Would Clark have done as well as Kerry

[From the south]

I have seen quite few posts from people who think Clark should have been our guy.

I tend to disagree, I don't think K Rove ever took Clark seriously. But I think they had a strategy to deal with him; mostly regarding things he did while he was NATO commander.

I don't think Clark would have had much chance once K Rove started running attack ads on him, who knows what 527's would have spontaneously appeared

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It does not matter who casts the votes, but who counts the votes

Joseph Stalin

[jobycom]

12. In this case, it was more

Who allowed people to cast the votes, than who counted the votes. The intimidation and obstruction of voters was the factor that gave Bush the edge. James K Galbraith's article in Salon (I can't find the link) shows that all of the practices BushCo claims negated the Ukraine election were practiced in Ohio, so even according to BushCo, the election was invalid.

[ooglymoogly]

32. so you'll have to ask diebold

[Old and In the Way]

2. I think we ran the right candidate.

Clark would have added a few and subtracted a few, I think. Actually, I think any Democrat would have had essentially the same majority....but would have still lost given our flawed voting system.

While I liked John Edwards, I do wonder how Clark would have done as Kerry's VP.....for one thing, it would have been interesting to see Clark take on the Swift Boat Liars....I think he could have really nuetralized that issue for Kerry.

[From the south]

6. Do you really think the VP matters?

[Old and In the Way]

24. Do you think Cheney matters to Bush?

[From the south]

28. not to get elected

[KC21304]

16. I agree about Clark. He would have been able to

tout both his and Kerry's record and as I said below, talk about Kerry's 71 testimony LOUDLY and PROUDLY. I really think the election turned on these 2 points.

I'm not saying that Kerry/Edwards did not win. They probably did.

[AP]

22. Clark and Kerry had different positions on IWR which would have made

it harder to establish exactly where Democrats stood on that issue.

[KC21304]

25. I don't think so. If Clark was on the ticket

I think Kerry would have said earlier and more forcefully that Congress was lied to, Bush and Co showed very, very poor judgement from start to finish, etc. Kerry/Clark numbers would have been very high and they never would have had to walk the tight rope Kerry/Edwards tried to.

[RafterMan]

44. And you're suggesting

that Kerry/Edwards established exactly where Democrats stood on that issue?

People I spoke with were almost universally confused on the Democrats' position on the war, and I confess I just made stuff up when trying to convince them rather than relying on muddled K-E quotes on the subject.

I think Kerry's combination of votes and rhetoric was vague enough for him to play it either way when it came down to the GE, but he couldn't seem to choose either side. At least until the NYU speech, and sometimes after. I don't think pairing with an anti- would have hurt him, if he could have stuck to a clean message.

[AP]

47. I think Kerry didn't handle it well. But I thought...

...Edwards made his position very clear:

He voted yes on IWR because of the evidence they were presented. He said it was much more evidence than was presented in the media, which I don't doubt -- I believe the media played up bad evidence in order to make Dems look bad, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the evidence had been planted for that specific reason. Edwards said that if the evidence were indeed bad, that we needed to have a serious investigation. He said that he voted on on the 87 Billion dollar bill because it was little more than a giveaway to private corporations and would have done nothing to keep the army safe.

I have no idea why Kerry's strategy was to say that he mispoke in response to the allegation that voting for the 87 billion dollar bill contradicted a yes vote on the IWR. That confused the hell out of me.

[roseBudd]

3. That Rove was so successful in using 30 year old incidents to smear

Kerry, they would have had even more success at painting Clark as crazy with a more recent history. Clark was also gaffe prone, not that Kerry wasn't.

Bush is gaffe prone but it doesn't seem to matter to bushbots.

[Obviousman]

4. The thing about clark

His stump speech talked about making Democratic issues "family values." I know that's the talking point about why we lost the election, but it would have been interesting to see.

[bullimiami]

5. I think Clark would have done as well

also Dean, probably any Democrat. Would have been within a few percentage points but all would have won a fair election. Because anyone was better than Bush and we knew it.

[74dodgedart]

7. I always thought Clarke should've been the VP choice

He's southern and Arkansas was more likely to swing blue than NC. He
would've neutralized a lot of the "weak on defense" rhetoric.

Every time anybody talked about him they would have to say "General Clark"

[arewenotdemo]

13. I agree and think Clark would have won if he was the

presidential candidate.

They just would not have been able to slime him like they slimed Kerry. And when they tried Clark would have responded more forcefully than Kerry did.

[leyton]

35. Why not?

Clark had a long record in the military. I'm sure that the GOP could have found something that went wrong in the Balkans, for example, that they could blame (wrongly or rightly) on Clark. Also, Kerry had a reputation for being a fighter, and why he never responded is a mystery to me (other than that his advisors were not particularly great). Why would Clark have done better?

