So ummm....wasn't Wes Clark suppose to run for President or something??

[Perky]

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

For a general he seems to be lacking tactical and strategic talent. (Yeah I said it...and I meant it)

[Clark2008]

1. Boy, we're spoiled in this culture, aren't we?

JFK didn't announce his candidacy until four months before the 1960 primary season.

Wes is dealing with some policy issues right now regarding Iran and Iraq and he doesn't want politics to interfere with policy decisions. He'll announce when he's ready - if he's ready.

[Perky]

4. Everybody who is running has set up exploratory committee

He can't do fundraising if he does not get in the game. You can not win unless you put troops into Iowa and New Hampshire and all the best talent is being grabbed. If he is not doing these two things yet.......He can not be considered a serious contender.




For a general he seems to be lacking tactical and strategic talent. (Yeah I said it...and I meant it)

I have absolutely nothing at all against the guy. He is not my guy, But I am completely ambivalent about him. He just is not doing anything that indicates he is serious. and as such...he is going to be hard pressed to find big donors or lots of small donors to compete with Edwards, Obama, Clinto or Richardson.

He is not even being listed in straw polls.

[JNelson6563]

8. Uh-oh.

For a general he seems to be lacking tactical and strategic talent. (Yeah I said it...and I meant it)

:popcorn:

[Perky]

10. LOL

:rofl:

Take a look at the OP now.

[Clark2008]

13. Your sense of humor is, well, strange.

For a DUer, you're pretty misinformed, aren't you? Particularly about what Clark is doing and how subursive tactics work.

Personally, I'm so tired of hearing about the front runners right now, I wouldn't vote for any of them - and neither would many others I know.

[jcrew2001]

20. kucinich

Clark doesn't care about money - he's an idea man. He takes after the Kucinich playbook.

An Iran war would boost Clark's candidacy, its his secret weapon.

If we want to get out of Iraq - Edwards or Hillary will be the nominee.

[Clark2008]

29. If we want to get out of Iraq, Edwards or Hillary will be the nominee?

What are you smoking?

They took us INTO Iraq! Edwards co-sponsored it!

[jcrew2001]

38. he said he was wrong and

apologized for it. He wouldn't make the same mistake again.

[The Count]

48. gee, ya think? Cuz, looky what he said - after the apology:

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down."

[jcrew2001]

51. Iran is more of a threat than Iraq but

our military is not ready for another war. Iran is a threat, and we know they have weapons. I don't advocate war with Iran, but to say they are harmless is not accurate.

[FrenchieCat]

58. we don't know that Iran has weapons.......

so just say that "you know"......

Geeze, who let you out? :crazy:

[jcrew2001]

62. they don't have nuclear plants?

becuase i thought they did.

[FrenchieCat]

71. A plant is now a weapon?

You should have attended Wes Clark's UCLA Burkle Center's two day conference that just ended yesterday...so that you could have gotten some education. :eyes:

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2007/mar/08/experts_explore_nuclear_issues/
http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/feb/12/experts_discuss_how_much_power_president_should_ha/
http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/challenges/
http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/mar/06/conference_examine_future_nuclear_weapons/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-w-drezner/what-i-learned-at-the-non_b_42919.html
http://www.international.ucla.edu/bcir/news/article.asp?parentid=65312
http://www.today.ucla.edu/campus/wesley-clark_iraq/

[jcrew2001]

74. but is Iran more dangerous than Iraq?

or is Iran no danger at all? i don't advocate war, but iran is not innocent.

Besides, its all about Israel and land, its got nothing to do with the US, except for the iraq occupation.

[Exultant Democracy]

85. The largest threat posed by Iran right now

is that we may go in there bomb the place and stop the political forces in that country right now that are trying to turn Iran into a free and democratic society.

[The Count]

46. Um, yeah, cuz they sponsored/voted for IWR, so we can trust them on wars!

[jcrew2001]

53. But Bush led us into war, its all Bush's

fault - if Gore was president, the Iraq war would not have happened.

[FrenchieCat]

60. So let me make sure that I understand you....

Bush led us into Iraq
It's all Bush fault
but since your candidate has apologized for co-sponsoring and voting on that, he's OK
Meanwhile, Gen. Clark was against the War, and so he capitalized on it
General Clark being the first to say "Let's talk to Iran", and is starting a movement to let not let what happen in Iraq happen in Iran should hope for War in Iran because he stands to gain from it.

