Will Clark run if Hillary does?

[jcrew2001]

It seems there are a lot of Clark supporters here. I've heard he has close ties to the Clintons, so I highly doubt he would run if Hillary does.

I think if he does, he needs to announce sooner rather than later.

Its very surprising to me how many people have dropped out, it was so interesting last time with the 7 candidates. But now I think it will be Edwards, Clinton, Vilsak, Obama.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I heard today that he was looking at it.

I cannot remember where but, someone who knew Clark said he was weighing on entering. hm

[NCarolinawoman]

3. Charlie Rangel on MSNBC. n/t

[jcrew2001]

6. clark

I like clark and I think he'd be a great president, but I don't think he can beat Hillary in the primary. Hillary can win on her name and experience. Edwards can win because he's a good speaker, and I just don't think Clark is as good as Edwards in that area. I don't think being a General can put him past those two in the primary.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. I think you ought to listen to Clark a little more closely

He has become quite the dynamic speaker, and seems to improve every time out.
I thought he had it all over Edwards at the convention in 04.

As for the question in your OP, Clark's relationship with the Clintons will have ZERO bearing on whether he runs or not. They are close, and I believe it goes both ways, but if there's one thing you learn in the military, you can NEVER let friendship get in the way of getting the mission accomplished.

[jcrew2001]

23. why wait

The other guys have already set up exploratory committees, even Bayh set up one, and then dropped out.

So I doubt Wes has the structure in place to even compete against the big guns. I haven't heard him speak much, but he seems kinda dry and I think Edwards and Obama has him beat, personality wise.

[Clark2008]

128. Edwards is a snakeoil salesman.

I don't think he's got shit over Clark's speaking ability. Clark speaks from the heart. Edwards says what he thinks Dems want to hear. Big difference.

[jcrew2001]

153. Clark

Yeah, but Edwards has committed to running. Clark's all wishy-washy on running, I commend your enthusiasm, but I'm not getting my hopes up for a Clark candidacy, I'll believe it when I see it.

[NV1962]

2. Dunno - but I'll bust my chops for his campaign nonetheless. :-) (n/t)

[Schema Thing]

4. I don't think he'll base his decision on Hillary.

I think Bill and Wes have a mutual admiration society going, but still.... they're close, but not that close. If Wes decides to run, and thinks he can win, Hillary being in the ring won't stop him, imo.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. hey, alls fair in politics.

and you are right. rangle. yep.
Clark may have a friendship with BC but, if he wants to run it is all fair in love and war.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Yes. Why the link? Do you buy RNC conspiracy theories? nt

[jcrew2001]

10. huh

I also think that Clark's campaign staff was mostly composed of Clintonites, so he won't have many or at least the best people on his team, per say.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

Actually, it wasn't.

He did wind up with some less-than-stellar campaign managers (probably because he got a late start), but they weren't Clintonites. And the Clintons did not endorse him or support him in any way that I'd ever heard of.

[jcrew2001]

12. bill

I thought that it was Bill who helped encourage Wes to run in 2004.

Isn't clark from Arkansas also?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Clark was "drafted" by a whole lot of citizen volunteers.

The Clintons had very little, if anything at all, to do with his running for president. Clark lived in Arkansas as a child, but did not actually reside there from when he went to West Point in the '60s until he retired from the army in 2000. He did not know the Clintons when Bill was the governor of Arkansas. To assume he is just part of the Clinton entourage is entirely inaccurate.

[jcrew2001]

21. balkans

I thought he served during the Clinton Administration?

Where does he live now, does he still live in Arkansas? or did he also move to Westchester, haha.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Yes, he was commander of NATO during the Clinton administration.

And Bill awarded him the Medal of Freedom. He now lives in Arkansas, for the first time since about 1962 (and the Clintons became residents of New York at the same time Clark moved to Arkansas). But the fact that he served during the Clinton administration does not mean he is part of the Clinton clique. He never was and isn't now.

[Clark2008]

129. Actually, he did know Bill from college

They were both Rhodes Scholars, but they weren't exceedingly close or anything when they were studying abroad.

[CarolNYC]

27. I don't know about Bill...

But Jimmy Carter asked him to run...as did I and a bunch of other nobodies....

And then there was the famous "Where's my General?" call from Charlie Rangel exhorting him to run.

[madfloridian]

20. Oh, yes, Bill Clinton backed Clark.

.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Clinton did not endorse Clark during the primaries or otherwise

promote his candidacy. (He was, however, endorsed by Michael Moore, who I should think would be anathema to a DLCer like Hillary).

[madfloridian]

30. Bill C. made calls behind the scenes

for Clark. I know he made them to Dean backers, but I don't know who else he called. Yes, he did push for Clark and getting support during the primary.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. See, this totally cracks me up.

I was active in the Clark campaign almost from the beginning, and we never, ever heard *anything* from the Clintons, even though at the time we were hoping they'd come through with an endorsement or at least some indication of support. A lot of Clark supporters were disappointed that Bill and Hill never did anything. If phone calls were made, they weren't good for much. And even if they had helped at the time, Clark is not part of the present Clinton clique and differs very significantly from Hillary on many issues, especially Iraq.

[jcrew2001]

114. not helping

Clinton didn't make public statments or help because as the elder statesman, he needed to wait until the Convention. Gore supported Dean, and Dean lost. Clinton wasn't going to be embarrassed like that.

Kerry won the primaries because he was better than Clark at the time, Clinton wouldn't have made a difference. Kerry was more experienced and presented himself better than Clark.

[Jai4WKC08]

29. No, not really

I know you buy into the myth that Bill sent Wes to take down Howard.

But with what evidence? Bill Clinton was one of dozens of politicians (and tens of thousands of citizens) who told Clark he should run. Other than that, what did he ever do for Clark's campaign? Sure didn't endorse him. Never campaigned for him either. Introduced him to some wealthy donors, but that's about it.

[madfloridian]

32. This.

"It remains to be seen, too, just how much my support for the civil unions bill will hurt my chances to reshape Democratic politics. Some pretty important Democrats have shown they think it might. When former president Clinton was trying to drum up support for Wes Clark, just prior to Clark's entry into the presidential race a year ago, he called a friend in a large city and said "I need you to be for Wes Clark." The friend demurred. Clinton said, "Look, I'm from Arkansas, and Wes is from Arkansas, we need to be for Wes. "

The friend told Clinton he was Dean supporter. "Howard Dean", Clinton said "forfeited his right to run for president when he signed the civil unions bill. He can't win."

It was a rare mistake for the president. The supporter was gay and called us to tip us off."

Page 113 You Have the Power by Howard Dean Fall of 2004

[Texas_Kat]

37. That's it? That's all?

If so, then I would define Clinton's 'support' as pretty ineffective wouldn't you?

Also sounds pretty stupid for Clinton to call a gay person then bash Dean because of hs signing the civil unions bill. Clinton was always a better politician than that...

Are you sure it wasn't a prank call? Kinda sounds like it.