[arewenotdemo]

36. As far as I know Clark didn't protest the Vietnam war

Hence, he wasn't the "traitor" Kerry was. I've got a brother who wrote a LTTE of my Ohio hometown newspaper outlining how Kerry was a hero in the eyes of the North Vietnamese, how the VVAW plotted to assassinate U.S. senators, and so forth. This shit grew roses in rural white America.

Add to that the Massachusetts liberal angle and all that entails...gun control, gay marriage, abortion, taxes and secular humanism, and Kerry started in a ditch so deep it was amazing that the election was as close as it was.

I really believe Clark would have won.

[angrydemocrat]

23. I Agree With 74dodgedart

Kerry was always my first choice. Clark was my second. I was hoping Kerry would pick Clark as his VP. I have always said that Clark was a much better choice than Edwards. They would have made a powerful ticket no doubt about it.

[ihaveaquestion]

8. It's possible that Clark might have done better,

but who really knows? It would have been different and Ro^e would have had to do different dirty work, but there would still have been dirty work.

[LoisC]

9. Clark was a gift to the Democratic Party..

Rove would try and tarnish anyone who ran. It would have been harder to do that with Clark as he had many supporters outside the Democratic party and his credentials were fabulous. Unfortunately his credentials were never highlighted. If Clark had run They couldn't have smeared him with the "liberal" label ....at least not easily.

We really missed the boat with turning down the Clark gift.

[KC21304]

10. Kerry /Clark would have cleaned house.

Clark would have told the Swiftliars where their book should FIT and been able to tell the Kerry - l971 testimony story as it should have been told, LOUD and CLEAR !

I think John and Elizabeth are wonderful people. But let's face it. The four of them didn't get the job done. I'm not laying the blame on anyone. Just saying how it might have been.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. Clark/Kerry Maybe...

I was hoping after Kerry got the nomination that he would see reason and nominate Clark (whop I think was far stronger at the top). I think that was a hard call to make since around that time, Kerry thought he could win it with Vietnam. The problem being, its kind of awkward to have the lieutenant with 4 months combat experience at the top of the ticket when the bottom is a 4 star general, supreme allied commander. Opens you to questions of who is REALLY better qualified.

That being said, Clark shot himself in the foot. When they decided they didn't have the money to mount a challenge in both Iowa and New Hampshire, they should have gone with a the moderate Midwestern state rather that trying to run right between the home states of Kerry and Dean. Really don't know what they were thinking with that move.

[KC21304]

20. Better qualified for what ?

Remember they were running for President of the United States, not of a military dictatorship. :)

I think Gen. Clark would have been qualified for President but not as qualified as Kerry. But as a team they would have been dynamite.

I was about 3 feet from them when my picture avatar was taken. I really thought then it was a done deal with the two of them. Oh well, time to move on.

[DistressedAmerican]

34. Better qualified to get us out of this disastrous Iraq war...

and find/kill the folks who actually attacked on 9/11. I used to be a full-on pacifist. The very idea of a general as president was abhorrent to me. I have changed my mind on the issue. Post 9/11 I want someone at the helm that understands who the enemy is. I'm left of left but, saw Clark as a moderate with a chance of swinging things away from The Douche-bag in Chief. It was a compromise I would have been happy to make.

I did travel to New Hampshire and go door to door in 15 degrees below, worked phone banks and donated much needed cash to put my money where my mouth was. I wish more Clark supporters had done the same.

That being said, Bush is a lying thieving bastard. Clark's margin may not have been big enough to beat the election theft machine. But, a more popular candidate WOULD make it harder. Where the hell are our hackers?
DA

[haypops]

57. New Hampshire - Yes

Thank you and thanks to General Clark for your efforts in New Hampshire. One Red state went blue and it was the one where Clark spent a month detailing Bush's incompetence and immorality. The results were sweet.

[Marnieworld]

11. No the election would have been stolen from him too

If Jesus ran he'd lose people if he wasn't republican. end of story theft theft theft

[RafterMan]

14. The attacks would have appeared

no matter who ran. We'll never know if Clark would have responed more vigorously than Kerry.

But regarding the NATO period, remember that his CINC (Clinton) had to sit on the sidelines during the primaries to avoid the apperance of favoritism. During the GE he could have told the straight story.

[pacalo]

15. Kerry was the best candidate. Period.

I love Wesley Clark. I supported Wesley Clark from the moment he got into the race. After I learned about John Kerry's background, I was in awe of how much integrity & how principled he was. I feel the same about Wesley Clark -- the only difference is Clark's lack of political experience.

The only downside of having such high standards is that good men aren't as aware as they should be about the evils in others. To run against Republicans these days, it's advantageous to think the worst of the opponent. And they shouldn't give the voters as much credit in thinking that they're not stupid enough to believe the lies: They ARE that stupid. To run against Republicans, you have to stoop down to their level & fight fire with fire if you want to win.

