unless he has a lot more to add than being a military person.

[ping_PONG]

20. That's YOUR interperatation

Mine would be more like:

Dean, because he saw through the BS early and often, and Clark, because like it or not (and it's much more of not) we have military obligations all over the world at this point and experience with the military, with an eye towards geo-politics, that is going to be useful for any administration. Dean could surround himself with inexperience and try and learn the nuances of these relationships on his own the hard way, or he can take advantage of the talent that is there.

As far as them not being Democrats. Screw you. Not all Democrats are wheat-grass chomping, granola farmers. Live with it or join the Green party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I'm Not For Militarism And Empire Building

but I expect my nation to be as aggressive in it's defense as I would be in self defense or in defense of my friends and family.

If someone tried to harm me, my family, or my friends, I would use as much force as necessary even if that included killing the person who intended to do harm.

[unfrigginreal]

26. Sounds more like you are the one that has no idea...

of what Democrats are doing, who they are, or what they stand for.

To begin with BOTH Dean and Clark opposed this phony war. Secondly, perhaps you are, but I for one am not opposed to ALL military actions. I agree with both Dean and Clark that the Afghanistan intervention and the first Gulf War were necessary.

Not all wars are engaged for empire building, until you realize that you will always be happier with a candidate that is not in the 2 major parties.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I also was a big fan of

The Revolutionary War

The Civil War

WW1

WW2

and the Korean War

but some poster here tried to point out that all those wars weren't justified.

And Wes Clark, called the failure to garner international support for our efforts in Iraq as "the greatest strategic blunder in American history."

[w4rma]

27. RichM, Clark has the exact same position on the Iraq war that Dean does

And both have been consistent in their opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[RichM]

40. While this is (roughly) true, it's beside the point. Dems who want Clark

really only want him as a symbol: they want to hold up a picture of him in his uniform, as a way of saying to the public, "See, here we have a US general -- and he is on OUR side." The Dem Clark-backers don't really give a fig what Clark has to say. They want him for his uniform, his rank, his military-celebrity status.

If he was the exact same person, with the same exact positions on issues, & Rhodes Scholar and all -- but a dentist instead of a general, these same people wouldn't look twice at him. If he was, say, an environmental activist with the exact same positions on ALL issues, these same people wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. They'd be the very first to jeer that he was a "fringe leftist."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. If

my father had different "equipment" he would have been my mother.

[tameszu]

47. Not quite,

Dems who want Clark care about both the symbol AND the substance.

That he has the progressive positions he has AND can immunize the Democratic Party from the predictable "patriotic correctness" that Bush will invoke matters deeply. We wouldn't be clamouring around, say, Brent Scowcroft or Norman Schwartzkopf.

Furthermore, to the extent that Clark and other mainstream Dems roughly share positions, most Clark supporters don't think that's a bad thing. If you look at the Clark supporters on this board, they are hardly DLCers. They don't want Clark because he will save them from the "fringe leftists" who are dragging the party left--otherwise their second choice would be Lieberman. And that's just not true. Rather, they want a candidate who is both liberal and who appeals people outside of the people who normally vote liberal. They want a liberal in non-liberal (read: military) clothing so they can maximize their chances of putting this country in a progressive direction.

As many people who are interested in a Clark run also support or are very sympathetic toward Dean and Kerry, I don't think we'd shy away from the dentist or the environmental activist at all. It's just that we don't think they'd have as good a chance of being elected and pushing progressive positions in the current climate as a general would.

[Wendec]

52. Generalization?

Rich - While I'm still on the fence, I am seriously considering Clark and it has nothing to do with being able to parade him around in a uniform. It has plenty to do with seeing someone who has espoused progressive views with which I agree, someone who has said that war should be a last resort, and someone who strikes me as being electable.

Don't try to paint everybody who doesn't see things your way with such a broad brush.

[Kahuna]

53. Actually Rich. I don't want to hold up a picture of General Clark..

in his uniform. His title speaks for itself. I think it would be as tasteless as shrub in the flight gear. Got it now?

You people need to stop trying to second guess Clark supporters. You have been wrong on every count.

[Woodstock]

37. ??? Clark's and Dean's positionon the Iraq war are identical

Clark as well as Dean said there was insufficient justification for a preemptive war, and that we should have gone through the UN to effect change.

Only the corporate media, the DLC, and Republicans are painting Dean as anti-military. He's not.

Both men have similar positions, but they wouldn't be able to make the silly statement "But Dean was never in the military" and would have a much harder time with the "peacenik"/McGovern (apologies to McGovern, it's not an insult even though they intend it as one) baloney.

Clark, like most people who REALLY know what war is all about, likes to view war as a last recourse.

This Republican knew a thing or two about war and said it pretty well:

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventative war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Exactly

Even today, Bush had to push the military to invade Iraq.


There were many accounts in the news that the militray was agnostic about this adventure but they have to be loyal to their commander in chief.

Nobody who has seen battle up close can relish the opportunity to send young men and women to war.

[absolutezero]

54. clark

didn't support the war, and dean isn't in favor of dismantling the military.

The iraq war was wrong, war in general isn't as long as it's the last resort.