Meanwhile those who were cheerleading Iraq and Iran(until they got caught) and taking money over fist from AIPAC are just dandy!

OK....Got it!

[jcrew2001]

65. So you're telling me that Clark voted against the

IWR, or if he was an elected official, he would have voted against the IWR.

Either Clark lives in fantasy land, or all of his supporters live in a fantasy land where Clark is the virtual president, and he's mounting a phantom candidacy; and he's passing domestic legislation to improve the world.

He's done nothing since he left the military - tell me anything he's done? Has he won any elections, or lobbied to Dick Cheney.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Well I'll take my fantasy land over that

hell hole you must call your brain!


There!
How's that for personal insults?

[jcrew2001]

76. are you saying the real world sucks

cuz i would say that is accurate.

[FrenchieCat]

83. No, I'm saying More like

You.....

[jcrew2001]

92. I would say that the feeling is mutual,

but i'm too busy playing world of warcraft.

[FrenchieCat]

96. Are you named after Jcrew socks?

Just asking?

[jcrew2001]

99. I consider myself a well groomed metrosexual

you can ask Wesley what it means - he knows, i've seen footage from VH1 interview.

[The Count]

124. But if Edwards were president, he would have started the war!

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

and now he is doing the same with Iran, and you find excuses....

[jcrew2001]

47. 1960's didn't have media or money so its

a completely different game now. Face it, Clark will have no money and no staffers. He's a paper president, more like a virtual president.

An Iran war would boost his credentials, he relied heavily on Iraq last time.

Most Americans expect a Iraq pullout after Bush leaves office. All the Dems oppose Iraq escalation.

[FrenchieCat]

55. No, last time, Clark ran because Bush was an asshole who took

us into a war we didn't have to fight.

Those who supported that war now have apologized and are capitalizing on this apology on that war vote for the war that is still going on that they now promise they will get us out of. A better question then the one you pose in reference to credibility is why are "they" so "credible" now? Because they said so? Cause they sure haven't really "done" anything as of yet. :shrug:

Clark's boosted his credibility long ago by being against a war that many now running didn't have a problem with.

So Clark didn't capitalize on Iraq.....but many are attempting to capitalize on an Iraq apology.

[jcrew2001]

61. Cuz Clark voted for the IWR - oh wait he was sitting

on his couch at home, while elected officials had to take a vote.

You are using the Obama and Dean excuse. Of course they are all anti-Iraq war with 20/20 vision.

If Clark wants to be an elected official, he can run for office, but he's just a talking head, I don't take his phantom candidacy seriously.

I also want a civilian president.

[CarolNYC]

63. Well, he testified in front of Congress against invading Iraq...

testimony which SOME Congressfolk were smart enough to listen to...Others, um, not so much. :(

[jcrew2001]

67. i know, he should build a time machine, and

then run for congress so he can vote against the IWR.

[CarolNYC]

87. Not sure what good that would do...

as he'd only be one vote whereas in the capacity he served he apparently helped change a number of votes. It's not his fault some weren't wise enough to listen. As Ted Kennedy said at the time: "We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril." Indeed.

The time machine thing might help though for those who were doing things like co-sponsoring the IWR and writing articles so supportive the White House used them on their website....

[FrenchieCat]

66. Clark was sitting his ass in front of both houses of congress

testifying and writing op-eds......the last published the day before the IWR was voted on called "Let's wait to attack".

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree.
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

Sen. Levin on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who also voted NO....
“General Wesley Clark, the Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, put it succinctly, and I quote: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies....we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. General Clark warned us: "We're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda."
http://www.senate.gov/~conrad/issues/statements/defense/defense_stmt_021011.html

[jcrew2001]

68. maybe he should run for congress if

he wants to vote against the Iran war.

[BootinUp]

89. Have you ever

really explained your fervent resistance to Clark as a political leader in a logical manner? I must have missed it.

Clark not only testified in September 2002 advising against unilateral action, he consulted with members of congress on the Bush administrations intentions warning them not to vote for the resolution.

What are your credentials for discrediting him and his efforts?