I knew why the Republicans were sending out e-mails to their sheep before the election, encouraging them to vote early. Knowing how they project Bushitler's bad qualities onto the Democratic candidate, I knew they were setting the groundwork to accuse the Democrats of voting fraud so that it would deflect suspicion away from them when the election results were announced.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. Clarkies a bitter bunch...

Being a Clarkie myself (I think he was the only real hope), I had to laugh when a friend recently told me "You Clark supporters are a bitter bunch. Because, you think you had the better candidate." He hit the nail on the head with me. I don't just think, I'm sure!

[faithfulcitizen]

29. I could not agree more ;) nt

[pnorman]

19. I saw elsewhere on DU"

"Unless the margin is greater than 5% or so, it's stealable". With Rove, Cheney and the Neocons, if it's stealable, it WILL be stolen. To them, it's serious business rather than a game.

In HINDSIGHT, I'd like to have seen Kucinich nominated. He's have lost BIG TIME, but we'd have had a much larger and more coherent base to build on. (That's in HINDSIGHT).

Stripped of some of the some of the pretentious poseurs, WE (the democratic left) are the "party of moral values". Ultimately, we'll prevail.

pnorman

[Donna Zen]

21. Well as long as people keep

repeating and believing the lies, I suppose Karl has little to do.

Aside from Shelton, on behalf of Edwards, no one had attacked General Clark. Woodruff tried to get Powell to diss him, and Powell refused.

Elizabeth Drew has confirmed that Rove was very worried about General Clark, but the Democrats made sure that he would be given no respect.

[RafterMan]

40. I wouldn't say "no one" attacked Clark

In addition to Shelton/Edwards' character assasination, Dean kept calling him a Republican, Lieberman called him a flip-flopper and Kerry tagged him as an influence peddling lobbyist.

Aside from that, though...

[zaj]

26. Didn't Wes Clark have a questionable military background as well...

... Wouldn't he have had his own "swift boat vets" type attack ads?

[From the south]

27. Thats what I mean

There was some flap about his conduct while he was NATO commander that never really got much attention....

[ClarkUSA]

60. I hope this helps with understanding what happened...

"Two other retired lieutenant generals who worked with Clark, Dan Christman and Don Kerrick, said friction involving Clark was to be expected as he tried to balance the interests of NATO allies and the United States.

"We knew that he was a man of his word and that he would deliver what we expected," said Kerrick, who was deputy national security adviser to President Clinton when Clark was at NATO."

"Acknowledges Friction During Military Career," AP, October 12, 2003,
Nancy Bezac "

http://www.azstarnet.com/vote/31012nClark-Military.html"


'Wes could not possibly be a better leader. I really respect Wes in a very special way for his brilliance. But he's also a man of real character and high personal values. Any problem Clark had with higher-ups in the Pentagon was due to "professional jealousy" by officials who had trouble with a highly intelligent man who made his case with solid evidence and debated vigorously.'
-- Retired Army Col. Bill Taylor was Clark's debate coach at West Point.

"Clark's Rise in Military Impressed and Rankled Observers," Deidre Shesgreen,
10/12/03, St. Louis Post Dispatch ( http://tinyurl.com/qw6i )


Gerry Smith continues to send occasional emails from the Balkans and recently made some observations that are quite laudatory of Wes Clark. "As I travel around Kosovo and visit business owners and presidents, so many have calendars, posters and photos with Wes Clark's visage in their offices. While they speak with respect of the Clintons, Holbrookes, and Walkers, they speak with awe and reverence for Wes. I am always treated nicely by those I visit. Invariably, in the small talk that follows, Wes Clark comes up and I mention that we were in the same West Point class. From that point on, I am treated
like royalty even though I point out that I knew him very little. You would think I was the hero. I am certain they go home that night to tell the family they met somebody that knew Wesley Clark." Gerry Smith, West Point Classmate

http://www.aogusma.org/class/1966/66notessep01.html
=========

[RafterMan]

30. There were only three people above Clark

in the chain of command: Shelton, Cohen and Clinton.

It would have been more difficult to muddy the waters with only three people in play, especially when one of them was the Commander in Chief. Clinton sat out the primaries for good reasons, but there would have been no constraints on his ability to speak out in the general eleciton.

[robbedvoter]

39. Kerry won. Clark would have won it by a larger margin. We may have

not known it - as Diebold has no limit on what it can steal. Still, I'd like to think he would have fought.

