Is there any evidence that Clark is even running in 2008?

[LSdemocrat]

I'm just curious. It seems like there is a lot of talk about Clark here on DU. I've seen reports of other candidates laying the groundwork for a future run (notably Kerry, Edwards, and Warner), but nothing about Clark.

Have I been missing something?

[Clarkie1]

1. Unknown at this point.

He is "ruling nothing out" and has a political action committee, WesPac. He supported Kerry and other dems and will be again supporting Democratic candidates in 06'.

The WesPac website is currently being updated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Yes. Word is "circulating" that Clark is considering it.

And in public Clark clearly states that he is ruling nothing out when he is asked about the possibility of a 2008 run.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Even though

I really liked Kerry/Edwards and thought they were brilliant together I think either Kerry/Clark or Clark/Kerry would be really cool. :D

[knight_of_the_star]

3. He hasn't said either way

But his continued willingness as well as stating on Blitzer on Feb 14th that he enjoyed working in uniform and in public service kind of hints that he would be interested in running and doing the job, he just hasn't said anything definite yet.

[dolstein]

4. The only evidence is that he hasn't ruled in out

In that respect, Clark is no different than any other Democrat who sought the presidency in 2004.

[mikehiggins]

5. Heh, heh, heh, we won't tell

Personally, I think the whole Clark thing is very much below the radar, and that everyone involved is happy to keep it that way.

Will he run again? Nobody knows except him (and Gert) and they don't seem to be saying anything specific on the topic.

Are there still reasons to hope he does take another run, just as there were in 2003-4? Yeah.

If someone is totally dissatisfied with the business-as-usual antics of the Beltway Dems there are only three real alternatives visible at the moment. That would be Clark, Dean and Kucinich. (Dennis is in the Beltway, but not of the Beltway). More will undoubtedly appear over the course of the next few years but right now, for those of us who would rather stay home than vote for another Washington pro, those are the choices.

So we work to prepare for the day if it comes. If it doesn't, we'll still be here, only much more organised than before.

And what could be wrong with that?

[Lena inRI]

6. It's not that Clark is late. . .

but that Hillary, the 2 Johns, and Mark are annoying opportunists scrambling with each other to be first in line just as with school kids.

I'm sick of it, quite frankly, and don't see how they reflect a healthier, better-led Dem party for 2008.

18 months before Nov '08 would be the normal beginning for any political campaign so if Clark wants to wait, God bless him, because he's a genuine service-minded person, not the clutching entitlement-driven politician like the others.

So help me God, I will never fall for these Dems again saying ABB when I know that Wes Clark is the best potential Presidential candidate we could have. . .hands down!

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on ME!


:kick:

[paineinthearse]

8. Welcome to DU, neighbor

:hi:

[Lena inRI]

10. Thanks for the welcome. . .

nice to see friendly posts now and then.

BTW, wespac is under construction I hear. . .just check out
http://www.forclark.com/ Clark Community Network for a link someday.

Doncha just love Clark's fresh new ideas about a Citizen Service Corps like a Superpac:

"Creating a 21st Century Civilian Reserve for 21st Century Challenges. General Clark challenges all Americans, men and women, to sign up for the Civilian Reserves. By signing up for the Civilian Reserves Americans, volunteers would promise to make a sacrifice for their country, when and where needed. In exchange, members of the Civilian Reserve would know that their unique talents and abilities were being effectively mobilized.


Mobilizing the skills and talents of the American people. If an individual chooses to register with the Civilian Reserves, he or she would record his or her occupation, skills (including language skills on an optional basis), preferences about service, along with his or her name, address, phone number, and e-mail address. Enrollees of the Civilian Reserves would record their preference for local, national, or international service. The Civilian Reserves would adhere to the highest standards of privacy protection.


Renewable commitment every five years. Individuals who volunteered for the Civilian Reserves would make a five-year commitment. At the end of that period, they could choose whether or not to renew and in the process update the listings of their skills and preferences.


Challenging all Americans over age 18 to make themselves available for service. The Civilian Reserves would be open to all Americans, men and women, over age 18.


Using modern technology, not old-fashioned bureaucracy. The Civilian Reserves program would use the latest technology and would not require a large government program or numerous civil servants."
http://clark04.com/issues/serviceplan/

[Clarkie1]

12. Thanks for posting that about Clark's idea for a "civilian reserves"

I do remember reading about the idea during the campaign, but had forgotten the details.

Wouldn't it be great if with the right leadership we could change the the expectations and values most people have in this country from selfish materialism to an expectation of patriotic, selfless service to one's community, country, and the world?

[autorank]

9. Here's what I think (and I hope Clark runs)

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Hillary (don't change your registration, but don't show up)
Two Johns (thanks for all your effort, but you're not big-game guys, bye bye)
Clinton, Carville, Begala, Brazile, Shrum, & other insiders(go away, pal around with the Bush syndicate, join the Carlyle Board, but don't try that "professional campaign," DLC, "third way" crap again...this will be a party of the people...horizontal, not vertical support).