[TheBigGuy]

7. Dean/Graham is probably better.

it would be at least consistent on the national security/war issue

[diplomats]

8. Or Kerry/Clark

then you'd have the geographic balance.

[Cha]

17. Unless you were against this bogus attack on Iraq and can't

stand the beltwayers getting in.

[Kahuna]

14. Why would it be more consistent? If I'm not mistaken, and

I know I'm not, Clark wasn't in favor of the war on Iraq. So what's your point?

[dorktv]

10. How about Dean/Kerry?

[LTR]

19. Not bad, but it should be Clark/Dean

Why pussy-foot around? Go for the jugular!

Plus, I don't think Clark would go through all of this just to preside over the Senate.

I found this while doing a little digging. This is supposedly from his son, Wesley, Jr.:

http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/001978.html

Wesley Clark, Jr., son of the possible presidential candidate, dropped by the Daily Kos website and said:

I don't know if he will run but he'll make an announcement either way (my guess is at the very latest labor day). I understand that the wait might be frustrating for people in the DraftClark movement and the Democratic party - but if he runs, I assume that those who think he is a good candidate now will probably not hold it against him just because he waited a few extra weeks.

He won't be running as a Republican.

He IS NOT campaigning for a VP slot.

He is very progressive on every issue - he's stated that global warming is happening, that he's pro-choice, that he's pro-affirmative action, that he's pro-union, that the tax code should remain progressive, that multilateral solutions should be found for the world's security concerns, that he was against the decision to go to war in Iraq and that we need stronger social safety nets. I don't know what other positions people need to find out which direction he leans but it seems fairly clear to me.

He is most of all interested in the battle of ideas and not that of individuals (to include himself). I'm sure he'll help out whomever wins the nom for the Democrats when it comes time to bring down Bushco - whether he mounts a campaign himself or not.

I don't know if he would be able to win the Democratic nom but I believe he is the only one who can win the general election because it will be about one thing - national security. I wish it were about health care, the coming water crisis, the need for alternative energy or the economy but it won't be. National security is now personal security and that trumps every other issue.

[diplomats]

21. Right now polls show people are more concerned about the economy

than security. However, Bush will do his best to make this election about security, and I also believe we need a candidate who' strong on that, like Clark.

[caledesi]

22. Big Yes on this one.

That's my dream ticket: Dean/Clark.

I will settle for Dean/Graham.

[depakid]

30. It makes perfect sense

Dean has the organization, the money and the troops. Clark is intelligent, articulate and brings military credibility, if not executive experience.

I like the match, but Generals of Clark's stature have tremendous egos, and it would surprise me if he would opt for VP- though considering how active Cheney has been, it's well within the realm of possibilities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. The Most Incredible Thing About Clark

is he was able to rise to the pinnacle of the militray and maintain progressive values.

It's easy to be a liberal professor

It's easy to be a liberal Democrat elected official

It's easy to be a liberal celebriry

but it ain't easy to rise in the military and maintain progressive values.

He's very special.... Sui generis....

[Pastiche423]

39. I guess it ain't easy for him to admit to being a Democrat, eh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. When He Gets In The Race I'll Send You A Box of Chocolates

and the address of his campaign headquarters so you can send him a donation-:)

It's all about beating Son of A Bush

[Pastiche423]

44. I'd take the chocolates

but I don't believe it will come to that.

Send him money? Surely you jest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Deal

You do prefer him over Son Of A Bush

[Pastiche423]

48. Again I say

I don't believe it will come to that.

[tameszu]

36. I like both Dean and Clark a lot,

and Clark would say "yes," but I don't think Dean would offer it, because they would make too risky of a ticket.

The two of them both have an "outsider" thing--which could be very good, depending on the mood of the electorate, but it seems like Dean might be better off with a safer play and going with Graham.

Then again, Dean/Clark is a really interesting complement...hmm...I previously dismissed it...But, anyway, Dean clearly isn't thinking this way, since he said he wanted someone with Washington experience, which makes sense.

Clark/Dean wouldn't make that much sense, because while Clark is an outsider, I don't think he that he'd want that aspect to be the sole emphasis of his candidacy. He doesn't need to open himself up to more charges of inexperience than he has to, so he'd want the governor of a bigger state. I've heard Clark/Richardson, which makes a lot of sense tome.

Kerry/Clark would also make sense.

[unfrigginreal]

55. Something to consider tameszu...

a military General is the ultimate Washington insider. They have to kiss more ass than politicians do.

[tameszu]

56. True...

...but I think what Dean and a lot of people talking up the CW means is someone who has experience drafting bills in Congress.

Now, I personally think that considering Bush's lack of experience himself, it would be a bigger a risk for Rove to attack a Dean/Clark ticket for Washington inexperience than a Dean/x ticket for foreign policy inexperience, but I'm only an amateur and Trippi seems to have a pretty steady hand on the tiller. If Dean gets elected, though, I deeply, deeply hope that Clark and/or Zinni and someone with the gravitas of Graham, etc. play a role. Actually, there's probably just a whole slew of moderately progressive political science and international relations scholars who are are hankering to have a say right now. A left wing Condi Rice or a research academic who also happens to have military experience would be fantastic.