[FrenchieCat]

45. You are right....it would have been more difficult, but

The GOP would still have tried to smear Wes Clark...as they did during the primaries. But the problem for them would have been that the smears that worked against left leaning Democrats with Clark during the primaries would not have been effective during the general election in attempts to sway the general public.
http://aggressive-voice.com/zz585.html
Attacks on Wesley Clark Are Laughable at Best
By Scott Spicciati

I think that the Rethugs would have certainly tried to attack his character by calling him arrogant, an opportunist or crazy. However, Bush is those things and more. The only "integrity" issue ever uttered was by Gen. Shelton, and he had already backtracked in Dec of '03 to say "it was JUST politics" when asked by a Hague prosecutor after Milosovic used Shelton's words for his defense to impeach the credibility of his accused.

The right would have wanted to use the "war criminal" stuff...but Clark was absolved in a lengthly exhaustive investigation and report by a bonafide official International Investigative body (see it here): http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm
I think that the international press would have gotten into the frey...because there was a lot written at the time of this war, and it happened relatively recently. I personally have about 162 articles that criticize the fact that Clark was "unappreciated" by the republicans in their views of this war. Mainstream press would be crazy to reverse words just written a few years ago (98-00).
There are a few listed here...Russian Website, US maintream publications though.... http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

Plus, based on how the US went into the Iraq war....I doubt that calling the only NATO war anything but a success would have helped the Bush Administration. Even the Serbian Americans who hate Clinton and Clark could not have won the day. To side with a murderous dictator instead of the US during a general election would have been too much, even for the lowly (step over the line/break your mother's back) Repugs.

Other smears used might have been the WACO connection (there really was none...unless you want to play 10 degrees of separation). Fortunately, that connection was debunked during the primaries....and too many in the mainstream press, including AP wrote about the fact that the connections amounted to a hill of beans and others noting that implicating Clark was a "conspiracy theory", at best. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0339/mondo1.php
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3225667/
AP Story: Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7369623.htm?1c

The other smear that I can think of is the WWIII comment by Gen. Mike Jackson. Problem with that one is that is disobeying the command given to him by Clark led to Putin going into Cheshnia (Sp?). That is, Jackson showing fear of the Russian when it wasn't warranted, the big "to do about nothing" that resulted only led Putin to understanding the "fear" factor that Britain and the US had against confronting the Russians, even when in a low danger situation ....and when it was warranted.

There is a lot of negative information on Gen. Mike Jackson (aka "Macho Jacko" and "Prince of Darkness")and his implication with "Bloody Sunday). Again, I think that the foreign press would have felt compelled to get into the frey on this one...as it would have involved "one of theirs".
see: Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
and
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm
Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

and there was a lot written,at the time of the relatively recent incident from the U.S. mainstream press that could have been pulled out:
"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

There really was not much else in the GOP's arsenal...most was only effective for a Democratic activist audience (when Clark did not have the support of the entire Democratic party). http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/cat_wesley_clark.html - good stuff from Mark Kleiman on the Clark and the GOP attacks.

The last thing might have been portraying Wes as indicisive based on the "he was for the war then he was against it" smear, which occured at the very beginning of his campaign. But based on his Sept 2002 testimony...which would have ran on C-Span (like Kerry's 1971 testimony) during the general election, and RW critics that actually panned Wes for being AGAINST the war during it's run up to it.....I don't think that would have worked either. That's why this smear died before his campaign was over.

No senatorial votes....no protests in Vietnam.

He would have been more successful than Kerry in beating back the GOP...who would have had less in their fodder to attack him of.

Lack of domestic experience could have been countered with showing exactly what a SACEUR actual does....which is to govern over a large society of troups and their families.

Bottomline is Clark is a boy scout comparitavely speaking...especially if he were judged by moderates voters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. No his back ground was solid

That does not mean that the Republicans would not have tried what they could against Clark. That is simply what they do. But Clark served virtually his entire career in the military, and he kept winning promotions and ended up as a 4 Star General, no easy task. Clark was vetted constantly for each promotion. He led NATO's only war and won it without a single American casualty. Like Kerry, Clark won medals in Viet Nam for his bravery as well , but Clark was seriously wounded so there was no question about his service or bravery that the Repugs could dig at. And Clark did not become an anti Viet Nam protester, which is what the Swift Boaters liked to use against Kerry.

Some far Lefties and/or pacifists sometimes go at Clark over his War Record. That all got aired here during the primaries, but that would not be fertile ground for Republican attacks. Clark had a power struggle with some at the Pentagon during the Bosnia and Kosovo wars, and opponents have tried using that against Clark. There is no scandal there, just conflicting views on how the American military should be used, with the expected resulting bruised egos. Clark became increasingly effective as his campaign evolved at not only rebutting attacks related to those conflicts, but instead using them as the launching point to promote his own record and strategic vision for America.

Clark was and still is always well received by Veteran groups, across the board. Unlike Kerry, who chose to shift attention away from his protest days, Clark is very willing to deal head on with anything the Republicans try to throw at him.