I'm so tired of the Democratic "in crowd" -- let two presidential elections get stolen (although Gore tried, everyone else sat it out); lost and continued to lose Congress; blew huge opportunities in Clinton's second term...go away...go away...take corporate jobs like Kerry's campaign staff did)

[Lena inRI]

11. Oh man, do I agree with you on. . .

"I'm so tired of the Democratic "in crowd". . .and I'm hoping and praying Wes Clark will be the breath of fresh air to save us all from toxic suffocation!

[paineinthearse]

7. Clark has a PAC

http://www.wespac2004.com/#home

[Clarkie1]

13. That's the old site; the new site is in beta-testing at present.

It is securingamerica.com, but isn't quite ready to go public yet.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Well you won't hear the Corporate Media Presstitutes Discuss Clark,

that's for sure. Heard that MTP had a nice long discussion on potential presidential candidates today, and Oops...forgot to mention Wes Clark AGAIN.

Wonder why a Democratic retired 4 star General who did quite well during the primaries (based on the circumstances), especially in the southwest and got out quite gracefully and currently states that he's not ruling anything out didn't even get a mention?

Could it be that Wes Clark will not being pushed in our faces by the Corporate Media Whores? Now, Why could that be?

Why would the strongest on National Security Democrat who ran in 2004 not be mentioned AT ALL, when our last election was all about National Security....and apart from the SS discussion, everything else political centers around foreign policy and national security?

Makes me just want to say.....MMMmmmm,

or I'll say WTF? Are we being led astray, AGAIN?

The media is truly elementary, and hopes that it's viewers are too.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. I think

probably because of his military experience and expertise and how he is very against the Iraq occupation and is very clear about it (he seems to know how to handle the media). I haven't seen him on many tv shows except "Hardball" every once in a while and even then he only has a few minutes (if that) to say anything. I saw him on at least twice and he was on with some republican general (you could tell from what he was saying) and Mr. Clark only got a few words and completley ignored other wise. :( I remember reading somewhere that the republicans feared him the most and on an another board I used to go on someone who's a republican told me they already began attacking him very early in the primaries. They are very afraid of him I think.

[Dinger]

26. Rock On Frenchie!

My favorite part of yourpost:

"Why would the strongest on National Security Democrat who ran in 2004 not be mentioned AT ALL, when our last election was all about National Security....and apart from the SS discussion, everything else political centers around foreign policy and national security? "

[AP]

29. Then again, how many potential candidates have not one but TWO TV series..

...in development which are explicitly or loosely based on their lives?

No candidate was ever hurt by not having their name mentioned by the MSM as a potential candidate 45 months before the election. But those MSM TV shows won't hurt one bit.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Could you give us more detailed information on those?

You seem to have more information than I do, and I would be curious to know more. Please no unsubstantiated rumors, only accurate information.

[AP]

31. Wes Clark Jr posted here that he sold a pilot that is losely based on

his own life (moving around, son of a general, etc.). In that post, he said it was not the same project as the one that was being developed that was more explicitly about his father. So, by my count, that's two TV shows in development that are explicitly or implicitly connected to Wes Clark.

Not bad.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. The second show (not Wes Jr's)

Is no longer being considered. It was apparently never in more than a very early exploratory stage of development.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. This is what Wes Jr. said about his pilot

in response to a column by Joel Stein claiming that it was based on his own family and that it had a character based on General Clark.

WesClarkJr (29 posts) Sun Jan-16-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

50. The Series


I sold a pilot to the WB about growing up as an army brat. It's a drama, set in the present day. No, it isn't about my family. No, it isn't about my father. Yes, I found the article snarky, but what do you expect? Joel Stein is a prick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x4233#4304

Apparently the other project you are referring to is not in the works, and was probably always more hype by the corporate media than anything else.

Nice try though.

[AP]

55. We'll see what WB does with Wes Jr's show...

...and, as for the second show, was I wrong about that? It was in the works, no?

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Well, Wes Jr. was very clear about

what his show is and isn't about. Not having a time machine, I have no idea whether or how it will actually materialize. As for the other thing, I honestly have no idea. The mainstream corporate media isn't exactly a good source for accurate information these days. It is a big mill for rumors and wild speculations. If you can give me anything more concrete than that, I'm all ears.

[HootieMcBoob]

52. Clark has won every grassroots online poll

on DU and on every blog I've seen in that last few months that has bothered to ask the question.

Clark is the favorite candidate of the grassroots.

The right wing corporate media will not even mention him as a potential candidate because he's not of the Democratic Party elite.

You can tell that Biden wants to run because he's now kissing Republican ass and distancing himself from Democrats and Democratic grassroots values. He was on Hannity today kissing Republican ass.

When Clark is on a right-wing show he does not kiss Republican ass. He rips Republicans new assholes! And the right-wing coporate media whores don't know how to deal with that.

They can't deal with a Democrat who is extremely strong on national security who promotes progressive values in common sense languate and who calls Republicans out for the radical dangers to our democracy that they are.

If we are smart and want to win - Wes Clark will be our candidate in 2008.

If we want more of the same then we can put retreads on Gore or Kerry or some other politician who resembles a local TV anchorman.

[JNelson6563]

17. Hope springs eternal

for some.