[jcrew2001]

91. i don't have a problem with clark

I just don't think he needs to be rammed down our throats, when (1) he's not a declared candidate and (2) has stated that he has no plans or timeline to announce such a candidacy.

He would be a formidable candidate if he announced. But all the Clark supporters our are making excuses for him and attacking other Dems, for a phantom candidate and it seems delusional. I don't really see the point of advocating for clark right now. He'll run if he wants to, he's man enough to make his own mind and not need to be convinced by the internet. I don't want a candidate who needs to be persuaded to run, but has a compelling vision and ambition to lead.

As for the IWR, everyone is an Armchair Quarterback, but Clark wasn't in Congress and he didn't vote. If you're going to question someone's vote for IWR, then it should be someone who actually voted against it.

If Clark or others criticize those on the Front-lines of Congress, then it should be asked why wasn't Clark or Obama there to cast a vote.

[BootinUp]

95. just for the record

Clark stated that he does not believe the IWR vote should be used as a litmus test. I agree with that position, some Clarkies and others on the left obviously do not.

So you have more of a problem with supporters apparently. Its a common theme round here. There isn't much in Clark's record to attack without resorting to taking things out of context.

[jcrew2001]

98. I know, his record is pretty thin, not much there

I think Clark should finally announce his candidacy on Dec 25, so that his fans can celebrate the 2nd coming.

I'll give him a look if he ever announces. I'll listen to what he says on the campaign trail and debates, and tune out all the messageboard cronies. It'll be nice to hear things from the horse's mouth for a change.

[BootinUp]

"from the horses mouth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz18yirt5uw

[The Count]

125. Rammed down your throat????Who started this thread? Sure as hell, not a Clarkie

Seems to me like a preemptive action a couple of you are undertaking. Or rather you and some by standers. And I am glad to find out that your problem is not with Clark but with his supporters, as his supporters will never need your vote.

[RiverStone]

70. Daily KOS: Clark is out. At least the next 3 months.

Posted 3/5/07 - who knows. More spin?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/5/15854/32884

Either way, Clark is my favorite choice (outside of Al Gore). I hope we see him jump in the fray. :applause:

[FrenchieCat]

81. More spin......From Markos and Bowers who are not kingmakers of Prez on the Internet.

Poster who's post they culled their quotes from for that sotry talks about writing Markos telling him that he had misinterpreted her post.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11326

Submitted by sportybabe on March 6, 2007 - 5:39pm.
Today I sent Markos a note and told him at the very least he should have asked questions before he posted his story. I also told him I was disappointed he didn't check his source when he's quick to condemn other MMM who don't.

I copied the clarification directly to him so he would understand where the confusion was. I also asked him, since it was my original post that caused the problems, to please issue a front page apology to Wes Clark and as a gesture of good faith, to please consider an interview with Wes to highlight his stopiranwar.com campaign which is too important not to discuss.

I don't know if he will provide a response and apology to Wes, but if he does, I'll let you know.

Daily Kos won't retract
Submitted by sportybabe on March 6, 2007 - 10:56pm.
As you know, I wrote to Markos asking if he would post a retraction/apology to Wes Clark for the confusion surrounding my first-hand account from Friday, and instead consider an interview with Wes about StopIranWar.com, but he responded quickly saying he will not retract nor did he mention anything about an article pertaining to stopiranwar.com.

He believes that anything on a blog can be linked to by anybody else and it's fair game. He said that's what bloggers do--they link to other blogs. And he said he was satisfied the facts were reported as I saw them even though they were later disputed. He said he had no need to seek more information or questions pertaining to the original post.

Oh well...I tried. Next time I'll make sure any question I ask is thoroughly understood. I hope this whole issue now goes away.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. This isn't 1960

Most of the delegates were chosen by party insiders in 1960 and not by primary voters. This time around, there will be at least as many primaries on February 5th or before as there were at all in 1960.

JFK didn't have to raise 8 or 9 digit sums of money to be competitive back in 1960. Wes Clark will absolutely have to if he wants to be competitive.

[Ediacara]

2. If he runs, he may be waiting for Clinton and/or Obama to fizzle out

And jump in this spring. If he runs, I think he'll avoid his fatal mistake of waiting until September and avoiding NH.