[UpsideDownFlag]

31. that depends on whether you ask the electorate, or Diebold. nt

[Leilani]

37. We'll never know....it's all speculation now.

I only know tthat when Kerry was under attack from the "Swiftboaters"
Wes was called on to defend him.

And he called on him repeatedly.

[dogman]

38. I think Clark/Kerry would have been the best choice.

But that, just like everything else here, is just an opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Great...

No Veterans of "True Pissers of Clark Threads" have appeared yet.

Wonder what they are up to? I'm getting suspicious!

[xultar]

41. Clark would not have conceded! n/t

[xultar]

42. Dupe sorry n/t

[BoristheBewildered]

43. Still chasing the elusive perfect candidate? he'd better have God with his

thunderbolts ready every time a lie is told about him, because those "criticisms" as some still call them have nothing to do with reality (Did Gore invent the internet or was it the "Internets"?) How much perfection does one need to compete with Mr "Hard Work" anyway?
That being said, Clark was the most capable candidate, the one with potentially the widest appeal (a general who calls himself liberal). But, the self-destructive streak of the democrats never fails...And then, there was Diebold.

[newyawker99]

91. Hi BoristheBewildered!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JNelson6563]

46. Regardless of how you feel about Clark

I have to say I agree with Bill Schneider's assessment of his treatment from the party. Rare that I agree with that guy but here it is:

He said Clark is like a spare tire to the Democrats. They bring him out when they need him ~to stop Dean~ and put him in the trunk and forget about him when they don't need him anymore.

Sounds about right. Would explain the utter lack of attention very soon after Clark announced. Like he was a forgotten man or something, by the Dems and the press. I don't think he even had much to do with stopping Dean, that was a Congress-critter-cabal.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. I mostly agree, but...

I don't accept that the Dems "brought Clark out" the first time to become a Presidential candidate. The truth is more complex. I don't doubt that some leading Dems pledged a degree of support to Clark if he would enter the race. I don't doubt that some may have asked him to enter the race. Stopping Dean may have been part or most of their reason in being willing to at first support Clark. Clark may not have agreed to enter without a certain degree of support. He is no fool. It was an uphill battle to begin with, and as an outsider with little time available to mount a campaign, I suspect he would not have run without some minimal backing, and Clinton at least seemed to open a few doors for Clark.

That being said, I also believe Clark would not have run had there not been a genuine upswelling of grass roots people asking him to through the Draft Clark movement. It was a very real force and from that moment on Clark has continued to be responsive to his grass roots support. Further, while the National Dems may have had their own agenda with Clark, Clark had his also. He wanted to see Bush defeated because he felt Bush was weakening the security of our Nation, and Clark honestly believed that doing so would require running a candidate with strong National Security credentials, like his own. He used the connections offered him toward that end.

I am in full agreement that Wesley Clark continues to be thought of as an outsider by the National Democratic Party establishment because, well he is. He wasn't running simply to do the Party a favor, and he never believed that Clinton or the Party wanted to do him one either. The Establishment Democrats I suspect are only slightly less nervous about Wesley Clark than they are about Howard Dean.

[JNelson6563]

68. I don't think they brought Clark out

but I think they backed him and made him promises when they thought he could serve their needs. I think the DNC exploited the Draft Clark movement, pretending to play a part in it. "Yeah, run like they want you to, we're right behind you!" 'Til they didn't need him anymore cause their favorite son had it sewn up. Sad.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Oh, I certainly don't trust the DNC

If we disagree at all it is just over a matter of nuances. There is an irony in how some Clark and Dean supporters have trouble getting past what tends to be our strongest area of disagreement, namely, which man would have been the better candidate for President. There are real disagreements there for sure, but once Kerry had the nomination often it was the Dean and Clark supporters who worked hardest at the grass roots level to get Kerry elected. Clark supporters would easily have done the same for Dean and vice versa. I think we have far greater commonality than our differences.

There is no getting around the fact that Clark did not believe Howard Dean would make the strongest candidate to run against George Bush in 2004, because he saw Dean as lacking sufficient National Security experience. The same for John Edwards. Wesley Clark ran because he thought he would make a better candidate and President than the other Democrats in the race. Basically the same can be said about every Democrat who competed in the Primaries. I believe the Draft Clark movement convinced Clark that there was a natural constituency out there longing for his type of leadership. In other words it gave Clark some basis to believe that he could sufficiently appeal to voters to be elected. Since Clark had never run for elected office, the Draft movement was critical in that regard. But there is a long road between being electable and getting elected and Clark was smart enough to know that. Clark took support where he could find it, pretty much the same as everyone else.

Both Dean and Clark could have won the nomination if enough factors and events had broken their way, but both were swimming upstream against the Party. Dean probably always knew it. Clark probably always suspected it but perhaps not to the degree that it turned out. Once he was in though Clark gave it everything he had. He was no one's puppet. The saddest part is the fact that our Party has been run by people who have continually ended up on the loosing end of the stick in recent years, while fervently swearing allegiance to the status quo that keeps them losing.