I think we will know more by Clark's action or lack of over the next year or two. Surely he wouldn't be so arrogant as to simply feather his nest for a few years and then show up thinking he deserves to run for the highest office in the land. If he is thinking of another run I think it would've been smart of him to run for something else in between, just for the sake of having been elected to something. Anything.


In wait and see mode....
Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. "Al Gore joins Apple's board"

Whether or not Clark needs to run for some lower office before running for the Presidency is another issue. I am commenting here on whether or not it is fair to characterize Clark's or anyone else's "non-elected" career activities as "feathering his own nest"

Why is that phrase only used around here when referring to Wesley Clark? Last time that I looked all of our elected Senators and Governors make a hell of a lot more money than I do in the "for profit" sector. Plus they have a great benefits package. I have none. I have worked for non profits in the past, but I do not now. Does that mean that my attempt now to make a living is called "feathering my own nest"?

I happen to respect Al Gore a great deal. He served his country honorably for years, for which he was paid more than I have ever made. And yes he was elected to be a Senator and later Vice President. Again, whether or not a former N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander needs to prove himself by first running "for something" first is a valid topic for discussion, but the fact that Clark served his nation for almost 40 years is public record. Now Clark writes books, makes speaking engagements, sits on a couple of boards, participates in think tanks on matters of public policy, and donates large amounts of his time consulting with Democratic Party leaders and officials, campaigning for and raising money for Democrats, and representing our Party in the media. And the 2004 campaign just ended.

Al Gore disappeared from the public for a good stretch of time after the stolen 2000 Election and I can't say I blame him. It took him about two years before his voice again began being heard from forcefully as a Democratic spokesman, three years before he became a leading spokesman again. Al Gore and Wes Clark both devoted their lives to serving the American people. NO one should make a peep about either one of them "feathering their own nests".


Al Gore joins Apple's board
Published: March 19, 2003, 1:38 PM PST
By Ian Fried
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

"Al brings an incredible wealth of knowledge and wisdom to Apple from having helped run the largest organization in the world--the United States government," Jobs said. "Al is going to be a terrific director, and we're excited and honored that he has chosen Apple as his first private sector board to serve on."

In a statement, Gore praised Jobs for rebuilding Apple.

"Steve and his team have done an incredible job in making Apple once again the very best in the world," Gore said. "I have been particularly impressed with the new Mac OS X operating system and the company's commitment to the open-source movement. And I am especially looking forward to working with and learning from the great board members who have guided this legendary company's inspiring resurgence."

Since losing his bid to become president, Gore has been a senior adviser to Google. He also is a visiting professor at the University of California, Los Angeles; Fisk University; and Middle Tennessee State University."

http://news.com.com/2100-1042-993332.html?tag=fd_top

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Typically "Senior Advisors" to and Board members of Corporations

are rewarded with stock options and generous opportunities to buy into Initial Public Offerings (IPO's) at bedrock prices. Apple has been doing well and Google just had the most successful IPO Wall Street had seen in years. Big instant profits. I know because I have a client who sits on Corporate Boards and had tens of thousands of Google's IPO shares. He was a very happy camper. He made a few million off of his Google shares.

[JNelson6563]

62. Al Gore's been elected to office

he's been a public servant and proven he can win elections. Plus he spoke out more boldly than anyone during the fascist's first term. Surprised to see you of all people Tom doing the apples and oranges thing.

Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

70. I don't believe Tom was comparing the two

in the areas of having held elective office. In fact, I believe he explicitly noted that Gore has held elected offices and Clark hasn't. Clark was a public servant, just not an elected one. I believe that Tom was comparing making money by sitting on a corporate board with making money by sitting on a corporate board.

Sounds like apples and apples to me, apart from the fact that Al Gore doesn't really need the money cause he's already loaded, and Clark does need to earn money because he's spent his life at a pretty modest and limited income level, and wasn't born into a wealthy family.:shrug:

By the way, what all did Al Gore do as far as campaigning for the Kerry/Edwards ticket and Democratic congressional candidates? Honest question since I really wasn't keeping track of his activities during the campaign.

[BootinUp]

73. What amazes me

is after Tom landed a direct hit, the way you tried to change the subject. LOL.

Do any other DU'ers care though? I see you get away with this all the time, and few respond and hold you to account.

[janx]

74. Am I missing something?

:shrug: What does Julie's post have to do with Al Gore?

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Her post seemed to imply that making money in the private sector

is the equivalent of "feathering ones own nest", even though it is public record that men like Clark and Gore are also doing unpaid political work on the behalf of the Democratic Party and various issues of public concern. Further her comment was made in the context of activities that should weigh against someone being worthy of receiving support as a potential Presidential candidate. Correct me if I am wrong but that was my read. And if it was my read, than likely it was other's also.

My post questioned those conclusions and noted that the accusation of "feathering ones own nest" when made on DU seems to be exclusively applied to Wesley Clark's activities, which is at best inconsistent and at worst disingenuous. Many here are promoting Al Gore for President in 2008 yet none accuse him of "feathering his own nest" with paid corporate connections.