[Sparkly]

41. Wait...

So this is all based on an anonymous friend? Dean tells us that a friend told him that Clinton told the friend that he should support Clark -- all because he's from Arkansas? Why would Clinton care so much about having a president from Arkansas?!? And if he did, why wouldn't he have endorsed him publicly?

[madfloridian]

42. Whatever you wish to think.

If you want to say he published a book with a lie...or that there is nothing to this, then that is your perfect right.

I could say the sky is blue, and even if it were I would be wrong because I don't want to vote for Clark. Many at DU measure people that way, and that is a shame. It kind of makes me sad, but it does not change my point of view.

[FrenchieCat]

82. New Rule!

If its "published" then it must be the truth! Oh brother! :eyes:

[tishaLA]

70. Yes, anonymous friends and third hand reportage

why, it MUST be gospel!

[Clark2008]

130. Well, my step-neighbor in-law told my cousin's sister's uncle's

cat that you should look at sources before buying into them wholeheartedly.

[jcrew2001]

44. bill

I don't think Bill endorsed anyone publicly during the primary. He was going to wait until the convention.

But Clark did announce from Little Rock, so why did he do that if not to get some of that Clinton aura.

[CarolNYC]

45. ummmm....

Maybe because he lives there.

[jcrew2001]

50. yeah

That would make sense, but other candidates didn't always announce in their hometowns.

So, BC doesn't have any more connection to Ark donors, etc? Its a small state.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Are you seriously suggesting that Clark shouldn't have announced

from where he lives because others didn't?

I mean, are we really that Stoopid around here, cause that's what it is starting to sound like. :crazy:

Put it this way, maybe Clark didn't give a fuck what everyone else was "doing". Leaders don't normally check to see how the wind is blowing on such matters....not even these little details.

This thread is becoming rather sad......
Enuendoville for desparados...it seems.

[jcrew2001]

86. ark

I'm saying that since he's from arkansas, he IS connected to the Clinton machine whether he wants to or not. Just like John kerry is connected to Ted Kennedy's team.

You're saying that Clark has no or little affiliation with BC, and i'm saying that he has more , a lot more.

[FrenchieCat]

96. I am suggesting that calling Wes Clark a "tool" is out of line.....

and that is essentially what you did.

Is John Kerry a "tool" of Ted Kennedy?

Plus your disabled profile makes it hard for me to understand where the sincerity ends and the agenda begins.

[jcrew2001]

103. tool

I think tool is a harsh word. I'm just saying that most people don't piss off their friends, and use their friends influence.

Kerry won Iowa and owes much of his career to Ted Kennedy, there are numerous instances.

I'm just saying that Clark is closer to Clinton than any of the 2004 candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

106. Actually that wasn't your word, but known one line poster

that I confused you with.

So I take that back in reference to the word tool as you did not use it...it appears.

My apologies on that one.

[karynnj]

36. I think the "support" if you can dignify it with that word

was that Bill Clinton was quoted in New York magazine as saying that Clark and Hillary were the only stars the Democratic party has. (New York is a kind of gossipy, ny centric magazine - not to be confused with the New Yorker.)

[capi888]

8. Read the article on the Thread "Wes is Steaming" you will get your answer

Wes will decide to run, if he feels the USA is going in the wrong direction. I think you should read the other thread on Wes Clark posted with tons of hits. This will give you a better idea on WHO Wes Clark is. Has nothing to do with being friends, has to do with the Leadership of this country, during this crises that we are Facing.
Also, read the URL's posted by KAT and others... Your Eyes will open wide! We are in trouble!! And Wes Clark knows it!!

[jcrew2001]

11. trouble

I was under the impression that WE ARE in trouble now, that's why a Democrat should and will win the WH in 08

I mean if a republican is elected in 08, this country will suck beyond sucking. It would take a miracle for a repub to win in 2008.

[NCarolinawoman]

14. I thought the same thing.

He always said he would base his decision on what is going on in the world. The Iran thing may decide it.

Even if he doesn't have a lot of money, by running he would be able to speak out on this subject to a wider audience.

[jcrew2001]

17. iran

I've ignored most of the Iran news. Its no use for me to get worked up over something that will either be inevitable or nothing at all.

I think that Iraq will be carved up by Iran and the other countries. It won't be good for us, but thats just what will happen.

I highly doubt we'll engage Iran because they have nukes. Bush would have balls of steel to attack Iran now, especially since the entire world will hate him more. Plus, our military will probably be backrupted.

[Clark2008]

131. Then why are you speaking about Clark's run at all?

No sense in your getting worked up over something that will either be inevitable or nothing at all.

Next.

[jcrew2001]

142. clark's run

Exactly, I don't really think Clark will run if Hillary runs, and he won't get the Nomination if Hillary runs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I doubt very much that Hillary's decision will bear on Clark's at all.

He will run if he thinks he can get enough financial and political support to make a campaign viable. He is on friendly terms with the Clintons -- but politically he's not on the same page with Hillary with respect to many issues, especially Iraq. His campaign, if there is one, will show that very clearly.

[jcrew2001]

165. staff

What kind of people will Clark have on his campaign?

Haven't all of them signed up with other candidates.

[Zensea]

13. I think

:popcorn:

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. Note to Hillary: If Clark or Edwards is our Nominee, America Wins. If Hillary is nominee.......

.......Our party loses, and America has at least 4 years of imperial wars under McCain, perhaps with Republican control of 1 or 2 houses of Congress.

Can America survive such a catastrophy?

And just why is Faux News lusting for a McCain/Clinton race?

Do your civic duty, Hillary. Stay in the Senate.




(I'll vote for you if you are our nominee, but our votes won't be enough.

Think about it, Hillary, and do the right thing. Tell Wes Clark to run instead of you.)

[Captain Hilts]

16. How do you know this? Do you know who the RNC nom will be? Please share! nt

[jcrew2001]

22. strongest

The strongest RNC in polling would be McCain right now.

I think any Dem can beat Romney, Rudy, etc. by a wide margin. It will be closer with McCain.

[Faryn Balyncd]

33. Obviously, MookieWilson(#16), you are right.... I DON'T know this to be true......

.....It is simply my opinion.



But tell me, why does Rupert Murdock want a Clinton/McCain race?

Yes, some recent polls have shown such a race to be tighter, and better (than earlier polls.)

But interpreting polls at this stage is perhaps an occult art. And these polls are BEFORE McCain has been embraced by the Religious Right.

The Republican establishment, and the neocon war-mongers, are coalescing around McCain because he is their one great hope -- a committed war-monger who has the political advantages of being falsely perceived as a moderate "maverick". And he has the additional political advantage that, unlike the current leadership, he is personally an honorable and decent man.... (Wrong on the issues, but a decent, even admirable man....and, unlike Bush, not a dunce. All in all.....their perfect candidate.)

But, at this stage, McCain is still hated by many in what could be called the "Limbaugh/Religious Right" coalition. And he STILL runs strong despite this fact.