[JNelson6563]

87. I said nothing about

who would be best. I think it wise to leave that part out of the discussion when talking to Clark supporters. It's obviously a sticking point and counter-productive to get into a pissing match over that. Especially since it's all speculation at this point.

The fact remains, the DNC folks courted/supported Clark when they thought he would be helpful in stopping Dean. The minute they didn't need him anymore they dropped him. It was cruel to mislead him and his supporters into thinking he's actually have support from the big boys. End of story IMO.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. Many Clark supporters see it the same way

I agree with you. Clark ended up having some loyal support within the Party, but it wasn't from the standard DNC types, it was more from people like Charlie Rangel, bless his heart.

One thing I love about you Julie, you do your damnest to stay above pissing matches, lol. I guess my point is it was never about "stopping Dean" for Clark, it was always about stopping Bush. I won't say the same about some of his initial Party "backers".

[JNelson6563]

93. Amen my friend!

I guess my point is it was never about "stopping Dean" for Clark, it was always about stopping Bush. I won't say the same about some of his initial Party "backers".

I agree 100%. :toast:

Julie

[Texas_Kat]

96. Running WITH a Dem candidate, instead of FROM one in a red state...

That was what differentiated Clark from other primary candidates.

In Texas, there were 4 Democratic Congressional candidates who endorsed Clark in the primaries and several more waiting in the wings before he got out in February.

One told me personally that we 'didn't even have to ask.... he was on board'.

There were 21 Democratic state reps who did the same thing.

NOT a single one 'endorsed' Kerry' and with Kerry at the top of the ticket, most preferred the Presidential race to stay far away from their district races.

(No, Edwards did absolutely NOTHING to help Kerry in Texas--sorta blows that theory--since Edwards never did have much support here other than trial lawyers' cash.)

It would be nice to have a Presidential candidate that can help downballot races. In a General election (heh), the best judge of whether a Presidential candidate has any strength in a district is to watch the reaction of the more 'local' office holders who are running at the same time. After all, their futures are at stake too.

[Leilani]

53. Looking back, I think it was preordained by the "party"

that Kerry would be the nominee, & Edwards his Veep.

Dean & Clark were the 2 with the most grass roots support, & I thought it would matter, but in the end, it didn't.

Dean & Clark both asked their supporters to back Kerry; that's when the money started rolling in, & momentum started building for him.

[JNelson6563]

67. I agree

There was no enthusiasm for Kerry but Clark and Dean supporters were very passionate. Still are actually.

:toast:

Julie

[robbedvoter]

61. there was a little thing called draft movement that neither Schneider

nor you want to acknowledge. We brought Clark out - and had nothing to do with Howard dean. As to what the party did to him, I agree. Which is why I left the sorry bunch of losers.

[JNelson6563]

66. I was merely commenting on

the party's treatment of Clark. Do not assume to know my mind as to what I am or am not willing to acknowledge. Thanks.

Julie

[davidinalameda]

48. Clark would have done better than Kerry

the whole Swift boat thing would have never happened--that definitely cost Kerry votes

take this as you will as well, Teresa Heinz Kerry wasn't all that popular with some--I liked her but others didn't and I know that talking to some people, it cost Kerry

It would have been harder for the Bushies to paint Clark as weak on national security like they did Kerry

and the whole flip-flop thing would never have happened

Clark is a southern and he would have run better in some of the more conservative states

[Bread and Circus]

50. Clark would have been a much better choice than Kerry.

And if people really paid attention, the RNC had it in
for Clark during the primaries. They didn't want to face
him in the GE. You can take that to the bank. It's nearly
assenine to argue otherwise.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I agree....Clark's middle name

could practically have been.....

Wesley Clark is
Karl Rove's
worst nightmare
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html


Bush's Worst Nightmare
Stephen K. Medvic, assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, is the co-editor of Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8904

THE WEEKLY TIRADE
By Scotty Kowall
http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade341.html

Why Wesley Clark?
December 10, 2003
By Mickey Isikoff
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/10_clark.html

and worse VP nightmare as well:
http://www.hpleft.com/082403.html

Rove's Nightmare was Clark's middle name....
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/003782.html

[PROGRESSIVE1]

59. Wes Clark 08'

He's more articulate than Clinton and was unafraid to fight hard!

[JNelson6563]

69. Let's see what he does

between now and then. I will back he/she who does great things for the cause between now and then. Those who spend the time either capitulating to the Rethugs or just feathering their own nests don't deserve the nomination. I should hope that is a point we can all agree on.

Julie

[Leilani]

80. Good Point, Julie,

& agreed!

Clark's candidate won in Louisiana, beating Tauzin.