I went to great pains in my original post to do two things. One is I clearly separated out the two issues that Julie raised in her first post; one concerning having been elected to public office before, and the other currently making money in the private sector. I acknowledged that Gore has held high elective offices, and I acknowledged that the fact that Clark hasn't is a valid topic for discussion. But I strongly believe that no one can deny that both men have devoted long lives to public service and should be equated in that regard. In that specific regard, as Chrunchy noted above, it is apples to apples.

The second point that I clearly made is that I greatly respect Gore (and obviously Clark also), and that I see absolutely no reason why Gore's current corporate activities should be held against him. No one is attacking Gore in that regard as far as I know and I'm certainly not doing so, but Clark does get attacked in that regard, and it seems to be a matter of selective targeted concern regarding Clark, with a free pass to anyone else. I thought that point was well illustrated by noting Gore's activities in this context.

[janx]

77. I dunno, Tom--

We could speculate for a year or two about all of the people who might possibly, conceivably, in our imaginations or otherwise, run for president. We could then find that almost all of them have worked in "the private sector." I just wondered why Gore's name came up. A lot of people would like him to run for president, but at this point it's just wishful thinking. (It's wishful thinking to speculate that anyone is running for president now, actually--including Clark.) That's OK, but it's all fun-and-games conjecture, essentially.

One thing I'd like to point out is the weariness I have of the use of the words "attack" and Clark being used in the same sentence over and over. I mean this respectfully, but I'm getting tired of any disagreement with anything Clark has done being contrued as an "attack." People have different opinions. They don't always agree. This does not, however, constitute an "attack."

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. There is truth in what you say Janx

I don't think all disagreements are attacks, and I hope it shows that I don't take them all that way either. And I would welcome anyone to correct me if I am wrong on this next part, but I do note a pattern of certain types of concerns being raised specifically about Clark and Clark supporters that could equally well be raised about other candidates and their supporters, but aren't. I think that contributes to the unfortunate atmosphere that you are referring to.

Some examples, besides the "feathering ones own nest" one which has more than adequately been discussed by now: An obvious one is "hero worshiping". I never see that phrase applied to the backers of any other candidates. It used to be tagged on Dean supporters also, but hasn't been for a long time. It isn't applied to Kucinich supporters. It isn't applied to Kerry supporters. It isn't applied to Edwards supporters. And there are very passionate devoted followers of all of those men who post quite frequently about all of them here on DU. Another issue is the "premature to talk about 2008" retort which seldom gets mentioned off of Clark threads but almost always does on Clark threads. Clark supporters are frequently tagged as being obsessed with 2008 while supporters of others are simply exploring the advantages their man or woman has to offer the Democrats in 2008.

Finally there have been accusations, less frequent of late, that Clark supporters are somehow manipulating DU by trying to keep their man visible here by starting threads on him. Never mind the fact that most of the threads in question (most equals more than half, some threads are started by Clark supporters, sure) are either not started by Clark supporters or not specifically devoted to him.

This thread is a great example of that. Not started by a real Clark supporter, just an honest question for discussion being raised. The does Clark have any flaws thread was started by someone who has increasingly been drawn to Clark and wanted to do a reality check with other DUer's over whether or not she was missing some problem with Clark. There have been a few of threads started in the last few weeks by people who ask something like, "I don't really understand all this interest in Clark, what is is about?" Clarkies aren't starting them either. Previously Clark supporters were accused of trying to dominate DU when there was a rash of "Who do you support for 2008" threads. Every time Clark ended up winning it became a donny brook and we got blamed for that too.

All of the above contributed to a siege mentality. and hopefully that can be behind us all soon.

[janx]

88. I'll be candid.

It *is* premature to spend so much time on the 2008 race. It really is. I've said it in all kinds of threads, and so have others.

Even talking about "supporters" now is a bit silly, since no one is running. It seems to me that it would be much more practical and realistic to talk about what is happening in local/state races, because if the Dems don't get that squared away for 2006, there is little or no chance that any Dem will be elected in 2008.

It's commonly referred to as "team spirit," if I'm not mistaken.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. And I'll be candid back

It is too early for anyone to run for the Presidency in 2008. It is not too early for early efforts at laying the groundwork for the possibility of a successful run. That is just the way it works in politics. Some things in life require earlier planning than other things. A potential world class vocalist can begin training as an adult. A potential world class gymnast better get started by 7 at the outside.

Running for President is a full time activity. Laying the groundwork for a possible run is a part time activity. Supporting Wesley Clark is not my only political activity. At some point perhaps it will dominate my time and life more fully. That might be the case in November of 2007 perhaps.

I have team spirit. I threw myself into the effort to get John Kerry and John Edwards elected. I am working for Democrats at the local level. I put real time into the voter fraud issue. I made efforts to help Dean win the DNC Chair also. You may note that I am not going around here knocking other Democrats either. I just took a pass on knocking Clinton in another thread as a matter of fact which seemingly pitted Clark and her against each other.

But it is not to early for people to support a possible candidate for 2008 if they are not being overly divisive about it. Not if you have already given it a great deal of thought. Leading Democratic politicians like Kerry and Edwards are already talking to mainstream power brokers, operatives, and money men, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. Why is it that the grass roots should just sit back and let the professionals lay out the game board for us and just present us with our options three years from now after they have already worked it all out, as they seemingly tried to do for Kerry last time? That makes no sense to me.