[jcrew2001]

9. waiting

He's waiting i think, knows his chances aren't good right now against hillary, otherwise he would be in. He'll run as the anti-hillary, anti-establishment. Its a risky strategy and he'll need a lot of breaks to win. Ironically, an Iran War would boost his candidacy and credentials.

[NoPasaran]

18. The anti-Hillary?

He's spent the last four years as a cat's paw for the Clinton machine.

[jcrew2001]

21. not according to revisionist clark suporters

but he is the anti-hillary in terms of being the alpha male military vet.

[FrenchieCat]

69. How was that.....

You really think that Hillary, who's hubby was Commander in Chief when Clark was retired early somehow can walk Wes Clark on a leash?

I think it is the Clintons who "owe" Clark, not the other way around. If you don't know why, I'll tell you.

[Lex]

3. Some heads will explode 'round here if he doesn't.

nt

[bryant69]

5. Well I think Al Gore might heal those wounds

But i could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dinger]

103. Lots Of Clarkies Like Gore. I'm One Of Them

And if Wes doesn't run, Gore would definitely heal that wound.

[Clark2008]

15. Well, I know that if neither he nor Gore runs, I'm throwing in the

towel.

We can't win with HRC, Obama or Edwards. (I actually reside outside the blue bubble and know this).

[jcrew2001]

22. Edwards can beat Rudy and Romney

in the gen election.

[Clark2008]

28. No. He can't.

No one in the red states likes him. Ann Coulter, while vile, was actually on the mark. He's viewed as too much of a "pretty boy" in the Heartland. Women of a certain age like him and that's about it.

Sorry.

[jcrew2001]

39. but do they like Rudy, Romney and McCain

would they vote for yankee?

[KingofNewOrleans]

86. Have a Clarkie accuse others

of living inside a bubble is about the funniest thing I've read on DU.

[NoPasaran]

88. A-fucking-men!

Post of the week!

[BootinUp]

97. overstatement of the year, lol.

[FrenchieCat]

105. Post of the week In your world.....

evidently. :eyes:

It is Without a doubt a stupid thing to get A-fucking excited about.

Clumping a bunch of people together simply because they support one particular individual on an Internet board and stereotyping them doesn't sound like one those worlds that most of us would prefer to live in.

[KingofNewOrleans]

118. I thought you swore off these threads

til August or something. How long did that last, about a week?

[FrenchieCat]

119. Read again what I said......

and check to see what I have said about any specific candidate.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3135617

Seems to me, you're the one talking shit here in this "let's fuck with Wes Clark" thread!.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=370168&mesg_id=372099

But thanks for checking on me. It is appreciated! :hi:

[Clark2008]

16. Dupe. Glitch.

[Clark2008]

17. Dupe. Glitch.

[BootinUp]

84. I actually think

most Clarkies will support his decision whatever it is with little to no qualms. I think they recognize he is not a typical politician and not a man driven by ambition for power. His decision will be based on how he can best support and drive the right direction for our country.

[The Count]

6. Here's an excellent thread addressing this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3134018&mesg_id=3134018
Wes Clark, Iran and *#&$&^$%&%!2008

[Kelly Rupert]

7. He did that last time, remember?

He started out really hot, then he stumbled when it became apparent he entered the race a week or two too early, since he seemed to have a rather loose grasp on domestic policy. My money's been on him not running again; Hillary has the mainstream-might-as-well votes locked up, and Obama has the exciting-rock-star market cornered, though Gore might be able to give both camps a decent challenge, since he can cast himself as either.

[jcrew2001]

11. not a politician

he's not a good politician, so this early stage will only bring out his weaknesses.

[AndreaCG]

12. He'll be better than 2004

But not if he doesn't declare SOON!

[FrenchieCat]

50. Thank God.....

Not a politician-- Doesn't pander, suck up, adjust stances depending on the audience, check with opinion polls, and do a lot of finger pointing and bloviating.

Great! :headbang:

[jcrew2001]

93. i know, who needs votes or voters anyways

we should get rid of policians and just let vets run the govt, like in other countries.

[FrenchieCat]

106. That might not be a bad idea......

Maybe we'd get what are promised....instead of excuses and lies.

[Clark2008]

14. Actually, I remember him kicking Dean's ass in fundraising

the first quarter of 2004 and kicking Edwards' ass in five of the nine races in which they both competed.