And the Limbaugh-ite and the Religious Right ALWAYS swing into line around the GOP nominee before the polls open.

Moreover, the GOP propaganda machine, which would make Stalin green with envy, is NOT going out of business. These rats have their Hillary-baiting routine down to a science.

GOP propagandists won't even recognize Wes Clark as a candidate because they are scared to death of him (They cannot smear him without taking on more risk than any smear campaign they have ever done).

And they are beginning to fear Edwards.

Murdock, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly & company may be buffoons, but they are not stupid.

I share their view that Clinton/McCain is the GOP's wet dream.



But that's just my opinion.

[Captain Hilts]

40. A Hillary vs. Anybody race writes its own stories. But don't discount her.

My firm was polling in NYS during 2000. She gets more votes than poll numbers and was ahead of RudyG when he bailed on the race.

People also overestimate the appeal of McCain and RudyG. The more you see them, the less you like them. McCain, now, seems even more like an old creep.

[jcrew2001]

154. Hillary

I agree that Hillary has a very good chance at beating McCain and winning the election. I'm surprised at all the haters here.

I don't think Edwards can beat McCain, or it will be close. It depends on how bad things get next year. Clinton can win Arkansas, Edwards can win NC maybe.

[jcrew2001]

19. hillary

Do you think Hillary will lose to McCain?

although the polls may now show she loses - I think BC will help put her over the edge.

[ElizabethDC]

28. A couple of polls recently have shown her winning against McCain

I believe that 2 or 3 weeks ago there was both a Newsweek poll and a CNN poll that had her winning in a matchup with McCain. Of course, it's really way too soon to tell, but interesting nonetheless.

[Faryn Balyncd]

35. Those polls are encoraging, ElizabethDC(#28)....

I hope such a trend continues.

But you are right that they are of limited meaning at this stage.

And the GOP smear machine works its magic in the last 2 months before an election. Hillary Clinton has political vulnerabilities they have learned, and yearn, to exploit.

[Faryn Balyncd]

34. Maybe BC would....

I would hope so.

[Dr Fate]

38. I hope Clark runs- and I hope Hillary remains a NY Senator for a loooong time. n/t

n/t

[Leilani]

39. Sounds like a Great plan to me!

[jcrew2001]

43. hillary

Seems like there are a lot of hillary-haters here, so maybe she won't win the general. However, she can beat McCain because 1) he's very very old, and 2) he's too close to the bush regime, and i think swing voters want someone new and are sick of bush and the establishment.

Hillary may also be seen as part of the establishment, but she's more of a fresh voice than McCant.

I'm also not sure that Richardson will run if Hillary runs, he's also close to the Clintons.

[Adelante]

46. I don't hate Hillary and never have

Clark has said himself that her decision to run or not run will have zero impact on his own decision. One thing I know is he is not a bullshitter. He's deciding and we will all know soon enough what that decision will be. I noticed another poster recently tying Clark into knots with the Clintons. I guess it's a strategy, but not one that gets anybody anywhere.

[FrenchieCat]

47. So anyone who served in the Clinton administration including all

in the army are "close" to the Clintons.

Knowing folks and even even knowing them well doesn't preclude that one won't run to save the country just cause they may have competition they know on the first name basis. Just ask Al Gore, and John Edwards. :eyes:

[jcrew2001]

49. al

Well Al gore ran only against the basketball guy.

Edwards didn't have any connection to Dean/Kerry, etc. in 2004.

I'm just saying that if you run in the same political circles, it may be difficult to find staff and big-time donors.

We've already seen a bunch of guys scared off by Hillary.

I'm not saying Clark is scared, but its something to think of before deciding. Its going to be an uphill battle for him anyways.

I don't think he'll get the nomination and will be better as a VP candidate in 2008.

Clark def has a voice as an outsider/military voice.

[jcrew2001]

52. richardson

There doesn't seem to be much support here for Richardson. He might want to run to gain hispanic support, and as a washington outsider, but Edwards and Clark are now seen as the outsiders.

But BR, would be more likely a VP candidate than a serious presidential candidate.

[CJCRANE]

48. Of course he will.

In fact it's better for him to throw his hat in the ring so as he could pick up a VP nod or cabinet position later on.

[jcrew2001]

51. kerry

Does anyone know why Kerry didn't pick Clark as the VP in 2004?

did edwards charm get him in, cuz he wasn't very effective in the election.

I know that some kerry people, etc. didn't like Clark cuz he was a former republican and only recently filed as a democrat.

Judging from the people here, Clark seems like a left-wing democrat and hillary is the right-wing democrat.

Or is Clark got your vote cuz he's a military guy? I'm open to him, but i'm just surprised why everyone here is so gung-ho for him instead of the traditional candidates.

[Adelante]

53. Clark was never a Republican

Not in his life.

[jcrew2001]

55. not dem

He wasn't a democrat until recently either. I think that's why he didn't get more consideration from kerry.

[Adelante]

58. He became a Democrat 3.5 years ago, true

And had been voting Democratic for over a decade by then. I don't think that's why Kerry made the choice he did, however. I think Kerry thought Edwards would bring more to bear in the South, which didn't especially work out. I do think had Kerry won, he would have given Clark an administration post that would have reflected his experience and abilities, where Clark would have been more valuable to a Kerry presidency than as VP.

[jcrew2001]

60. South

You know, its difficult to imagine how Edwards could have gotten any southern states for kerry; and its a stretch that Edwards can win any Southern states in 2008 besides arkansas.

I think the media and dems like Edwards. But to win in the south, and as a dem, you need to have some sort of base; Clinton had his base as Governor.

Edwards might win NC or SC, but he isn't a known quantity in the South and I doubt their would be enough voters for him there. Of course it would also depend on who the repub nominee is.

Clark would have at least been able to swing the military vote and the soccer moms to kerry.

[FrenchieCat]

59. He was in the army for 37 years......which "used" to stay unaffiliated

to any party as they serve whatever party is in office.

In addition, Arkansas does not allow for party identification until fairly recently.

In other words, it was not required that he proclaim party affiliation for various rational reasons.

But let's just say that he started voting Democratic long enough ago, and has done more than many life long Democrats for the party since he retired and announced party affiliation.

In a general election, the fact that Wes Clark is not a life long rabid partisan for any given side would be a plus in attracting the independent and disallussioned Republican voters to vote Democratic.

In the 2004 primary, Clark's self admitted votes for a couple of Republican Presidents certainly did affect his potential for support.......although those Democrats who are pragmatically inclined to think "who can win a general election?" as part of determining who they might support were not fazed, including Michael Moore.

[jcrew2001]

62. ark

I would say that Arkansas is a largely democratic state, so its likely that Clark was "born" a democrat.

But he's not part of the Democratic establishment and since he's only been active for 5 years, is that really enough time to get the support to win the primary?

