What on earth posessed me to step into this fray? (Clark et al)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

I don't know anything bad about Wes Clark; I'm hearing nothing but good. If he gets the nomination, I'll be fighting for him (based on what I know right now).

What bothers me is that many Democrats feel that we NEED to have a general running to counter Bush on the military/defense front. Clinton got through a couple of elections just fine with no prior military service.

And I know that the Fuhrer is constantly trying to scare folks and make them think they need him to stay in office in order to be safe. I don't know--it just feels like a de facto prerequisite to the Presidency is being added to the list, and I'm not very comfortable with that. All presidents are surrounded by competent military advisors (along with some incompetent ones).

Is it assumed in some quarters that a president with no military service won't be able to make the guns blaze should that become necessary?

Again, if Clark gets the nomination, fine. I personally like Kucinich, with Dean as my "realistic" candidate. I think that either one of them would be able to effectively run the military, in addition to their other numerous tasks.

Does anyone else have similar reservations, not about the specific candidate, but about the military-service prerequisite?

Thanks.

[sfecap]

1. Yep.

I am also concerned that he is the DLC choice.

[grasswire]

5. sez who?

Who sez he is the DLC choice?

[sfecap]

6. Watch the press over the next few weeks.

He's the DLC choice.

[Code_Name_D]

9. It has been reported that he indorcments by the press.

It has been reported that he may have 20 to 30 indorcments ready for him when he offichaly anounces. That tells me that the other DLC Dems have been given their marching orders to suport Clark, even before he is in the running.

We will see if this is true or not.

[roguevalley]

2. his being a general is icing on the cake. what sold me was

what I have read and heard him say about the country's honor, its
standing in the world, multinational alliances, the environment, his
feelings about the law, racial equality and the constitution and bill of rights. I am radical when it comes to the rights and guarantees give to us by those documents and he and I mesh there. I also love ANYONE who speaks of the Enlightment and how we are a
'liberal democracy' and how he is not afraid to say he is a liberal.
The general stuff? Icing on the cake. My vote is his to lose.

[uptohere]

3. people seem willing to overlook a lot just for stars and a smile

I have never understood the attraction and the more I hear from him the less I like.

[Brucey]

4. I agree, I am apprehensive about someone

who chooses their life's work in the military to then serve in a civilian leadership role. Not that it can't work, I just am leery. There's a long way to go, caucuses, primaries, debates. It's just far too soon to say Clark is the guy. Maybe.

[spooky3]

13. there are a lot of differences between

the jobs of military leader or CEO, and President of the US. For one thing, you can't always give orders and expect them to be carried out. I am always worried when someone lacks political experience. But I'll try to stay open as there is so much to learn about all of the candidates in the coming months.

[Terwilliger]

7. I do

[peabody71]

8. A General as President may not help our image around the world.

And I don't think we should place so much on the fact that he is a General.
Our domestics are in bigger trouble.
Bush has created a sense that we need endless militery intervention in the world. Obviously 9-11 was the beggining but we would be better served to change our image to those who want to do us harm.
American foreign policy is what created 9-11.
Our government is to blame.

[whirlygigspin]

10. I need to hear a lot more about Clark before even considering him

I just don't get how people can jump on a bandwagon
when the man has no platform.

Also, I have a BIG problem with the Waco BBQ thing.
I won't consider Clark until this can be cleared up.

not flamebait, just being honest.

[Pastiche423]

11. I have mega reservations

Wrong time for our country to have a militaristic leader, is one of my top reservations.

[khashka]

12. You Are On Target

I don't know much about Clark but hope to learn more. I haven't picked a candidate yet.

But the military thang just gets right up my nose. (And you missed a point - Clinton's military record wasn't just that he hadn't served but that he was a traitor to our country (because he protested in Oxford), or so they would have liked us to believe. Then the same people turned around and whined and moaned that he used too much military force and was almost out of control. So what was the deal - was he some sort of psycho-militarist monster or was he a pacifistic-traitor-wimp? The only complaint I ever had was I thought he sometimes leant a little too far right for my tastes. But he was still the best President since Nixon (Please do not analyze that sentence or I will have to leave here in disgrace.).)

And what happened to Bunnypants' military record? Texas National Guard when his Daddy's influence and friends were able to get him a place and when it became inconvenient he quit showing up? Oh that's something to be proud of. Gimme a break. I know too many VietNam vets who would have been happy to have an option to just do something else when fighting and dieing and being maimed interfered with their other plans. And flying over Texas was more dangerous than flying over VietNam? It's a damn good thing I wasn't in South East Asia (and have certain moral scruples) or Bunnypants would be learning some very hard and physical lessons about danger and fear and bravery. (You hit a nerve and I'm about to start spitting blood so I'll wrap this diatribe up.)

The military issue a a blatant attempt to manipulate the public. I would be proud to have a militaryman/woman who served their country as our president. I would be equally proud to have someone who refused to serve. For me, the point isn't did you or did you not pick up a gun, but WHY did you choose to do so. Did you serve because someone said you ought to and you didn't have the guts to look into your own heart? Did you refuse to serve because that's what what everyone else was doing at the time and you didn't have the guts to go against the crowd? If the answer is yes to either question then you don't qualify, in my book.

Military/nonmilitary is a red herring to exploit the prejudices and fears of the people. I don't really care either way, what I want is someone with the courage to make a committment and either stand or fall with it. Bravery comes in many uniforms and no uniforms, so does passion and committment and the willingness to put your life, your fortune and your sacred honour on the line.