Hardly a stumble.

Clark's only problem was the media wasn't (and still isn't) allowed to talk about him.

Watch - it's uncanny how they never mention his name.

[jcrew2001]

24. MSM would mention him more if he actually

declared his candidacy - his polling was high when he announced in 2004, then he stumbled cuz he was a fraud, then he learned about the issues.

[Clark2008]

30. They didn't mention him in 2004 when he WON Oklahoma - so

no, they won't mention him more if he were to announce.

It's his biggest "flaw" and it doesn't even belong to him - it belongs to this crap we call media.

[Bake]

35. Who knew OK had a primary?

Did it matter?

For the record, I like Wes a lot, but not for the top spot on the ticket.

Bake

[jcrew2001]

40. but who votes in the Ok primary and

does it mean he would win Oklahoma in the general election. Kerry had a strong lead anyways and won super tuesday, so while Ok was a win, he didn't have any chance elsewhere.

[AndreaCG]

42. By the time he won Oklahoma

Kerry had the nomination or was a week away from it.

[roguevalley]

108. fraud. amazing. he's the only really authentic person there. you really

don't like this man. is it because he's military or do you just like to banter with clark supporters and others?

[AndyTiedye]

33. The Media is The Problem For ALL Democratic Candidates

Clark's only problem was the media wasn't (and still isn't) allowed to talk about him.

Kucinich has the same problem.

The Repiglican media are only allowed to talk about the annoited "frontrunners", and they are not allowed to say anything good
about any of them except Hillary (and her only UNTIL the Democratic Convention!). They have her picked for the Dem nomination,
because they have more invested in demonizing her than any other Democrat in the country, and they know it will all stick.

[FrenchieCat]

109. Agree.

They decide.

we just make it look like it might be our idea....

[jcrew2001]

44. i admit that Clark could beat Edwards in the

primaries and that is why Edwards is working so hard to solidify support in Iowa and NH. So even if Clark enters the race in Sept, Edwards will have locked in supporters.

Clark would be a formidable candidate if he ran, but he's afraid of being embarrassed so early. By coming in later, he'll face less scrutiny and win on issues instead of campaigning skills, which Edwards is better at him and so is Hillary and Obama.

[Czolgosz]

19. I applaud Clark's focus on issues and not the race but he hasn't got Gore's name id or funds to be

able to jump into the race late and still have chance at pulling of the nomination.

Maybe Gore can bide his time for another six months and then enter the race late and still have the fund-raising ability and institutional support to pull off a last minute surge to win the nomination, but I don't think Clark shares that luxury.

I don't expect Clark to announce this month or next, and if Clark doesn't announce this month or next, I can't see how he could win the nomination, but I can definitely see how his candidacy - even if he enters six months or more down the road - could materially shape the debate.

I really, really like Clark, but I'm growing very skeptical that he will run (or if he does run, I'm starting to suspect that it will be without the expectation and intention of winning the nomination but with the goal of shaping the debate).

[jcrew2001]

26. he'll be a spoiler for hillary and then

this would let Edwards win the nomination, yay!

[NYCGirl]

34. I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking. NT

[Czolgosz]

37. Actually, Richardson is the one who takes DLC-oriented votes from Hillary. Few Clarkies have Hillary

as their second pick.

I don't know who the Clarkies flock to if their candidate doesn't run, but it's not Hillary (maybe Edwards and Obama?).

Likewise, I don't know who the Goreillas flock to if their candidate doesn't run (maybe Kucinich and Edwards?).

[jcrew2001]

43. spoiler

A spoiler candidate always takes votes away from the front-runner. If he is a true spoiler, he'll take votes away from Hillary and then Edwards will likely benefit from this.

Sort of like nadar taking votes from gore, and clark taking votes from Dean.

[Czolgosz]

52. We agree on what a "spoiler" is. We disagree that Clark is a "spoiler" for Hillary. Hillary is very

DLC; Clark isn't. Hillary is the most pro-war candidate in the Democratic field; Clark isn't. On what issue does Clark cut into Hillary's vote (except that they both have some connection to Arkansas)?