I'm only 25, so how do "old time dems" feel about him. There's a lot of dem donors, staff, elected officials that might not be very high on Clark, instead of the other established candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Clark's father was a well known Democratic organizer in Chicago

politics at the time that Clark was born...so yeah, Clark was essentially born a Democrat.

In reference to what he's done for Democrats in his short time since retiring in 2000......I believe that it's quite amazing!

I believe that Old Time Dems such as George McGovern endorsed General Clark in 2004....and Jimmy Carter has never had nothing but wonderful things to day about him.

Wes Clark may or may not have the support of Washington Dems to some degree.....but I think that many will actually prefer that. You can also say that he doesn't have the support of the Media, but I'm not sure how bad a thing that is. Charlie Rangel also supported Wes Clark last time around....and there were others as well.

But that is something that Wes Clark will assess prior to throwing his hat into the ring....and that might be more of a factor than whether Hillary runs which was the original question of this op.

[jcrew2001]

75. endorsed

He may have been endorsed, but what has Clark really accomplished as a Democrat?

I just think he needs to lower his goals, he can easily be a senator or run for governor.

[IA_Seth]

89. What has he accomplished?

What the hell, do you even attempt research, or do you just make things up and assume they are true?

Clark did more during the 06 cycle than many 'proven' Dems did, and continues to speak out on OUR issues.

Have you even TRIED to look any of this up?

[jcrew2001]

91. my question

That's my question, what has Clark done in his political life?

He's given speeches and raised money for candidates. But he's never been elected to any office. I'm just saying there are a lot of elected officials who have the experience and have paid their dues.

He's never won a campaign, so it'd be great to see him as an actual winner in an election.

[IA_Seth]

93. My answer

Is that what you really think the voters want, a career politician?

I don't think so. I think American voters are tired of the tried and untrue politicians that can make a good speech, pander with the best of them, and then fold and buckle like a well worn map at the first sign of conflict...or at the first vote of war...IWR.

I don't think that having held another elective office makes you any more qualified for the Presidency than someone who has not. I take special exception to those that tout legislative experience as a qualifier. Why does that make someone qualified for the Executive Branch?

Tell me this, what exactly happened during the 2006 cycle that makes you think that voters want the same old politicians to lead them?

[jcrew2001]

99. change

I have no problem with outsiders in Congress, but I want a known quanitity as President. He's a proven military commander, but can he be an effective lawmaker?

Cromwell was a brilliant military leader and look how well that turned out. Its an extreme case though.

[IA_Seth]

100. LAWMAKER?

Since when do Presidents pass laws?

[Adelante]

101. Can you believe it?

:crazy:

[Texas_Kat]

108. Bush has been president WAAAAAY too long

nt

[Texas_Kat]

107. Presidents aren't legislators

they are executives. In the proper scheme of the Constitution, (not this upside down imperial presidency) it is CONGRESS, who write legislation.

Presidents don't personally sit down and write legislation, that's a staff job. Hell, even legislators don't personally write legislation, that's a staff job too.

[jcrew2001]

113. huh?

Wait, so the president doesn't have an agenda? You're saying the Dem Pres won't be able to control the Dem Congress?

So now that we have a Dem Congress, then we're going to have all our objectives passed, and then Bush will veto everything.

Clark might be a good president, but he might also be terrible at governing, which I doubt. But aside from being a General, I want him to have held another elected office prior to the Presidency.

[Sparkly]

133. You raise a good point.

The skewed, warped, upside-down government of the past six years may have confused people about how things are SUPPOSED to be by design.

We've seen a president who's ruled Congress by coercion, and issues "signing statements" to further overrule them.

We've seen a vice-president acting less as prez of the Senate and more as director of foreign policy.

We've seen a whole lot of snake oil sold to the American people by a group of, essentially, slimy used car salesman.

We've seen campaigns based on who has the "charisma" of a game show host and who'd be fun to have a beer with.

That may be part of why people assume we need a president who makes laws, a vice-president expert in foreign policy, candidates who can persuade people they know what they're talking about regardless of experience, and candidates with game-show host "charisma."

:banghead:

[Adelante]

137. You da best!

:hug:

[jcrew2001]

143. VP for foreign policy

Exactly why Clark should consider being the VP - his foreign policy.

[Sparkly]

155. **sigh** .... nt

[Jai4WKC08]

157. They just don't teach 'em civics anymore. n/t

[jcrew2001]

159. VP

Oh, yeah not as foreign policy - I mean VP's really don't do anything, Gore/Quayle/Bush Sr they were just props to help get their president elected.

Now why would Clark have such a problem helping to get a Dem elected? Is he that selfish and high-minded that he wouldn't accept the VP role. Cuz I want a Dem to win, I'm not sure if thats what he wants.

[citizen snips]

152. that is not entirely true

The president does have legislative powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#Legislative_powers

[Jai4WKC08]

158. It is entirely true

Were you counting on no one following the link?

The president's "legislative powers" (they are really his executive checks on the legislative powers, but whatever) as outlined at your link include:
1. Exercise the Veto
2. Send special messages to Congress (such as the State of the Union address)
3. Call Congress into special session
4. Influence the public (the so-called bully pulpit)
5. Operate a Congressional Liaison Office

Now which of those functions do you honestly think it might help to have been a member of Congress to perform effectively?

(And if you guessed #5, you'd be wrong, because Clark is actually the only one of the potential 08 candidates who's ever operated a Congressional Liaison Office, as EUCOM commander... because it's an executive function.)

[citizen snips]

160. I disagree

I think the president is a legislator when he enacts laws by passing or vetoing laws.

[Jai4WKC08]

162. Yeah, and I'm a baker

When I eat a donut. :rofl:

Here's what the Constitution says (psst... it's a better source than wikapedia):

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

[citizen snips]

163. I did very well in my civics class last year

I guess I will have to repeat myself in saying that the president wields power over legislation when he decides on what bills to pass. And with this power the president has indirect power over legislation.

[jcrew2001]

164. power

You don't think the pres sets the agenda? If he wants to veto/sign a bill, he's going to use that power to get the congress to make laws he likes.

The president isn't going to "reverse rubber stamp" laws, anyone can do that, even a chimp, ha ha.

Clark's ideas seem very good, but as president, he would also need the people skills to convince the congress to write the laws he wants.

[Texas_Kat]

109. Okay Wes Dem.... here's where you've gotta post the list

I know you've been resisting.... but ya know it's necessary :nuke:

:popcorn:

[Adelante]

68. I've been a loyal Democrat for over 40 years

Pretty "old time" and I am more than comfortable and have been since the Draft. Clark was born in Chicago, by the way, to Democratic parents.

[Adelante]

66. I disagree strongly with this point

The more I think about it. Kerry, first of all, is not small-minded, but even more, by the time he made his choice, it just wouldn't have mattered. Kerry was aleady the nominee and had the right to pick who he wanted and the party would have supported his chosen running mate no matter who it was. If Clark had a Republican past, more accurately a Republican-voting past, it would not have hurt, but helped Kerry in the GE and Kerry's smart enough to have taken that into consideration. Also, we should add into the equation that Edwards wanted to be VP, practically campaigned for it, and Clark did not.