[Crunchy Frog]

82. What I don't understand is,

why get ruffled by Tom's post, but not by Julie's, even though it was Julie who brought up the issue in the first place, by criticizing Clark for "feathering his nest", and Tom was merely responding.

I found Tom's response to be a perfectly reasonable analogy to a situation that Julie apparently does not have a problem with.

Since Tom is well known as a promoter and defender of Clark, while Julie claims disinterest in him, I would have expected you to be more mystified by Julie's post in this thread than by Tom's.

You're probably right that speculation on presidential candidacies is just wishful thinking at this point, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from doing it. I don't know why one particular group should be singled out for criticism for it.

Also, many people with a favored political figure, or potential candidate seem to be rather touchy over even mild criticism of that person. People tend not to see that touchiness amongst people in their own groups, but it's there nevertheless. I routinely see people here regarding any criticism of their favored political figure as an attack. Clark, however, is the only one that I've seen who is routinely referred to as a "war criminal", "stealth Republican", "PNACer" and other epithets that can genuinely be described as attacks rather than simple criticisms. Clark also seems, by many, to be held to different sets of standards than other political figures. Hence, Tom's post which you were originally questioning.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. Delete. Posted in wrong place.

[janx]

87. I wasn't ruffled, just curious. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

89. Well, I hope you got some of the answers

you were looking for.

[Lena inRI]

22. Nay, being elected for something is . . .

not a prerequisite for President anymore than it was for Eisenhower,
in fact, being an outsider of politics is favorable to many people like me who see that as less impediment toward Clark having fresh ideas on solving the mess we're drowning in. :thumbsup:

[JNelson6563]

63. Governor's are "outsiders"

and no offense to Clark (who I basically like) but he is no Eisenhower. Sorry.

Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

71. I agree he's no Eisenhower.

Clark is far more progressive than Eisenhower ever was.

[Lena inRI]

83. Touche Crunchy. . .

and as for your disingenuous "sorry", Julie, please spare me the condescension. . .

All you have revealed to me is your concern that Clark will be an awesome contender for president while your favorite pales in comparison.

[robbedvoter]

86. You mean, like W? or Arnold? What exactly is an outsider in your world?

As for the comparison, since you declare you do like Clark, I understand you have problems with Eisenhower. Me too.

[Dinger]

28. Since Clark Is Far From Arrogant, That Won't Be A Problem

:)

[JNelson6563]

64. If only his followers shared his humility.

:-)

[Crunchy Frog]

68. I could say that about the followers of some other

politicians as well.:)

[returnable]

32. So you think Clark should run...

...for some other political office within the next year or two even though if elected he obviously wouldn't be able to fulfill his term committment should he decide to actually run for President in 2008.

Seems kinda silly to me. And not a particularly wise strategy, as it would just invite more charges of "opportunism" from the anti-Clark peanut gallery.

I certainly think Clark should keep a high profile over the next few years and pick some wise fights with the administration if he hopes to make another run.

But I don't think he needs to do it from the position of elected office.

[JNelson6563]

65. He's missed that boat, unfortunately

but, as you say, he would be wise to take a high profile position over the next few years. Whether he does or doesn't should tell us a lot.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. I would say instead that he took a different boat, but we agree

on the basic point. If Wesley Clark does not remain active promoting and defending the publics interests, and the Democratic Party, in a number of ways over the next few years, then he will not be a viable Presidential candidate, nor should he be in my opinion. And if he is not able to find ways to do so in a way that provides him with a sufficiently high public profile, he is unlikely to win enough public support to become our nominee.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. Been there, done that...

Not elected, but head-of-state level office. That's "state" as in "nation-state," not one of the 50. Altho he had many of the same responsibilities as any governor, only more so. You know, fighting a war, negotiating with world leaders, that sort of thing.

The offices Clark has held more than qualify him for "the highest office in the land" and no arrogance about it. Whether he has learned to campaign or not is another question. But it's one to which the answer will become more than clear before the primaries. He needs no other proof.

As for "feathering his nest," Clark has probably done as much, if not more, public service since Nov 3rd alone than most other potential candidates you can name. Since most of the others have spent more time campaigning for themselves than doing any real work.

[JNelson6563]

67. Care to expound?

How about you post this impressive list of public services he's performed since Nov 3rd alone? I hate to be skeptical but I am certain if he'd been that active people trying to keep his name visible here on DU wouldn't have had to resort to some of the lame tactics they have.....


Julie

[Crunchy Frog]

72. What lame tactics? You mean like

spamming threads about him with controversial posts in order to make sure they stay kicked to the top...?

I'm still trying to get over the lame tactic of Dean supporters starting Clark crushie threads...:D

I sure sometimes wonder why you don't pour more of your scorn on supporters of other potential candidates when they start threads about their favorites. It seems to be reserved for Clark supporters. A bit of a fixation it looks like to me.:shrug:

FYI, this thread was not started by a Clark supporter.

[Clark2008]

57. Why?

Julie, Julie, Julie - Clark-malcontent extrodinaire.

