Reply #49: You are either over reaching or you are being foolish

[Tom Rinaldo]

I accept that Clark not having previously won an elected office is a valid argument to use against him. I think it goes without saying that had he gotten himself elected to a single term some place it would have put this line of attack against him to rest, and that would have been an advantage. And it would give people some more data points to evaluate him from.

But when you make this comment:

"But I just cant take him serious as a presidential candidate when he has yet to prove he can win an election."

Are you saying that you would not have taken Ike seriously, or Colin Powell? By a similar standard one could say that U.S. Senate Seats and Governorships should not go to people who have never held public office before either. Why not expect them to run for City Council, or County Legislature, or State Assembly or Mayor, or Congress first?

Ronald Reagan was a rookie when he became Governor of California which had, what was it, the 8th largest economy in the world? He won, didn't he? John Edwards made it to the United States Senate without any prior record in government. So did Jon Corzine. Jesse Ventura and Mark Warner were elected as Governors without ever having held prior political office, and the list goes on and on and on.

And I will argue with great passion that Wes Clark has far greater experience in ways that are relevant to the position of President that he might again seek than any of the other Senators and Governors that I list above had for the positions that they ran for and won as political rookies.

Nick, like I say, Clark not having won an office before can be honestly argued as a liability, but I have (or had maybe) too much respect to accept, coming from you, the type rhetoric you throw out here. You know damn well Wesley Clark is a serious presidential candidate.