[FrenchieCat]

69. Considering the rumors that Kerry wanted McCain as possible veep

I tend to agree with you, WesDem.

John Kerry many times prior to selecting Edwards had stated that he wanted a Veep with Foreign policy credentials......and then he selected John Edwards instead.

[jcrew2001]

74. so

So why didn't he give Clark the chance he deserved - thats what I said before, that if Kerry really wanted McCain, why didn't he then go for Clark - he didn't think Clark was enough of a democrat/long time politician for the job.

[FrenchieCat]

79. That was John Kerry's decision as to who he would pick

not mine....so I didn't agree with his choice based on what I knew what the election would be about.

But sometimes nominees don't make the best decisions.....kind of like Al Gore choosing Joe Lieberman. They have reasons as to whom they choose, and who they don't....but those reasons don't always make sense.

He chose "Hope" over "Substance" is how I choose to look at it....and hope is great, but usually doesn't actually solve problems--and that's what voters were looking for, IMO......someone who would be able to solve our many problems and keep them safe.

[Adelante]

80. One reason: Clark didn't want the job.

This is not to say if Kerry had put pressure on, Clark wouldn't have stepped up. Clark is all about public service and if Kerry needed him, he would have been there. However, Kerry knew that it wasn't something Clark really wanted to do and it would have been a misplacement of Clark's particular talents. "Long time politician" -- I can see Kerry may possibly have thought this; but "enough of a Democrat" is a total crock of shit and Kerry would have dismissed such limited thinking.

[jcrew2001]

85. vp

I think Clark did want the VP job. I think Kerry was charmed by Edwards and didn't personally think Clark was enough of a Democrat and didn't pay his dues as a democrat. Wasn't that one of Kerry's criticisms of Clark during the primaries - "how many repubs have won the dem nomination?"

Kerry and Gore both made the mistake of choosing people they were "friends with" over someone who would be just a VP and help win the election.

[IA_Seth]

90. well..if YOU THINK it..

It must be true.

He has said that he didnt want it, and I guess I believe him over you.

[Adelante]

92. Well, I'm not going to keep answering the same slur

"enough of a Democrat" - dropping out on this one as it is too ridiculous of me to keep repeating myself.

You may think Clark wanted the VP job, because it fits your preconceived notion that Kerry preferred Edwards over Clark, (he may have, for all I know, been "charmed" by Edwards), but you are wrong to think Clark wanted VP. He just didn't. It never made any sense to me, either. The VP should be a legislator pushing the administration's agenda through the congress. It's a whole different skills set and would have wasted Clark's particular talents, which lie in leadership, strategy and executive ability. Nevertheless, in this day and age with the challenges we face, I was extremely disappointed in Kerry's decision, not as it related to Clark at all, but because Edwards didn't have the stature or experience or demonstrated judgment in foreign policy we needed in wartime. I would have liked to have seen someone like Bob Graham or Carl Levin or any number of other legislators before John Edwards.

For both Kerry and Clark, beginning 2/12/04, nothing that was said or done during the primaries mattered a whit. The only thing that mattered was getting Bush out of office and saving the nation. If you don't get that essential thing about both of these men, then I can probably see why you are an Edwards supporter, rather than a Clark or Kerry supporter.

[jcrew2001]

94. not vp

If clark didn't want the vp, then Kerry had to choose Edwards, who else was left - Bayh, Richardson, Clinton, etc. didn't want it.

Sure, the VP is a legislative position, but the voting public doesn't care about that. They just want the 2 strongest men in office - which would have been Kerry/Clark. Elections are more superficial , most legislation is composed by staff and advisors anyway.

Why would Clark not want VP and deny himself an automatic 2008 or 2012 nomination?

[IA_Seth]

95. LOL, you make no sense.

First you say that Clark doesn't have the necessary experience to be President..


Now you are saying that "the voting public doesn't care about that. They just want the 2 strongest men in office"

Which is it?

Why don't you just come out and say you have a problem with Clark?

[jcrew2001]

102. not convinced

I do have my doubts about Clark and whether he can convince people to be the Dem nominee.

Kerry/Clark would have been VP, not president. Clark will be a great VP, but apparently he doesn't want it.

I think he should want it, and he would then establish himself. Then he can run for the presidency.

[Adelante]

98. Because he does not like spinning his wheels

That's why.

[jcrew2001]

166. didn't help

Yeah, an apparently he doesn't want to help a Democrat get elected by serving as his VP.

[Clark2008]

132. No - he didn't.

He has said he'll be no one's Dick Cheney. He doesn't want the job of VP. It's a waste of his talent skill and he knows it. The only thing a VP with tons of FP skills could do would be to act like another Dick Cheney and Clark feels the VP position shouldn't do that.

Clark, if not president, would have been better suited for Secretary of State. And since you seem so uninformed, I'll go ahead and tell you that Clark CANNOT be Secretary of Defense. The rule is that the Def. Sec. has to have been out of military service for 10 years. Clark retired in 2000. He couldn't have been Def. Sec. for Kerry and he can't be Def. Sec. for any Dem president in 2008. He's ineligible until 2010.

[jcrew2001]

141. self interested

If he cared so much about the Democratic party and helping us win, why would he not join the VP ticket if he knew that would help elect a Democratic President.

It just seems your/his reasoning is totally self-interested. He'll never be secretary of state if there is no Democratic president in the first place.

Why not be the VP and be a team player when it really counts.

[CJCRANE]

54. You could start a whole other thread

about Clark vs Edwards as VP nom but that battle has been waged so many times on DU, it's best to leave it as water under the bridge.

I don't know if I'm qualified to sum up his appeal but the thing about Clark is that he knows what he's talking about, he's sincere about it and he isn't scared of anyone.

Plus in a so-called time of war Clark is a leader who actually knows what war is, when to fight it and when not to. And you know with Clark that if he decides to wage war, he'll make dam* sure he wins and look after the troops as much as possible.

On the political side, his views are very progressive, he's well-known to leaders all over the world and being a General he has cross-over appeal to the more RW voters who wouldn't normally vote for a left-wing candidate.

[jcrew2001]

57. newbie

Yeah, I'm a newbie here, and there are so many posts each day its difficult to read anything but current news here.

I don't think Edwards was a bad VP choice, but he was too similar in many ways to kerry, and didn't offer anything to get the edge.

Now I just read the story about McAuliffe, and perhaps Edwards wasn't effective because Kerry didn't want anyone talking about Bush, but that Should have been Edwards job to attack Bush - that's the whole point of beating an incumbent, telling everyone that he sucks and you'll do a better job.

I agree that Clark's views are more progressive. I just have trouble jumping on the bandwagon cuz he's so new to the scene and I haven't heard him speak enough for him to convince me.

It strikes me as weird that liberal dems are embracing a military guy, which are usually hard-liners and blue dogs like Webb.