Most people I talk with say it would be refreshing to see a candidate with some real leadership skills, some military and business background and some working knowledge of what it's like to live on poverty wages run for office - WHETHER OR NOT HE'S EVER BEEN ELECTED TO OFFICE.

People honestly don't care about this - only Clark-naysayers on this board and others.

[JNelson6563]

66. Why should Clark prove he cares?

Gee I dunno, you tell me.

Nice try in labeling me a "Clark malcontent". I don't have a problem with Clark, actually. Some of his slavishly devoted followers? Another story.

Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. It can be considered both a weakness and strength for Clark

The fact that he hasn't been elected to a public office. To some extent they counter balance each other. I would say on whole it plays out as a slight weakness, because most people don't find the time in their lives or have the interest to throughly research the values and ideals fully of possible candidates. Knowing that someone has been elected and isn't hated by the people who elected her or him works as a default screening mechanism for many.

On the other hand people are sick and tired of most "professional politicians" and that works in favor of those who seem to break that mold. The ideal candidate lately it seems is someone like Schwarzenegger (were he an American citizen). Someone free of the whiff of being a politician, who then gets elected to a high profile position and immediately begins setting their sights on the Presidency before people have time to get tired of them being in office. If Jessie Ventura were overall a bit more conventional person in a major Party, he would have fit that bill also.

I have spent a lot of time studying Clark and I feel comfortable in his sense of being a public servant. I know he has executive skills. I know he has the ability to work with diverse and powerful people. I know he is a proven leader. I know he cares about the people for whom he has a responsibility in the roles that he has held. He has proven himself in supporting women, minorities, in caring about the environment, and so much more. So I don't need to see him elected Governor of Arkansas before I can feel comfortable with him.

I am confused about your phrase, "Why should Clark prove he cares?". Has anyone argued that Clark doesn't need to prove he cares? Cares about what? The poster you were responding to said that most potential voters don't care whether Clark has held elected office. Are you suggesting that if Clark does not run for Governor of Arkansas or some such post that he is thereby showing that he doesn't care about the need for being a public servant? Are you suggesting that it would be intrinsically arrogant for Clark to run for President without seeking a lower office first?

[sybil]

58. Clark ran NATO

He belongs on the world stage. He's better equipped to run this country than anyone who's given it a try since Bill Clinton.

Running for a congressional or governor's seat simply is not necessary.

[JNelson6563]

61. Yep, that's the arrogance I meant

Was Clark elected by the populace to run NATO? Nope. To be a public servant I should hope he doesn't hold the same view as you. Key word servant. He is stil untried as a candidate.

Unless you count the primaries.

Julie

[sybil]

92. Oh indeed...

...and one could ask, how does being duly-elected governor of a state smaller than some large American cities equip your man Dean to chair the DNC which represents enormous and diverse factions of this country?

And yet, I have confidence that by his very tenacity, Dean will perform well as DNC chair.

It was Clark's *success* as SACEUR and his sheer genius at foreign policy and international relations that proves him qualified to sit as President at this point in history.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it Julie.

[gcole]

18. Spoke to Clark two weeks ago in Dallas

At a dem fundraiser two weeks ago in Dallas, my wife, who had a position on the Clark Texas team last year spoke briefly to General Clark expressing what a pleasure it had been to work on the campaign and how she would love to do it again. Clark's response: "Good, 'cause I'm going to need you."

[Lena inRI]

20. Thanks for the tidbit of news, gcole . .

his words were music to our ears! :toast:

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Dinger]

27. Thanks For The Day Brightener gcole!

:loveya:

[Clarkie1]

44. Thanks for brightening my day!

:toast:

[Mark E. Smith]

19. He's Certainly Done The Groundwork

His fundraising and campaigning for Democrats last Fall was impressive.

[Leilani]

25. It certainly was impressive

And he is continuing his efforts, traveling, raising money for Dems, & participating in TV appearances to advance the Dem message.

And, unlike other potential candidates, his work is not limited to domestic issues. He has participated in international meetings, & will be working on the UN commission.

[Silverhair]

23. He is running.

He is doing the rubber chicken circuit. At this point he has be noncommittal.

Clark would be wonderful for the country and the party. A true breath of fresh air.

BTW - In the primaries I often posted that I was for Clark then.

PLEASE - No more congress critters for our candidates.

[Padraig18]

34. It's like reading pigeon entrails.

The truth of it is, no one here at DU knows. I'm sure he's keeping his options open, like any intelligent and ambitious person would and should.

[nickshepDEM]

35. He should run for Governor of Arkansa. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

36. No, he shouldn't. n/t

[nickshepDEM]

37. Yes, he really should.

Get some domestic experience, win an election, and then think about running at the national level.

[ZootSuitGringo]

39. Who ran at a national level and won an election that you are supporting?

Read my other post, a bit above.

All potential candidates who are governors, former governors, senators, former senators, and congresspeople should try to become Supreme Commander of something. Once they have some expertise in the security area, I'll vote for them. Until then, they need more experience at what apears to be the issue that beat us at the poll: National Security.