Some people are still working.

[quaker bill]

52. Clark did not have the 60's vintage anti war record

This might have helped him in some places. Remember Nixon made the swifties to attack Kerry, so their offense came ready made. With Clark there would have been a bit more scrambling to create something new.

Clark's disadvantage was having no experience at elected office. This would have been played up.

It is hard to say. If the basis we are judge on is the ability to lose the election by a few million votes, I expect Clark might have been able to pull that off as well.

I am pretty sure that everyone politically between Kucinich and Lieberman could have managed to lose by a few million votes as well.

This is a really poorly phrased question.

[chaska]

54. I'm a Clarkie, supported him with all my might in the primaries, but...

I had some small doubts at the time. And now, I think he wasn't really ready. Would he have done as well or better? Who knows? But I think '08 may be his year.

We gotta work on him about his stance on "free trade", but apart from that I feel pretty comfortable giving him my (liberal) support. He's much mor liberal than Dean ... not to start that war again. I could suppport Dean if he got the nod.

[Tacos al Carbon]

55. Clark looked really good on paper

But in the primaries he wasn't a very good campaigner or debater. He just didn't do that well against seasoned politicians. Also, had he been nominated, how he left the service would have been a major issue. His own swiftboat issue. Anyway, he may do better in 4 years after he has time to hone his speech-making and debating skills and gets his policy positions (foreign AND domestic) down pat. He just didn't seem ready iin 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Actually,

Although Clark was not near "perfect" while all cameras were on him at the starting gate...I wouldn't buy into the "Meme" that Clark was not a good campaigner. You see that was the MSM Presstitutes' declaration...just like the "meme" that Bush is a Resolute leader.

I think that the little people did see of Clark, they liked. Even those awful 9 candidates debates in where Clark was asked the same question over and over again ..."are you a Democrat" and assailed for not murdering MM with his bare hands for daring to call Bush a deserter (the one issue that seem to help Kerry soon after he got the nomination)....

Clark actually won the Iowa Debate according to the Worst of Pundits...although some were forced to swallow their words later...cause it wasn't part of the agenda.

...you must also believe the "meme" that Bush got the most votes too, I presume?

[InvisibleBallots]

74. Clark didn't take any crap from the Corporate Media Whores

I remember they interviewed him in a parking garage - yes, a parking garage - and this smarmy little hairdo on FOX questioned Clark's patriotism. It's was funny, Clark got really pissed and all of a sudden I realized why they did have their interviewer in the same room - Clark would have punched his lights out. Damn that would have been great.

Erg, why the "MSM" thing? Don't you think Corporate Media is more specific? The Freepers use MSM, and the Corporate Media isn't mainstream.

[robbedvoter]

64. Tell it to the millions that campaigned for him after hearing him speak

of to the Boston convention audiance that gave him stirring ovations more than any other speaker. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears - you buy the propaganda that it didn't exist at all. I was "in the woods", so, spare me the propaganda, I ain't buyin' whatcha selling.

[newyawker99]

92. Hi Tacos al Carbon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JPJones]

62. Rove would have labeled Clark a flip-flopper too.

Would Clark have fought back? Kerry didn't. I think Kerry could have won if he actually fought back like he promissed he would.

Clark would have gotten a lot of shit from every Republican puke that served under him for the last 30 years. They would have found some sons of bitches to say all sorts of slanderous things about him. They would have thrown the same shit at him that the idiots on DU threw at him. If Clark didn't fight back, he would have lost. If he fought back, he stood a chance. If Kerry fought back, he stood a chance. We'll never know.

[InvisibleBallots]

63. Clark would have done much better than Kerry

There is no doubt about that.

[mtnsnake]

65. I thought Clark's message was always more clear than Kerry's

message was, and Clark had way more personality.

Also, Clark seemed to really hammer the chimp better than anyone else did when he talked.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Even the sports that he engages in....

Swimming, Fishing, Hunting and riding horses are mano-mano sports that don't require a change of outfit for each...with the exception of swimming, which means taking the clothes off, which couldn't have hurt too much....with de ladies!

After all, who doesn't like a good looking man taking off his clothes for a little "sportin'", heh? :thumbsup:

[Leilani]

79. LOL, Frenchie!

That's a good one.

[Leilani]

81. Chris Matthews finally admitted that on the Hardball College Tour

Wes Clark was the best, & had turned in the most impressive performance at Harvard.

[theangrydem]

71. Easy Clark Victory

This irrelevant, but Clark would have won easily against Bush. Clark would have picked up in all of the demographic areas that Kerry lost to bush - Independents,Woman, men, & even minorities (Bush picked up a few points more than last time). Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents to win re-election. Kerry lost it.

[Stinky The Clown]

73. Grass Roots ... and therein lies the problem

Dean and Clark were the two with the biggest grass roots support and the strongest grass roots organizations.