I think progressives should support Edwards, who I think will get the nom over hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Progressive is as progressive does, not as progressive talks....

Edwards was not seen as progressive until he began his campaign "2 America" speech in the middle of primaries 2004. Prior to that he was considered on all counts as a moderate Southern Democratic Senator from North Carolina.

His hawkishness on Iraq, his co-sponsorship of the IWR also did not point to Edwards as being a progressive in terms of war and peace, which is half of the picture. I am sure that at this point, a lot of that is being forgotten in quest for Camelot and an electable candidate. But there are still Democrats out there who judge one's reputation not simply based on Photo-ops, speeches and what folks say, but rather on what politicians does over a lifetime.

In the case of Clark, if you read the link that I gave you in reference to his progressive bonafides, you will see that Clark has "done" much that would be considered "Progressive" walk.

It is Clark calling for a transition to a single-payer health system, not John Edwards.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who wrote and submitted a brief supporting Affirmative Action to the Supreme court.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who publicly supported Michael Moores' right to dissent and speak on national TV.

It was Clark, not Edwards who called for $6,000 in tuition grants to be given to each college student (of families with incomes under $150,000) for the first two years.

it is Clark, not Edwards who participates in Global Warming organizations and has spoken specifically on the subject.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who offered to eliminate income tax on families making under $50,000 per year.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who suggested that "Ask but don't tell" in the military should be done away with.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who was endorsed by some of the largest Gay publications during the 2004 primaries.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who's photo graced the cover of the Advocate.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who denounced President Bush at every turn.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who slammed media conglamoration.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who has been publicizing plight of those being murdered via Genocide in Darfur for the last few years.

It was Clark, not Edwards, who urged American and United Nations intervention in Rwanda, where 800,000 were macheted to death.

It was Clark's AIDs plan that Jesse Jackson touted, not Edwards'.

It was Clark who was endorsed by McGovern, Madonna, M. Moore and The Native American Times (largest publication for Native Americans).

It is also Clark, not Edwards who is articulating an actual detailed plan on how to negotiate our way out of Iraq instead of throwing troup numbers out there.

It was Edwards, not Clark, who had to apologize for his prior vote on Iraq.

And it was Clark, not Edwards who pubicly called himself a liberal on Television......and was proud of it!

There's more.....

[jcrew2001]

72. done

I just think Clark has not done enough in politics. He's had a military career all his life and now he's a talking head.

He's got a lot of good ideas, progressive ideas, but imo he hasn't really "walked" by getting legislation passed. How does he plan to accomplish any of his goals? He hasn't done much in terms of results since he became a private citizen.

I think thats his weakest point.

Ike won a world war, and there wasn't much competition for the presidency back then by the republicans. He was handed the Republican nom.

I just don't think the support is there for Clark over Edwards or Clinton

[FrenchieCat]

77. So what has Edwards "done" in politics?

What numerous legislation for the poor or anyone else did he pass?

But yeah...the support may not be there for Clark over Edwards, Clinton and Obama. Afterall, it is the media that tells us what to think and what to do......

Great Smile, good hair and presidential husband seems to be the pre-requisite these days to succeeding in political PR free publicity that gets one name recognition that gets one poll numbers.

[jcrew2001]

87. elected

Edwards hasn't done much, but he HAS been elected as a Democrat.

There's a lot of dems who have "paid their dues" and are ready to run for president. This is some of Biden's reasoning, and Kerry's.

Its the Dole theory of "its my time"

[FrenchieCat]

97. Being elected as a Democrat in one election has been "done"

by many politicians. It does not answer my question on the subject of one's accomplishments once they have the ability to make a difference either by holding an elected office or having a podium and microphone of sorts.....which is what we were talking about.

So to reiterate....what did John Edwards actually progressively accomplish while sitting as a senator in the halls of congress (for which you hold a premium for viability) for six years?

[jcrew2001]

105. weak

Edwards is also weak in the resume dept, and he and Clark can both be now viewed as outsiders.

I like Edwards, but I'm also not sure how he fits into everything during the campaign. It'll be a tough road for him as well.

[CJCRANE]

84. I view Clark through the lens of world opinion.

Here we have a man who has excelled in the academic, military and diplomatic realms.(As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Europe he had Head of State status and liaised with 19 nations and he's also well-known and liked in the Middle East). He is about as close as you can get in real-life to a Renaissance Man/All-American Hero.

Bush has created a foreign policy FUBAR so huge that IMO Clark seems to be the man most qualified and experienced to deal with it. However, to be honest I think he is more likely to get the VP nom on a Hillary ticket or a position in her cabinet (if it came to that).

[FrenchieCat]

56. Well to begin with....since you ask an awful lot,

Edwards was advertised by the media as the one John Kerry should pick. Just like they are currently telling us who our nominees will be.

Clark was never a Republican. Shaheen who later admitted to voting for Nixon herself did lie and call Wes Clark a former Republican.

Clark's progressive Bonafides reviewed here: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/clarks_progressive_bonafides_w.html

Clark's support by many is due to his prescience on Iraq, his courage in calling out Bush on 9/11 incompetence before it was fashionable, his experience in negotiating peace and winning wars, his willingness to publicly call out PNAC, the MIC and calls for pentagon pork cutting, his habit of standing up against conventional wisdom if it is wrong even if it might cost him his career, his kick ass "smack-down" attitude in reference to Republican assholes, and his strategic brains and Gravitas on National Security matters and out of the box thinking.

In addition, he's not beholden to interest groups, The GOP and its corporate media are so afraid of him they barely ever mention his name, and he has shown that he is more interested in what he can do for his country than what he could do for himself.

In other words, his proven leadership qualities.

Being experienced in military matters and being the most decorated officer since Eisenhower while also a "looker" certainly doesn't hurt either.

The fact that he did relatively well in the 2004 primary without free media help is also an added plus. http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_did_hella_goodthe_20.html

Last but not least, that he is perceived as a Southern moderate outsider (Clark was the only high profile Democrat that John Tester requested come to Montana during his senate run, yet at the same time the only Democrat that actively campaigned against Joe Lieberman via ads on Lamont's behalf) with the ability to spare with the worse of the worse media whores(Fox News) while having a progressive and Internationalist platform is a potent weapon that he has in his arsenal.

In other words, the man is electable as heck if he was given a fair chance.....but the "Fair" part is the problem. I don't know if the media will allow his candidacy to flourish as it aids and abeits the campaigns of others less qualified and fitting for these Times.

[blm]

110. Actually, many Kerry people favored Clark. and Clark was a favorite

surrogate throughout the general election.

[jcrew2001]

167. Nam

Yeah, if Kerry had picked Clark, he would have had someone to speak out against the Swift Boat charges - which was Kerry's primary weakness in the campaign.