[jcrew2001]

56. But then how can Clark win the primary without

taking votes away from Hillary? By fall, there would still be room for Clark, but that would be from undecideds. Are u saying clark can win those undecided Iowa and NH voters, without even visiting those states?

[Czolgosz]

64. Iowa polling: Edwards 24%, Hillary 18%, Obama 18%, Biden 5%, Richardson 3%, Clark 2%

Source: http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_022207.htm

If Hillary has 18%, that leaves 82% of the vote which Clark could claim part of without taking any votes away from Hillary. Don't look to me as someone who thinks Clark is very likely to win the nomination. I would characterize Clark, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and Kucinich as longshots. Among those longshots, I admire Clark and Kucinich and Dodd, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them. In fact, I think there is better than a 95% likelihood that the nomination will go to Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore (if he runs).

[saltpoint]

23. If you want to get the measure of General Clark, you should check out

his interviews with FOX. ALWAYS they try to trap him, always they try to embarrass him, always they try to connect him to what they consider a failed foreign policy under Clinton, always they try to get him to say the wrong things about Dubya's Iraq commitment, and ALWAYS he handles himself with correct information and courteous aplomb.

In short, he makes them look like babbling moron assholes while he stands tall, having actually and genuinely served his country.

Not least, he's a Democrat and may be on our ticket. I like him. So do many others. He wouldn't appeal to those who introduced me to him if he had no virtues or strengths. He has many of both and I believe that is a more useful starting place to consider him than your off-the-mark post.

[jcrew2001]

25. He would win the GOP nomination for sure

he should try going back to them.

[Clark2008]

31. He never was with them.

Wow - you're very much uniformed, aren't you?

[jcrew2001]

41. clark's been an active democrat for

4 whopping years. wow, let's give him the nomination! He's a military vet, let's give him the nomination! Stop making excuses for him, if he wants the nomination, he can take it - he can announce that he's running now, and not be scared off by Hillary and use "iran" as his excuse.

If he wants the Presidency, then be a man about it, announce and run for it. If you're certain he can take it, then he can.

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy, he can't win if he doesn't play. If he wants to hide out at fox news, thats his own decision, but don't bring it here and say he'll run, he'll run.

You can proclaim Clark as the Virtual President, US President of the Internets!

[On the Road]

54. How Much Have You Heard Clark?

Outside of Kucinich, he has probably the most liberal positions of any candidate in either party.

[jcrew2001]

57. if he's so great, then he should walk away with

the primary win. i'm just annoyed that he's the Paper Champion on DU, when he's not even campaigning. He's scared to go against hillary right now. I think he's got nothing to fear, and go against Hillary now.

But he's going to wait, it seems weak, but he's going to wait until the fall.

[roguevalley]

112. we don't proclaim anything. we discuss our candidate, like hillary's

supporters and obama's, etc. discussion.

[saltpoint]

36. I don't think the GOP would be remotely interested in nominating a

competent man or woman for the White House.

There's certainly no evidence of it since Teddy Roosevelt.

Clark would be far too independent and individually capable for most GOP voters. The General is a Democrat, would run as a Democrat.

[Jax]

27. He was very good with Amy Goodman

I watched him one day last week in an interview on DemocracyNow. He answered all her questions in what came across to me as a very forthright manner, Kosovo, etc.

I am hoping he and Al Gore both will enter the field.

I appreciate the comments about how he does well on fox, I really cannot watch that channel.

[rebel with a cause]

32. Sure glad you all are democrats.

Cause we don't need republicans here to put down our fellow democrats. :blush:

[Perky]

78. Oh cmon its the national pastime here on DU

So does Wes somehow get to hold onto the immunity idol?

[rebel with a cause]

80. I am not defending Clark.

Even though I supported him in 2004 because his supporters attack others quite often. I just don't like to read where we all turn on each other. I'd rather leave that to and for the republicans.

[jcrew2001]

94. Clark wins the DU American Idol contest

as the DU Virtual President of the USA - vote 1-800-4-Clark to cast your ballot.

[LSK]

45. hes busy doing stuff like stopping war with Iran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/general-wes-clark-fighti_b_41833.html?p=2

[jcrew2001]

49. if bush goes to war with Iran that will boost

clark's credentials, so if he is working behind the scenes to stop Iran, that will hurt his presidential aspirations. A general doesn't look as attractive in peacetime.

