FWIW: View from across the pond: Clark's the man.

[rjbcar27]

I spent most of the last 5 years living in the US, I was up all night watching selection 2000, I spent 48 hours numb and scared after 9/11, I know a little bit about America and American politics and I can see only one man now that can beat Bush: Wesley Clark.

And even Clark is going to find it tough I believe.

I like most of the candidates, but Clark is the only one I believe who has a chance of unseating the Bush cabal. He's got charisma, he's got a glittering service record and he seems to have quite a following.

Clark/Dean? I think that would be the ticket.

[RandomUser]

1. Thanks for the perspective

Is this a common view in Europe? I'm assuming Clark is more well known in Europe than the other candidates are, and well respected as well. And that will definitely help mend relations, I hope.

[rjbcar27]

2. Not sure that's the common view over here but

the rest of the world knows that a regime change in Washington is the only way to begin to repair the damage done by Bush.

We're expecting 100,000 - 150,000 people from all across Europe to protest Bush in London. No-one respects Bush. He had the golden opportunity after 9/11 to really make a difference with the massive outpouring of grief and feeling of solidarity, but rather than harness this feeling he's let it turn into something polar opposite.

I believe Clark would make a great president. That's not to say that the other candidates wouldn't, but I think Clark has the best chance of defeating Bush.

[RandomUser]

3. It's good to hear

that there are people outside of America who feel Clark is the best candidate. What we do will affect the rest of the world a lot. If Bush wins reelection, the world will tremble.

[T_i_B]

4. I'm not sure what the common view is from the Brit on the street

...when it comes to the Democrat candidates. I think it's a fair guess that most don't have much clue on what is going on with the Dems. Although I would add that I think that most Brits would agree that regime change in Washington is needed quite urgently.

Personally, I was leaning towards Bob Graham, but sadly he has pulled out of the race. Howard Dean looks great, Kerry seems OK and as for Clark, he has a very impressive CV but I don't really know to much about his policies to have that much of an opinion on the guy.

[RandomUser]

9. Didn't Clark get a lot of press as SACEUR?

I would think his name recognition would be higher in Europe, compared to the other candidates. Clark certainly had personal contacts with many of the heads of state and high ranking politicians in Europe, like NATO Secretary General Solana and so forth. If you read his book, you'll see he has a strong grasp of the interwoven intricacies of the European power structure. He knows all the players.

Clark is probably the only one of the Dem candidates who was given the priviledge and right to contact and negotiate diplomacy with any government anywhere and at any time. It was part of his job as SACEUR.

[T_i_B]

16. I'm not sure that many people have that long memories

Plus I don't think that Clark was as much of a publicity seeker as say Stormin' Norman. I've seen his book in my local library but I haven't got round to taking it out yet.

Where people know about Clark they know about his past record. He is known for being a general and for his leadership in the Balkans. That side is all very impressive. Mind you, I am more interested in what policies he stands for at present as a presidential candidate. He has more name recognition that the others but that's about it.

[ronzo]

18. I'm pleased that we have Britons contributing on DU...

It seems that thanks to the insulation provided by the US media, the bulk of America has no idea to what extent we've pissed off the world. It's incredible.

_{"the rest of the world knows that a regime change in Washington is the only way to begin to repair the damage done by Bush."}

Unfortunately, not enough people know it here at home. We're workin' on it, though.

cheer.

[quinnox]

5. Can someone tell me what

FWIW stands for. I am not hip on all the internet shorthand lingo.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. fwiw = "for what it's worth"

:)

[quinnox]

7. Thanks

Now I see, heh, it's just a meaningless phrase.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. Thanks

I was wondering what it meant, also.

[Starpass]

8. You know what I would love to see from other nations???

I wish the leaders of the major nations (and any others who want to join) issue statements that say that they would love to come together with America and help with the mess in Iraq and with the fighting interionally against terrorists BUT that they find it impossible to work with this administration who alienates, insults and excludes the international community. Then state that they would be very willing to sit down with a new administration if the Americans wish to change administrations and begin a dialogue regarding the future, Iraq the ME and protection of all from terrorism. That should put Bush's kickners in a knot!!!--and put a real bee in the bonnet of the American voters who are getting very uncomfortable with the death toll mounting.

[RandomUser]

10. That would be wonderful!

That would really put the screws on Bush.

But I'm not sure if it will backfire. Rove might paint it as caving to foreign powers.

[tedoll78]

17. Maybe we should be proactive..

and start contacting those government officials. Because of Bush, America-bashing has been pretty popular in the past two years in their countries, so they'd gain paints with the local electorate AND help unseat the major obstacle to world peace.

Anyone know where we can get a list of foreign leaders' email addresses?

[quinnox]

11. AMIE

These can be fun to create.

[CWebster]

12. military credentials

Why are Military leaders viewed as the wisest choice to set policy, being that the military is their frame of reference.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff09192003.html

Perhaps it is a male thing, but the fact that Clark doesn't poll well among women, despite his pleasant appearance, is no mystery to me.