But then that's just my view.

[Eloriel]

14. I agree

In fact, AFAIC, the fawning over Clark BECAUSE of his military experience is a tacit admission that that othewise thoroughly inaccurate meme that Dems are weak on foreign affairs must be true.

Pitiful.

I personally do NOT feel this is a time to feed the nation's inappropriate militarism by floating a military candidate.

Eloriel

[Castilleja]

15. Yes!!!

It does bug me, because there are people who feel this one thing trumps every other qualification.

[disgruntella]

16. ok, i am curious now

Who are the people who think being in the military trumps every other qualification for being the Democratic candidate for president. Seriously. Please show them to me.

I think there are definitely people who think that military experience *adds to* the appeal of a Democrat in 2004 running against Bush (aka "the chickenhawk factor"). But I don't buy that people are supporting him *solely* for that reason. Yet I hear a lot of people writing off support for Clark because "it's just because he's a general."

[dfong63]

17. so what else is there?

I think there are definitely people who think that military experience *adds to* the appeal of a Democrat in 2004 running against Bush (aka "the chickenhawk factor"). But I don't buy that people are supporting him *solely* for that reason.

so what else is there? what else has Clark done that qualifies him to be president? being a TV talking head hardly seems sufficient.
``The more fundamental concern centers on Mr. Clark's inexperience in elective politics and domestic policies. In the interview, Mr. Clark cited his "broad background beyond national security," but voters will have to decide whether it's broad enough: He cited a stint as a camp counselor in addition to a mid-career tour as White House fellow and post-Army experience as an investment banker.''
enter wesley clark

[disgruntella]

18. nothing like answering a question with another question

And a choicely-selected quote from an editorial.

But I'll tell you, from what I've seen on this board today: People like his stated positions on issues. They like his style; he presents hiimself well in interviews. He's a Rhodes scholar, and therefore one would assume not an idiot.

Is this enough? Maybe not for me, but if it's enough for other voters, it's not really any of my business.

And if you have a moment to spare, please do show me an example of someone who likes Clark ONLY because he is a general, and for no other reason. But in my opinion, it's the other way around: more people are *rejecting* him only because he was a general. His supporters see more.

[dfong63]

22. hmm

And if you have a moment to spare, please do show me an example of someone who likes Clark ONLY because he is a general, and for no other reason.

let me put it like this. based on the zillions of gushing pro-Clark threads i've seen here: AFAICR not one has failed to mention his generalship in glowing terms. that's usually the first thing they mention. they may also say they like other things about him, but IF HE WERE NOT A GENERAL, he would not be a viable candidate. he wouldn't even be an interesting candidate. that is also a reasonable interpretation of the words "only because he's a general". there may be 12 things they like about him, but take away the stars, and the other 11 wouldn't be enough. whereas if you leave in the stars, you could take away one or more of the other factors, and it wouldn't hurt him much among his supporters. that's my sense of things.

But in my opinion, it's the other way around: more people are *rejecting* him only because he was a general. His supporters see more.

i don't agree. the number one objection to Clark that i've seen here is that he has no political track record. the number two objection i think, is that he's been evasive. imho his being a general is secondary. if you see people objecting to his being a general per se, i think it's mainly in reaction to the Clarkies who have claimed that only a general can beat Bush, and that being a general gives him universal admiration.

[disgruntella]

23. Thanks for answering

Those are good points about the supporters. Of course today is the day Clark announced, so the "gushing" may change in tone and content when things settle down a bit. Or not.

I can also understand objecting to Clark because of this lack of political track record and what you call "evasive" - I assume you mean that he isn't forthright with his positions to the same extent that other candidates are. Those are valid objections; personally, I'm ready to withhold judgement til his campaign gets up to speed.

But I think there are plenty of people (on DU anyway) who wouldn't reject him if he weren't a general. And in a way, that is rejecting him "because" he is a general (kind of like what you stated about the supporters - if that makes any sense). And a few people are eager to reject him because he's a general, IMHO.

[legin]

19. Well put DisgustipatedinCA

I'm glad you posted that, cause I was building up to post something on this issue I don't think it was going to be anywhere near as tactfully put as your post. ;-)

[juajen]

20. I'm not sure about anyone else, but

I think a General might be a very, very good thing for this reason: Iraq is a quagmire. We do need someone who knows his way through the miles of redtape in the military and pentagon and has military intelligence to get us out in reasonably good shape; and that has the experience to deal effectively with foreign governments. Clark certainly qualifies where it counts. It doesn't hurt at all that he is smart and knowledgeable about economics. I want to know how he feels about the elderly, the homeless, the unemployed, etc. and not just soundbites. With a good and reasonable plan here, he will get my support if I feel in a few months that Dennis Kucinich will not make it. Right now, I will simply support both.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. Thanks, everyone

I was away from the keyboard awhile, so it was a pleasure to come back and read these measured and well-reasoned responses.

If Clark ends up being the nominee, great, but I do hope that his selection wouldn't be based primarily on his military background.

Again, thank you for the food for thought.

[Dookus]

24. wow...

First, let me say this is the FIRST civil Clark thread I've seen all week. Good job, everyone!

Here's my take. I'll be upfront: I'm a Clark guy. NOT because he's a general, but because he, personally, seems intelligent, capable, articulate, respectable and progressive. Then you add all that to his career, and he gets that much better.

Believe me, there have been many, many Generals and this is the FIRST one I know of that has been heartily embraced by Democrats.

His military background is a lagniappe. HE'S the main course.