[windbreeze]

123. Over and Over and OVER again...

we hear how Clark was a Republican....now if I could just figure out when that was...I am impressed that you know some "KERRY people, etc.," didn't like him, because he was a Republican..but it sure was ok that when he dropped out...he worked his tail off for Kerry...man oh man...some things never change....
IF that man has NOT earned his Democratic party stripes yet...then I am purely at a loss for words...
I am gung ho for Clark, because...he IS military...he HAS been in a WAR...he WAS shot...he DID earn his medals honestly...AND...he DAMNED well knows WAR is NOT the answer to anything..He SERVED this country for about 38 years..to me, that is unquestionable loyalty..and he has nothing to prove to any of us..
windbreeze

[jcrew2001]

144. General

I just think its presumptious that Clark thinks the Dems are going to hand him the nomination in 2004 and 2008 just because he's a General. BTW www.generalclark.com is for sale

he should use that site instead of clark04.com because it reminds people he's a general.

The Republicans might fawn over someone in the military and as a general, but I'm not ready to. If he gets the nomination, I'll support him, but I don't think he's ready for primetime or even wants to compete against hillary.

[windbreeze]

156. you know...when you assume

like you ARE doing....then I have to say, you are the one who's presumptuous to think that Gen.Clark thought anyone was going to hand him anything..."just because he's a General"...and by the by, if you are implying I am a Republican because I support a General...then you know what you can do, right?

Obviously you don't support Clark...fine...I can handle that...so what is this thread all about then???I mean, what's the purpose??? I refuse to get into a pissing contest with you, this early on...you want Hillary, fine...I don't..I agree to disagree...

Clark will make his decision...and I will abide by whatever he decides..After all, he's already given 37+years of his life to this country...I doubt any of us have the right to ask for, or expect anything more from him....I feel it takes a special kind of person to look down their nose at him, because he's a General...and past this point...I don't care what you think..
wb

[jcrew2001]

161. funny

I just think its funny how he decided to join the 2004 campaign so late because he thought he could be the anti-Dean and automatically get the Dem nomination. I commend him for trying, but that wasn't a very good game plan. It seemed kinda opportunistic.

I'll give him an honest look when he decides to run for the nomination, but right now I'm not seriously contemplating it.

[Auntie Bush]

134. Doesn't seem that "traditional" candidates (whoever they are)

have won many elections and many feel an outsider has a better chance...so Clark seems like the perfect person with the best chance of winning. That's one reason we're so gung-ho.

"i'm just surprised why everyone here is so gung-ho for him instead of the traditional candidates."

[lojasmo]

61. If Clinton runs, Clark will not. EOM

[FrenchieCat]

64. Details?.

please.

[jcrew2001]

65. thats

Thats what i said, but why do u think that?

[lojasmo]

71. I believe (just my belief)

That clark's candiacy was a tool of the Clinton cabal to derail other candidates. That is MY BELIEF ONLY. I'm not going to argue this point, but would rather see what happens.

IF Clinton wins, however, I could easily forsee a clark VP slot.

[jcrew2001]

73. my point

That was my point - that the other candidates were Clinton outsiders, and that Clark was the only part of the Clinton circle/establishment - that BC would be comfortable with as a successor.

Do you think BC, or Carville, etc. really cared about Kerry, Dean, etc. They saw them as likely losers, which they were.

[FrenchieCat]

76. Clark a tool?

Funny, because when Clark was "retired" by Clinton's Def Sec. after Clark won Clinton a war and Clinton was "surprised" by the "retiring" but didn't intervene....that you would think that Clark would have a reason to be someone's puppet (which is what you are saying)?

So the question you should answer is why would Clark have stayed (as you might put it) under Clinton hypnotism for the 2004 primaries ?

And Why didn't the Clintons endorsed their "tool" then?

Originally I wrote the General "tool" a letter asking that he run, and I'm glad he did.

Dean would not have gotten the nomination anyway, whether Clark was in or out. that's my undocumented belief. I believe that he was unelectable for a number of reason that I won't go into now. However, I have proof...cause Dean didn't win, nothwithstanding Wes Clark.

[lojasmo]

83. Okay, well, as I said....

I'm not going to debate Clark's "merits" with a bunch of doting fans....sorry.

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

[FrenchieCat]

104. One liners of absolutes normally don't do much to energize any debate....

with Clark "fans" or anyone else for that matter.

But yes, we will see how it plays out. It will be interesting...in particular as it will play out exactly however the media determines and then influences......and also the voters.

[jcrew2001]

88. not a tool

I wasn't saying Clark was a tool -but Clinton didn't like Dean or Kerry. He's the greatest democrat in the country, he was president, and he wanted someone who could carry the mantle. Dean was way up, Kerry was way down, so BC looked to Clark.

Clinton's protege Gore failed, so Clark was next in line. Now it will be Hillary.

[PresidentObama]

78. I like Clark. I hope he runs.

My motto is the more, the better. If we have a pack of strong candidates, it will only benefit us in the end because we'll have the strongest candidate.

Not my first choice, or even my second or third.

But I'd like to see his name as a possible VP choice.

[jcrew2001]

111. VP choice

I agree, to me he's only viable as a VP choice. Of course, that could change if he gets his butt in gear.

(1) If he really did not want to be Kerry's VP, that is seriously flawed judgement, and poor political judgement. Kerry would have won if Clark was his VP, so I do blame Clark for Kerry's loss. The VP spot is for superficial reasons, to soothe the voters in case something happens to the President and reflects on the President's judgement/goals/strengths.

If Clark didn't want to be VP because he didn't want to do the legislative work, then that is disturbing on several levels. It may show personal integrity, but it shows that he doesn't want to do the work of the People to pass legislation for the Democratic president, if he's not willing to work for Kerry and why wouldn't he want to help pass laws that would help us.

Also, being VP would have guaranteed the Dem Pres Nom in 2008, if Kerry lost to Bush, or in 2012 if Kerry won. Unless he didn't want to wait 8 years to be President.

Kerry chose Edwards to be his VP. So since I trust Kerry's judgement, then I will support Edwards over Clark. I don't know enough about Clark yet to convince me otherwise.

(2) Clark will be Hillary's VP choice.

I do believe there is a strong Clark/Clinton connection. And if Clark didn't want to be Kerry's VP, maybe he didn't want to disqualify himself from being a VP on Hillary's ticket. It will be the perfect balance.

Clark is the anti-Bush. Kerry should have picked him, just to remind voters of the Iraq War mess.
Now, Hillary will make the right decision and pick him for VP.

(3) Not fund-raising, no Presidential team.

He may talk a lot about wanting to be President, but he's not acting like he wants to be President. Its odd that he had to be "talked" into running in 2004 by online websites and BC. If he really wanted to be president, he would have made the decision himself and way earlier.

He's not decisive about running. If he wants to win, he needs to act like it and raise the money and set up the staff. I don't want someone who's indecisive about being president, I want someone who wants to be President.

[Adelante]

115. Now Clark's to blame for Kerry's loss

:rofl:

Man, oh, man.

[jcrew2001]

151. don't buy it

I don't buy that Clark did not want the VP spot in 2004. If he wants to be Loyal Democrat, he would have jumped at a chance to be the VP.