[nickshepDEM]

41. What Im saying is...

Win an election statewide, prove you are electable, get some domestic experience, and then try your chances at running for President. Before we go any further let me say I like General Wesley Clark. But I think it would look better if he had some type of elective office on his resume before he makes another run at the presidency.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Sure. Clark as Former N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander AND

former United States Senator or State Governor would be an even more impressive resume than Clark as former N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander only. Nothing there to argue about, because if that were true, then no one could keep throwing the fact that Clark hasn't held those positions before in his face. But Clark doesn't need the experience. He's had the job responsibilities that deeply prepare someone for the office of the Presidency. More so than all but a handful of Senators and Governors at most. And Clark now has experience as a politician also, operating at the highest levels of "the game".

If Clark runs in 2008 Democratic voters will either embrace him or they won't, and that will be that, but I happen to think that they will. Regardless, lack of qualifications is not a weakness Clark has.

What if one reversed it? Wouldn't it be true that John Edwards or Governor Warner etc. etc. would be stronger candidates too if they had successfully led N.A.T.O to victory in it's first and only war? Obviously they would be stronger candidates if that also were on their resumes, but it isn't. There are say 25 current and ex Democratic Governors, and 55 current and ex Democratic Senators who theoretically could decide to run for President. Besides Wesley Clark, how many current or ex Democratic 4 Star Generals, let alone Democratic former N.A.T.O Commanders, let alone Democratic N.A.T.O. Commanders who actually won a war are there who could decide to run for President? Which credential is rarer, or ultimately more important? I say let the voters decide.

Clark is 60 years old. He would not cynically run for Governor in 2006 only to turn around and start running for President 6 months later. Realistically speaking, it is one or the other. If Clark doesn't run for President in 2008 all of us I am sure agree that we hope that office isn't available to another Democrat until 2016, when Clark will be 68. Reagan was the only older President, by a single year, and I think the public is sufficiently spooked now, after Reagan ended up with Alzheimer's Disease, that they won't be electing many more Presidents to begin their first term of office at that age anymore.

I will not back away from supporting who I believe is the best man for President just because some people think it would be better if he jumped through some other hoop first, one that I think is redundant anyway, and which in all likelihood would prevent Clark from ever serving our nation as President. I think that would be a loss to America.

[nickshepDEM]

51. Thanks for that info. You make some good points.

Im not trying to bash Clark by saying he should run for governor. To be honest I have not ruled out supporting him in the primary if he decides to run. But I think it would boost his chances of winning the primary and general election if he had some type of elective office under his belt. Although it would probably be impossible to run in 2008 if he were to become Governor in 2006.

[ZootSuitGringo]

38. Why?

So that he can use his National Security expertise to protect Arkansas? or so that his foreign policy experience can allow him to negotiate canadian drug prices for Arkansas? Or would it be to prove he can govern a state almost as small as the organization he ran as Supreme Allied Commander of Nato? or would it be so that he could be known as most decorated Officer since Eisenhower, leader of the last won U.S. War, and leader of the Free world state of Arkansas?

Since part of what will win the next election is showing that you can keep America secure, I think that all potential candidates senators and governors should try to become Supreme Allied Commander of something or become experts in national security. If they don't, I'm not voting for them.

[nickshepDEM]

40. So, by your standards...

General James L. Jones is just as capable of running for presidnet as General Clark? I mean, he is the SACEUR afterall.

[ZootSuitGringo]

45. If he wanted to run, he should certainly be able to.

and I am sure that the Republican party would welcome him with open arms.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is evident from your post when it comes to the politics of winning.

Why would Democrats limit who can run for president to senators, governors and congresspeople, while Republicans have no such requirement? Hell, Republicans would be willing to run someone who wasn't even born in the United States, and their history shows that they got 8 years via running Eisenhower twice. Why are we so myopic, limited and just plain damn stupid?

Poor Democrats, paranoid and cautious to play it safe and end up nominating a candidate who after 20 years in the senate still ends up losing nationally (running against the worst president in history) the most important election in our lifetime.

I don't understand how winning a state election means that nationally you will do well. it actually doesn't.

National = 50 states
while
Statewide = 1 state
hell
Congresspeople= 1 district

You are singing a limiting meme out of fear to win. But in life, those who risk the least, lose the most. Republicans love Democrats like you. I wouldn't be surprised if you support some "safe ass take not stand mealy mouth "look I'm kinda of neutral so vote for me" politician like Warner or Bayh. They seem sooooo safe, just like Kerry did to so many until after he lost the elections.

How can we ask our Democratic leaders to find their set of balls, when we can't even find our own?

[nickshepDEM]

46. I agree w/ some of what your saying.

But, being elected to a lower office can help to build a solid domestic record to run off of. Granted Kerry's record wasnt very impressive, but that doesnt mean Clark couldnt build a great record as Governor of Arkansas and use that on top of his great national security and defense record to make a run for the presidency.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Sorry, but I don't think you get it nickshepDEM

Clark is someone that none of the GOP powers-that-be wanted rising from our ranks....a great telegenic leader who can kick ass on National Security (the GOP calling card that they aren't letting go of), is more concerned about all Americans than a party affiliation, can clearly explain Democratic principles to GOP's own rank and file, has a ready-made reservoir of respect that he earned from world leaders, and actually rides horses.

