Military/foreign experience NOT the best credentials for Prez.

[Dover]

This argument that military and foreign policy is the one thing that will win the presidency away from a completely inept Bush, has holes in it. Military and foreign policy experience is certainly important and essential to the machinations of any country,
but can be provided to the president via an advisory role as has traditionally been done (providing the president elect is not a mental midget). And what message does the selection of a military leader (or one who emphasizes it) send to the rest of the world?

Leadership has many components...intelligence, heart, experience (both life and professional) charisma, a vision of the big picture, , an intimate understanding and appreciation of the small things, empathy, etc.... Vocation is not the most essential of these. It's who one is......not their resume alone.

What's more essential, to this country is a leader who empowers and mobilizes the greatest resource this country possesses....We The People. A leader who can heal the wounds, both literally and figuratively at home and abroad, step in to protect and reinvigorate the essential ideals that are our inheritance and is recognized (or WAS recognized) and envied around the world.

What is the biggest wound that we have inflicted on ourselves and others? We have betrayed our own reason for being as a national body, perhaps our destiny. We can only heal this by returning to the path from which we've strayed and with humility accept both the lesson and our humanity.

The threat to this great experiment is more a result of what is occurring within our own borders than without. We have not been the best stewards of this burdensome responsiblity, this great experiment, and now it seems that it is urgently at risk of being supplanted entirely for a more expedient form of governance that would bypass its checks and balances and the spirit that is embodied in it....

We are at a CRITICAL crossroads not only as a country but as a globalizing entity and must choose how we wish to be in and of this world. NOW. If we cannot learn to walk the talk, and do the right thing (especially when we have overstepped our authority), then what are we?

The leader we choose is someone who embodies who we are...and/or aspire to be. How we define ourselves at any given time. Sometimes it ain't pretty. So WHO are we?

No empty rhetoric, no amount of strategizing, just integrity and an authentic commitment toward an acceptable balance of power and human dignity. We are all in this together and must find our way together.

E pluribus unum.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. True

but they certainly add to John Kerry's appeal. :)

[La_Serpiente]

2. I believe that is true

one is not "entitled" to the presidency if they served in the military. However, it sure does help. I am not sure who you are directing this thread at? Is it at any specific presidential candidate? Or is this just a general statement?

[Dover]

5. It's directed at the current argument that this will make the

difference in who wins the presidency from Bush. I think Clark and Kerry have been emphasizing this aspect of their resumes. I just don't think this will be the deciding factor...

[mmonk]

6. right

....never mention a strength.

[Mattforclark]

11. leadership

"Leadership has many components...intelligence, heart, experience (both life and professional) charisma, a vision of the big picture, , an intimate understanding and appreciation of the small things, empathy, etc.... Vocation is not the most essential of these. It's who one is......not their resume alone."

This all applies to Clark, and really to Kerry too, except I think Clark has more experience, probably intelligence and a better vision, for example. All that's probably subjective though.

But I don't know what you mean by 'an intimate understanding and appreciation of the small things.'

"What's more essential, to this country is a leader who empowers and mobilizes the greatest resource this country possesses....We The People. A leader who can heal the wounds, both literally and figuratively at home and abroad, step in to protect the essential ideals that are our inheritance and is recognized (or WAS recognized) and envied around the world."

I don't know about Kerry, but Clark has:

http://clark04.com/speeches/005/

[ShaneGR]

3. You're kind of forgetting about something

September 11th. Like it or not this election is going to be about defence and foreign policy. There will be no funny catch lines about the 'economy stupid' or any other arguments. The Democratic Nominee needs to be able to explain to America why he is best to lead the nation in this new war on terrorism. Foreign Policy credentials will be the ultima credential.

[mmonk]

4. How is military/foreign policy credentials

a liability (especially in these times with neocon influence in government and a public without a clue about it)?

[Kurt Remarque]

7. chicken hawks...

should disagree, but don't

[poskonig]

8. It depends on how the debate is framed.

If Clark or Kerry runs, one frames the debate in terms of military service. If we get Edwards, Gephardt, et cetera, the Democrats will put the emphasis on personal qualities like judgment, patience, respect, and so forth.