If Kerry didn't pick Clark, then its on Kerry, and it was Kerry's poor decision making.

If clark turned it down, then its clark's fault.

[FrenchieCat]

116. Let's see if I've got this.....

Clark should have forced Kerry to choose him as Veep...and since he didn't, it's Clark's fault that John Kerry lost, and so you will be supporting the one that John Kerry did choose as Veep and lost with.

Gotcha! :thumbsup:


:crazy:

[Adelante]

117. If anybody bothers to read through this thread

They will be calling the funny farm. :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

121. Doesn't make John Edwards look the better for it......

Having supporters with that weak of an argument can't be all good. But I guess that we have to take what we are given.

Oh well.......Ya gotta give credit for trying.....on the "socks", I mean! ;)

[Adelante]

125. The logic of a true bodice ripper

Show the holes.

[jcrew2001]

145. politics

At least Edwards has announced. I just don't buy it that clark wants to run against hillary. Maybe he's an opportunist and if Hillary drops out then he'll run, kinda like when Dean was up, then he decided to jump in, but Kerry took his swagger.

Clark seems like a good guy from what I've read, but I think politics is far different that the military and he might have difficulty figuring politics. I mean its mostly a money game and schmoozing people.

[Clark2008]

135. I know. I'm sitting here dumbfounded.

It would by hysterical if it wasn't so convoluted, bass-ackward and juvenile.

[jcrew2001]

118. Kerry

Kerry should have offered the VP spot to Clark, but you said didn't want - I really doubt Clark didn't want it, but if its true then I think Clark's a fool.

[FrenchieCat]

122. Right....Clark's a fool and John Edwards is a big prescient smartie pants!

Got it! :eyes:

[jcrew2001]

140. fool

If Clark really turned down the VP spot, then I think that was politically stupid.

If kerry passed him over for Edwards, then that was Kerry's decision, but don't say that Clark didn't want it, i mean what else is he going to do? He'd rather turn down the VP to go on Tv?

[jcrew2001]

119. Edwards

I feel at this point, Edwards has more credibility as a candidate than Clark. Unless something changes, Clark is still only a VP choice.

[FrenchieCat]

120. Well fortunately you felt that way from the get go, and

so it goes. Hope this excercise was worthy of your efforts......and I hope you think that somehow doing this accomplish whatever you set out to do.....cause I don't.

As far as supporting whom......I feel exactly the opposite as to your laughable declaration--

John Edwards and his lack of good judgement when it counted and lack of gravitas as we speak makes him VP material (as he was aptly in '04), at best...... which is why you couldn't name anything of any substance that he had done to merit all of your good graces except for you maybe liking him and what he "talks" about.

Wes Clark in contrast is a man standing next to the boy.

the difference between the two that would allow you to call Edwards "credible"? He's been supported by nothing more than the media since Iowa, and gets media attention (even for writing a book about really absolutely nothing of any real substance considering our current situation) and therefore people that need to "think" of someone to support can come up with his name when polled....er, the only white guy in the group of three that might be named....all who have gotten nothing but attention non stop for the last 6 months minimum, with Hillary for nearly 3 years. Edwards, as he has been perpetually running and/or setting up to run since 2002 and visiting Iowa and New Hampshire more often than I go shopping....which is often enough.

In stark contrast, Clark gets not free publicity, is only named as an afterthought on the last line of an article here or there in some print media and many times doesn't show up as one on the list in polls....and if he is, many don't even know who in the hell he is.

So you should certainly get on your chosen bandwagon that the media hitched up for you long ago and go giddiyup into the sunset.

I'm sure that you all will be very happy together.

Me, I'll stay right here

[jcrew2001]

146. VP

I was just saying Edwards is more credible because he was on the 2004 ticket.

If Clark was on the ticket, then Clark would certainly be more credible, and deservedly so. But I think to be president, you actually have to run, and it won't be handed it to you. It seems to me that Clark expects the Dems to hand him the nomination just becausee he's a general, cuz he's not doing much right now in terms of Iowa and NH.

Looking back on 2004, I can't believe Clark skipped Iowa in favor of NH. He had no shot at NH since Kerry and Dean were from neighboring states. His only shot was Iowa. That was a poor political decision.

[jcrew2001]

170. clark's fault

Its clark's fault if he passed on the VP interview, which many clarkies are claiming he didn't want the VP job.

I dispute this, but if its true its very very sad, for both Clark and the good of the country.

[windbreeze]

124. Wow....

I am flabbergasted by all this blather...Clark's fault cause Kerry lost??? For someone who "doesn't know enough about Clark"...you are sure espousing quite a bit of knowledge about him and his motives...and who he is and is not close to...Then you say, going for VP would have guaranteed a shot at pres in 2012....lordy, lordy...being Clinton's VP for 8 years, sure didn't guarantee a thing for Gore, did it????....Wow, just Wow, what a post!!
wb

[jcrew2001]

147. Nom

But Gore did get the Dem nomination in 2000.

[CJCRANE]

126. You can't blame Clark

for not getting the VP nod...however, I think he would have been a good choice in the circumstances at the time -

He was best placed to be an attack dog against the SwiftBoat nuts and would've put the smackdown on Cheney in the VP debate.

[jcrew2001]

148. clarkes

I have no idea why all these Clarkies think Clark doesn't want to be VP in 2004.

It would have been a great political situation for him as VP and guranteed the 2012 nom if Kerry won.

[Infinite Hope]

112. Probably, but largely to raise money and supporters. He'll ultimately be selected VP. n/t

[Clark2008]

136. Really now?

For whom? Because I know he won't run with Edwards - your choice. And what, exactly, would he do being president of the Senate?

I have no doubt that Clark could learn the job - he's intelligent and insightful, but WHY would anyone waste his foreign policy and diplomacy skills on that? If a presidential nominee does that, then I must question their intelligence. I'd vote for any ticket with Clark on it, but that wouldn't mean I'd think it necessarily prudent.

[jcrew2001]

149. team

I would hope that Clark would want to be a Team player for the Dem party and help us win the Election, that's why he should be VP.

Then after the election, he could resign if he really didn't like working with the Senate.

[jcrew2001]

168. VP

Answer = He'd accept the VP slot, so that a Democrat would be elected as President. He Should care about helping a dem get elected.

[Clark2008]

127. Yes - what HRC does is of no consequence.

If Clark opts to run, it won't be because of whatever HRC's doing.

[rhett o rick]

138. You imply that HRC hasn't decided. Do you believe that? nm

[jcrew2001]

169. running

Yeah, she's running, but will Clark run - or will they convince him not to?

[JNelson6563]

139. I dunno know but

it will be interesting to see how things play out. I wouldn't mind seeing both of these involved in primary debates. It is my hope Hillary is not our candidate.

:popcorn:

Julie

[jcrew2001]

150. debates

It would be interesting to hear Clark in the debates. But he can't beat hillary in the primaries.