Dean built his into a formidable organization and a virtual money machine the likes of which have never been seen - and it continues to this day.

Clark was drafted by a grass roots organization that spread across political boundaries and continues to this day. Upon entering the primaries, Clark raised more money faster than anyone, Dean included, for that initial duration.

Both men ran for the right reasons. Both men may again run, and I, for one, hope they do. While I am a Clark supporter and was from the start, I need a candidate that speaks truth to power. On that score, the both meet my test.

But .....

The operative word is .... grass roots.

Without party (DLC?) endorsement or at least minimal acceptance, "we, the people" were ignored in favor of the party's same-old same-old.

And we got exactly that ... the same old losing election results.

There is a real affinity between the Dean and Clark supporters. We differ on issue details but not on the overall vision. We want our party back and we want our country back.

And we want it now!

[chaska]

75. Ah, I see from your post count that u weren't here for the Dean/Clark war.

That was really, I mean really, rough. If we have to go thgough that again we will, but I hope we can find some way to avoid it. It was brutal, I tell ya.

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Actually I was

I was a lurker then. My wife, however, was spending night after night on here and I recall being more than a little upset at some of the posts.

But I sincerely hope that is behind us all and we can move forward with reason, cooperation, understanding and tolerance.

[mattclearing]

76. Didn't Clark vote for Reagan?

eom

[FrenchieCat]

83. Didn't most people?

I think they called them Reagan Democrats....the ones we could have lured back to the party with Wes on the ticket. Looks like they stayed where they were....unfortunately.

[mattclearing]

95. Those people are best abandoned.

Anyone who voted for Reagan over Carter or Mondale is surely a fine upstanding citizen, but has no business being the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.

Wesley Clark will make a fine Vice Presidential candidate should I fail in my mission to prevent Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination should there be an election in 2008.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. We disagree but I can accept your position

The people I have trouble with are those who will not accept that Wesley Clark is a good man currently advancing the Democratic Party agenda. I don't ask for more than that, though I believe Clark would make an excellent President, and that he would be our strongest possible candidate running against the Republicans.

[mattclearing]

98. Fair enough.

:)

[IndianaGreen]

77. Clark was a war hero without baggage

and he would have never conceded the election before all the votes were counted.

[cdp]

78. I think Clark would have done better than Kerry

But who knows? My was the only person in my family who voted for Kerry in the primaries, everyone else was for Clark. Her reasoning was that Clark seemed inexperienced. She felt he didn't shine in the debates either.

It was so disappointing to watch so many people play "lets vote for the winner" after Iowa. I think Democrats were so blinded by ABB, once Kerry stepped out in front of the pack, no one questioned whether or not he was the best man for the job. I don't think he was.

[LimpingLib]

84. NO WAY...you are so wrong when you say....

......"I think they had a strategy to deal with him: mostly regarding things he did while he was a NATO commander."

Your ignorance is showing already BIG TIME.

There is no such thing as a war criminal to ur elite media and all elite Democrat and especially GOP party members.


I dont care if its a political season or not. Wars and inhumane bombings are a sacred cow. Clark wouldnt get 1 wisper of criticism from ANYBODY in an elite position in either party. And whomever would be stupid enough to suggest such criticism would quickly be religated to the ash bin of footage reels , meaning all positions of influence would be a thing of the past for this individual.

Wes Clark is a real American hero and thats that.Our foreign policy is noble and thats that.If the hundereds of millions or ruined lives around the world (this past century and early 2000s) and even larger number of dead bodys object then let them get up and say so.Let them then try to get air time.

Red white blue ALL THE WAY baby!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

94. Pluuuueeeeaaaaaase.....

and that's that.

[sleipnir]

85. We'd be talking about President Clark now...

not Kerry's concession speech.

[Forkboy]

86. Doesn't matter now

[Cuban_Liberal]

88. No way to know.

:shrug:

[Jack_Dawson]

89. YES, he would have won a SINGLE SOUTHERN STATE

:eyes:

"But we'll never know"

[PATRICK]

99. I think Clark had trouble

wrapping around the political system, especially the horribly structured Democratic Party, much less the fraud of Bushco AND the media. If he could have stepped outside and thought tactically instead of the worn wagon ruts of the losing Dems AND gotten the nomination anyway, yes he could have been a real wild card. Or an outcaste and a bust. Trying to enlist the party leadership behind you is another frustrating fly in the ointment that would have been very difficult for the military mind to wrap around.

I think Clark needed to do a lot of independent rethinking of all the traps laid by both parties AND the media. I think he is and was very much alone in bringing something new to the mix. In the end they(both parties) make everything hurt you.

Still, I would LOVE to see some genius strategizing outside the numbskull political box we currently have.

The stakes are kind of high. Hello?