And do we really want a general as our Commander in Chief? I prefer civilian leadership.

[FrenchieCat]

75. So I guess that Clark is working against his own best interest....

as he is working against a possible Iran confrontation.

You must not have heard Bibi on CNN today....calling Iran the New Germany.

Civilian leadership sucks. Just lookit!

Even under Clinton, we had to watch 800,000 Black folks get macheted to death! Was that good for ya?

[roguevalley]

115. Last time I looked, Clark was a civilian. He is also an economist,

philosopher and entrepreneur. If military experience excludes you from running, then half this country cannot serve it in civilian form. He is a civilian, you know.

[robcon]

59. I don't think Clark will run

He'll be a great sec'y of state or sec'y of defense, IMO

[FrenchieCat]

73. I think Clark will run,

win and become the best President for these times possible.

[jcrew2001]

77. i want a civilian president, even though

washington, grant, and ike were okay.

[roguevalley]

116. again, wes clark is a civilian. He's a civilian just like washington,

grant and ike were. your comment is strange.

[WI_DEM]

79. Wes Clark is a great American and a Great Democrat who has been against the war from the start

and if he runs he would be an asset to the campaign. I'm supporting Obama at this point but could easily support Gen. Clark. A Clark/Obama or Obama/Clark ticket would be very impressive.

[jcrew2001]

101. don't say clark will be VP, it will upset a lot of clark

die-hards here - clark does not want a meaningless VP position, that would be beneath him.

[FrenchieCat]

110. Try not to speak for others.....

as you have a hard enough time speaking for yourself.

[BootinUp]

82. Strategies are based on something

There is little point in Clark trying to run a long and expensive campaign against senators with more financial connections. He will be much more effective in a shorter campaign once interest in the race begins to accelerate. This is my opinion only of course.

[jcrew2001]

100. this is true, less focus on personality and charm

and less scrutiny will help the short-attention span public vote for clark.

[BootinUp]

102. That shoehorn you keep sticking in my mouth

is a little trying.

[KT2000]

90. We shall see about that

There might be strategy in waiting until Hillary is out of the race. She may have money but she does not have charisma or an identifiable position on the issues. Her early start will accentuate those weaknesses.

I full expect a second group of candidates to garner more attention as this thing progresses and people become sick of hearing about the current front-runners - Dem and repub.

[jcrew2001]

104. i had thought that

entering in the fall was a lame excuse by clark, but he may be right. If we go to war with Iran, americans will look for the general to lead them out of it.

[dysfunctional press]

107. IF he plans on running, i'd say his strategery is doing just fine...

the election is NOT this november, it's a YEAR from november.

[jcrew2001]

111. he should announce on Nov 4th

one year from election day; or my first suggestion Dec 25th; or July 4th; or January 1st.

[FrenchieCat]

114. You're so fucking silly, until you make me laugh!

[jcrew2001]

120. almost as silly as talking about a

non-candidate, i would say you are wasting your time, but then so am I.

[FrenchieCat]

122. I don't think anyone really gives a good F*ck

what you have to say.

Can't you tell?

Where's my spray?

[Tom Rinaldo]

117. I counted quickly. I think this is your 36th post on this thread

Maybe this thread could have led to some kind of useful discussion, but this isn't it. Have fun ridiculing a good Democrat, I'm heading back over to kos where there is a useful discussion going on, that I've been participating on instead, about stopping a war with Iran.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/8/134645/2529

Have fun, good night.

[jcrew2001]

121. i'm going to use everything i learned about

stopping the iraq war, to stop the iran war, in addition to positive thinking from the secret, think, feel, believe.

clark can stop the iran war, good for him, who needs elected officials anyways - thats right john kerry, hillary, and obama, biden, dodd, mccain, brownback, u guys are worthless.

[FrenchieCat]

123. good Gawd! You and yours are

getting on my nerves!



If only you made sense, it would help! Really!

[The Count]

126. They voted for IWR - all except Obama- so, yeah, they're worthless.

[Perky]

127. Wrong...the election for the nomination is in in January and early February

And unless you are building organization and war chest now you do not win the early primaries and if you do not win the early primaries you have no chance of winning the nomination.

[dysfunctional press]

128. it's still too early...by months...to get into 'the race'.

imho.