[quinnox]

13. Well, there have been successful military presidents in the past...

Does Washington ring a bell?

[supernova]

15. Former military are fine presidents

emphasis on the "former". And provided they actually fought and thus know the true cost of war in human terms.

Washington was one (he also set the important precedent of resigning his commission before serving as Pres).

Eisenhower was also OK.

JFK - also OK.

Do I believe the military model is the only path to leadership? No. There are other ways. But, of the ones who have served, seems they've been a damn sight better than the chickenhawks.

[JackRiddler]

19. Please, Washington not "military"

General or not, Washington became the military leader of an army that came together on the spot, in a war of independence, before modern standing militaries and military institutions developed.

Washington was a landowner and a politician, okay? The military part came second, as a necessity.

Eisenhower was the tool of the military complex he later denounced.

Jackson, Grant, Wm. Henry Harrison... not a very impressive record.

JFK had been IN the military, like almost every politician in history. That doesn't make him a military man, just a normal citizen.

But all this is irrelevant. My objection to a military careerist as president comes down to this: Clark has spent a lifetime taking orders and giving orders, outside of normal civilian life. He has never held political office. This is not the right qualification for someone who is supposed to deal in the political world. He has never had to define, hold and defend a political stance, until a few weeks ago, when he discovered his convenient politics overnight. Why doesn't he run for something else first, and show he can handle the specific demands of office, before presumptuously expecting to be rocketed straight to the presidency on his first try, on the strength of questionable premises? (Premises like "only he can win," "only he can win the South," "he's a general so he can handle the war and peace question more credibly against AWOL," etc.)

[CWebster]

24. Yeah, I don't like it either

My father was a sargeant in Korea and he told me once of his experience with one of these "perfumed princes" who had West Point credentials and connections at the top. My father was told to give the order to have his men fire on figures approaching from the ridge. My father refused and it turns out it was another platoon of US soldiers. I think of that every time I hear "Pristina".

[JackRiddler]

20. Please, Washington not "military"

General or not, Washington became the military leader of an army that came together on the spot, in a war of independence, before modern standing militaries and military institutions developed.

Washington was a landowner and a politician, okay? The military part came second, as a necessity.

Eisenhower was the tool of the military complex he later denounced.

Jackson, Grant, Wm. Henry Harrison... not a very impressive record.

JFK had been IN the military, like almost every politician in history. That doesn't make him a military man, just a normal citizen.

But all this is irrelevant. My objection to a military careerist as president comes down to this: Clark has spent a lifetime taking orders and giving orders, outside of normal civilian life. He has never held political office. This is not the right qualification for someone who is supposed to deal in the political world. He has never had to define, hold and defend a political stance, until a few weeks ago, when he discovered his convenient politics overnight. Why doesn't he run for something else first, and show he can handle the specific demands of office, before presumptuously expecting to be rocketed straight to the presidency on his first try, on the strength of questionable premises? (Premises like "only he can win," "only he can win the South," "he's a general so he can handle the war and peace question more credibly against AWOL," etc.)

[JackRiddler]

21. Please, Washington not "military"

General or not, Washington became the military leader of an army that came together on the spot, in a war of independence, before modern standing militaries and military institutions developed.

Washington was a landowner and a politician, okay? The military part came second, as a necessity.

Eisenhower was the tool of the military complex he later denounced.

Jackson, Grant, Wm. Henry Harrison... not a very impressive record.

JFK had been IN the military, like almost every politician in history. That doesn't make him a military man, just a normal citizen.

But all this is irrelevant. My objection to a military careerist as president comes down to this: Clark has spent a lifetime taking orders and giving orders, outside of normal civilian life. He has never held political office. This is not the right qualification for someone who is supposed to deal in the political world. He has never had to define, hold and defend a political stance, until a few weeks ago, when he discovered his convenient politics overnight. Why doesn't he run for something else first, and show he can handle the specific demands of office, before presumptuously expecting to be rocketed straight to the presidency on his first try, on the strength of questionable premises? (Premises like "only he can win," "only he can win the South," "he's a general so he can handle the war and peace question more credibly against AWOL," etc.)

[chaska]

22. My, we are frustrated, aren't we?

"A conservative is a person who believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time." I forget who said that. Just because General Clark has never been elected doesn't mean he has no political experience. He has more high level political experience than anyone in the race. Why are we so hung up on this work your way to the top ethic anyway? The president doesn't need to know who to call to get my garbage picked up.

Your objection about Clark on the basis of his having only given and taken orders presupposes that Clark is incapable of distinguishing the difference between one job and another. Do you think that he's not smart enough to know how get things done in Washington? Even the biggest dumbass on this board - and there are a few - knows that you can't always get your way just because you're president. Do you think that Clark ordered the heads of state of all of Europe to do his bidding in order to win the war in Kosovo?

[CWebster]

23. Usually we look to a record or firm foundation

to judge our candidates.

Unless you happen to be looking at Republicans since what they value most are puppets.