The RNC and their media were and are betting against Dems picking Clark, as they take for granted that Democrats are not that smart about winning. They bet we would be afraid to put up a real intellectual fighter that also happened to be a great big time military strategist. They think that they have the Democrats pegged down tight, exactly in the box they want them in. That Democrats would never do such a thing as unexpected as nominating a General...cause it seemed so obvious. To a great extent, this is true.

But the GOP also understood that they was always a chance that Clark might rise with support within the Democratic party and possibly end up as the nominee...which is why they threw everything at him during the Democratic Primaries. They realized that it would be too late if he ever made it to the general election. They ambushed him in the primaries by having the left do their dirty work for them. It almost worked, although Clark got impressive traction "in spite of all of that".

The repugs are already counting on us to nominate a 1992 soft spoken "moderate" (read Republican lite) Southern governor type (although this is the post 9/11 era)with "nada" national security experience, or another senator. They count on the Left's talking out one side of their mouth about "inclusion, acceptance, open minds and tolerance", while many Dems all the while claim that Clark isn't "pure enough" or "experienced enough". But these same Dem folks would support candidates that have voted for this war, the confirmation of Gonzales and Rice, and some even liked the idea of a Kerry/McCain ticket, or support a candidate with no chance in hell of ever beating a Republican in the "real"(i.e., the one that counts) general election.

Clark as our President would be able to easily rationalize cutting the pork out of the defense budget so that we would have money to fund Democratic programs.

Who needs a politician when we can have a "real" leader, with balls, no less?

Ask Kevin Drumm, Josh Marshall, Barcop, Mediawhores.com (I'm sad that they are gone) and many others what a threat Clark represented to the Republicans. Then ask yourselves, why didn't we run him. You'll find that as Democrats, many of us are not always the smartest bulb in the room when it comes to the politics of winning.

[janx]

80. Balls again.

We already tried the military balls thing (to my dismay). It didn't work. "Our military guys are better than your military guys" is a stupid way to run an election.

[BootinUp]

91. There's some big differences you overlook

Without going through all of Clark's medals and awards from foreign nations, lets just get right to the guts of it. Clark wasn't a war protester in the 70's. Whether we Dems admire Kerry for it or not, it was controversy we didn't need. Then there was Kerry's confusing statements on Iraq. While no candidate will be perfect, lets be honest about the strengths and weaknesses of them.

[janx]

93. I can't disagree with you about that.

But I still think that the military aspect has been overblown. It's not the only solution.

[FrenchieCat]

94. I wasn't talking about miltary balls,

Although Clark's are gigantic, to the point that I doubt anyone would even try to compete on that one.

However I am talking about courage. The kind of courage that Kerry had 30+ years ago, and the kind that allows Clark to discuss PNAC on national television and advises Simon Hersch and Richard Clarke to do what they must and expose the Bushasshole without worrying so much about "self".

[janx]

79. Balls. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

42. That would effectively preclude him from

running for president, since he would be taking office around the time he would need to get a presidential campaign in gear, and in subsequent elections, he will probably be getting too old.

I'm sure he would make a fine governor, but his set of skills is really more appropriate to the world stage, rather than the level of the state. Even if he doesn't run for president, his skills are probably of greater use elsewhere than in the Governor's mansion.

Now, if you want him out of the way for someone else, and you feel that he would be a formidable competitor with that other person for the nomination, then I could see your wanting him to run for Governor.

[Auntie Bush]

43. WHY? To get him out of the way for your candidate to run?

[nickshepDEM]

47. I dont have a candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Please read my post #49 above

Your instinct isn't off base in the abstract. I mean sure, it would certainly not hurt Clark if he could also say he had been a Senator or such on top of everything else. But instead Clark achieved very significant experiences elsewhere. He is more than up to the job of President.

[sybil]

59. YES! he doesn't have a congressional record ,by golly!

And in my eyes that's points in his favor!

[sybil]

60. Pub. Serv. Announcement! Clark - live on c-span tomorrow

Livecast from Library of Congress:

Gen. Wesley Clark and Sadako Ogata To Discuss Refugee Crises of the 1990s on March 8

Gen.Wesley Clark; Sadako Ogata, former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and Dana Priest, who covers the intelligence community for The Washington Post, will discuss the refugee crises of the 1990s at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8, at the Library of Congress in the Mumford Room, sixth floor of the James Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. The event, which is sponsored by the Library's John W. Kluge Center, is free and open to the public; no reservations are required.<snip


http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2005/05-007.html

snip> Retired four-star general Wesley Clark, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, competed as a Democratic candidate for president in 2004. He retired from the military in 2000, following his service as Supreme Allied Commander-Europe, U.S. European Command, from 1997 to 2003. In 1999 he led U.S. and allied troops in NATO’s war in Kosovo, the largest European conflict since World War II. The grandson of a Russian Jew who fled his country to escape the pogroms there a century ago, Clark is said to have been especially sympathetic to the plight of refugees who were victims of Serbian ethnic purges during that conflict.<snip

[janx]

75. No. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

85. There is definitely evidence

that he is strongly considering another run. It's impossible to say for certain that he will or won't at this point however.