[KittyWampus]

9. Military And Foreign Policy Experience Are Two Potential Arrows

To sling against Junior who WILL be running as Commander in Chief and as President during War Time.

Some of the candidates have served AND have foreign policy experience...

Some of the candidates have not...

Those who have not are missing two potential means of bringing bush down.

[evil_orange_cat]

10. I agree... sometimes an outsider has the best view...

plus, the presidency isn't a one-man job... that's why there's a cabinet and large teams of advisors. The president also gets briefed by the intelligence agencies. It's not like the entire executive branch is gutted.

I think most people without foreign policy or military experience can look at the information and make an intelligent decision. BTW, Clinton had no experience. ;)

[mmonk]

12. nor bush

[evil_orange_cat]

15. yeah, but he's just stupid...

and surrounded by evil people hell bent on war...

[jpgray]

13. I think people enjoy those qualities more for elections than presidencies

They sound good to voters, by and large. Personally, it's not your job, but what you've done, and whether or not what you say you'll do jibes with what you've done. The jury's still out on Clark for that--I need more info.

[mmonk]

14. qualify

[mike_c]

16. excellent post, and the test of true leadership will be...

...a candidate's ability to REDEFINE the important issues confronting America, not to simply show how much better they fit the mold that shrubya has defined. We don't need militarists. We don't need someone who can out-PNAC the PNAC'ers. We need NEW leadership to take America in a new direction.

[mmonk]

17. another baseless accusation

[L.A.dweller]

18. Like it or not

Sep. 11 has changed everything. People don't want another politician ramming shit down their throats about how bad this is and how bad that is.
As a poster noted above foreign policy is going to be the main issue in this election. People want a leader who is experienced in this area. Not someone who is critical of the other guy and feels that everything he is doing is wrong.
Unfortunately, there are people that think what bush is doing is the right thing to do. And no matter how hard you try you can't get them to change their minds.

[Dover]

19. Certainly Kerry and Clark seem to be in agreement........

Last fall: As Congress debated whether to authorize the use of force against Saddam, Clark, an adviser for New Hampshire congressional candidate Katrina Swett, told the Associated Press that although he had "reservations" about war, he supported the President's proposal. "Certainly in certain cases we should go to war before our enemies strike," Clark said. "And I think this situation applies here, but I am not sure we should write it down and publish as policy."

Last winter: As Huel Perkins mentioned during his initial question to Clark, according to a voting guide put out by James Zogby's Arab American Institute, the general said last February that "Saddam Hussein has these weapons, and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this, and the rest of the world has got to get with us."

Last spring: After the fall of Baghdad, Clark waxed poetic about the results of Gulf War II: "Liberation is at hand," he wrote in the Times of London. "Liberation--the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions." Later in the same essay, Clark praised the president he's now trying to unseat. "As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." Not quite a ringing--nor consistent--indictment of Bush foreign policy.

And in the fall of 2003: Clark joined the presidential contest last September. Shortly after he announced his candidacy, the general gave a 45-minute talk with a group of reporters. In the course of the discussion, the Washington Post later reported, Clark said he "probably" would have voted to authorize the war if he had been a member of Congress last fall. He added that his views resembled those of Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe Lieberman, both of whom voted to authorize the conflict.

Two days later, on September 19, Clark said he "never would have voted for war." But, you see, that doesn't quite mean he would have voted against the Congressional use-of-force authorization. "What I would have voted for," Clark said, "is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war."

Got that?

Clark eventually admitted that he had spoken out of both sides of his mouth. "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways," he said. "On balance, I probably would have voted for it." So why all the confusion? Well, Clark told the Boston Globe, "I wasn't following the resolution and I didn't even know what was in the resolution. . . . Had I been in Congress I would not have voted for it because I would have recognized that the administration was going to use it as an authorization to go to war."

"I've seen both ways," Clark once told an interviewer, "Because you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." Indeed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/307winbn.asp