Wesley Clark

[sidwill]

The General would be a great candidate simply because:

A. He is unassailable from a smear standpoint. No fondas or SWBliars in his past only boyscout like sqeaky clean service to his country.

B. Not a career politician. He can't really be attacked as a "flip-flopper" or on a shady political dealings while in previously held office.

C. His stance on the issues make him a progressive, but he is percieved as a conservative Dem. He would appeal to indies and moderate repukes ESPECIALLY military types, again impossible to swiftboat smear him.

D. He looks and sounds like middle America, and he comes across as absolutely honest and with impeccable integrity. Again NOT a politician.

E. He is from the south.


Anyway I know this is an excersise in futility and wishful thinking but I wanted Clark for pres., Then for VP, now for 08. WTF I got nothing else to do with my time but ponder what could have been.

[one_true_leroy]

1. i'm with ya, but it's too soon for this.

[xultar]

2. WE had our chance and fucked it up. So, no Wesley Clark. nuf said n/t

[KittyWampus]

4. Unfortunately, I Don't See Wes Ever Running Again.

We had a chance to vote for a man who stacks up against the likes of our Founding Fathers...

He wouldn't have won even if he HAD got the nomination. Diebold.

[high density]

3. They would have smeared Wesley Clark as well.

Just talk to John Edwards' buddy, Gen. Hugh Shelton... Or read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2089014/

[Skwmom]

26. Big difference. With Clark they would have had one hell of a hard

time getting anywhere with their smears.

[dogtag]

5. They would have found a way to smear Wesley too.

There was plenty in his honorable record (Bosnia) that they would have distorted. Apparently Wes was not well liked by a lot of jealous fellow generals. I can see it now...Swift Generals for Truth.

[goclark]

23. They would smear Jesus so they

would certainly smear Wesley Clark.

They will do anything, anything.

[ogsball]

6. I really liked Clark, but . . .

#1 Can he stay on message--that's what * did so well. Recite the catch phrases.

#2 He might be clean now but swift "crotiations" for truth would be formed to smear him. It was just too effective this time.

#3 Can he be sold to the base?

[Eric J in MN]

7. Republicans can smear anyone who served in the military

by finding soldiers who don't like him and making commercials out of it.

[MidwestMomma]

9. Exactly

Republicans also can smear anyone by finding one little sound bite and playing it over and over and over again until it's all people hear when they hear that candidate's name. Fuckin' rat bastards.

[dogman]

13. Unfortunately it was easier because of the divisive nature of the anti-war

movement. There were people with an ingrained hatred of Kerry's heroic stand. Unfortunately quite a few of them. The Veterans community was as divided as the rest of the country.

[Ilsa]

8. I worked on his campaign from home in Texas.

He was my first choice, and I'll support him again if he decides to run.

I fell in love with Kerry, too, btw, so this isn't any slam against Kerry.

[Pharlo]

10. Yep, I agree with you there

Wes Clark for Prez

Barak Obama as ticket VP

James Carville running the campaign from day one.

Meet smear campaign with smear campaign.

Guerilla warfare at its nastiest.

[dogman]

11. These are the reasons I supported him this time.

I know he would have broadened the base. He would have taken votes from B$$$ and thereby narrowed B$$$'s base. The entrenched pary operatives and media did not want him. The Rethug hacks hated him because he presented such a danger to them. In four years it will be a different situation, so it's to early to tell if he would or could make a run.

[greekspeak]

12. At this point, Clark is maybe our best bet but there are 4 years more

He is honest, he is not party machinery, he could be loveable, and he would not let a bunch of liars pound his ass into the ground and take it. I like Dean, but the Media ruined him. I like Kucinich, but in a world where John Kerry is an unelectable liberal, fat chance.

[tedoll78]

14. I have a process for evaluating which primary candidate to support.

Here's that method, basically:

1) He/she has to be where Bill Clinton is or leftward on the Left-Right ideology scale.

2) Next, the candidate must pledge (in some way or another) to put liberals on the Supreme Court. This is usually a given if the first step is passed.

3) Then, I look at the remaining candidates as far as winning is concerned. If the candidate is from a useful Red State that would most likely flip to our column, he/she usually gets a HUGE boost in my book. If the candidate would enhance turnout in our favor in key voting demographics, that's also a HUGE boost.

===================================================

So.. does Clark fit the bill? Let's see.

1) Yes. It seems like he's a bit to the left of Clinton, actually.

2) Done. Souter.

3) Clark would most likely bring Arkansas' 6EVs into the fold.

===================================================

I like Clark especially for Step 3. Arkansas is ours - especially if he invests some time there building-up his public profile and playing-up his roots. Then add the Gore States, which I think are very winnable by a Southern General (hey.. Kerry won 'em!). And then add either Nevada or New Hampshire. This would results in at least a 270EV victory. No Ohio. No Florida. It'd be that simple.

[sidwill]

17. The thing is.....

Clark would have acted as a human wedge splitting Moderate repukes and independents away from bush, as for those who say that the pukes would have smeared him just like they did with kerry, I still maintain that it would have been infinitely harder for them to accomplish this against Clark. For starters whereas kerry's military career lasted but a few months Clarks lasted decades and he rose to 4 star general, wheras kerry's wounds were relatively minor Clark was seriously wounded, etc... The pukes would have still tried but it would have been innefffectual and they would have looked even sillier than they did with the SWBliars bullshit.

[tedoll78]

19. I tend to agree with you.

.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Wes was getting SO MUCH BETTER every freaking WEEK, with

every TV appearance, towards the end...

I agree the Rove machine would have smeared any Dem candidate in much the same way (maybe not as much ammo against Wes because of no protest activity etc.). It's just what they do and they're good at it.

I'm in if he runs again. He was my initial choice. JK is the man too though...

[Oak2004]

20. Fact is that you can smear anyone

Trying to find an unsmearable candidate is a hopeless cause. The smear doesn't have to be true. It doesn't even have to be all that credible. It just has to make the electorate doubt.

I learned the fine art of smearing from the Republican Party. I know of what I speak.

[Skwmom]

27. But when you are trying to smear a man like Clark, you run the

risk of a real backlash.

[RafterMan]

28. I wish that was more true,

but Hugh Shelton seems to be doing just fine. I think they hit Clark really hard as he was just coming out of the gate, and he never fully recovered before the focus shifted to the winner of Iowa.

But I do think he'll be ready next time, should he decide to go.

[sandnsea]

16. Kosovo? WW3?

Rumblings that he was crazy? They would have smeared him. They smeared Kerry's war service while we're at war when their own candidate was AWOL. There's nobody they're above smearing.

[medeak]

18. He wants to go into Iran

said that when I saw him Sat. Republican husband said he would vote for him.

Gave me the shudders... other than that a nice guy.

[RafterMan]

24. No he doesn't

He wants to *talk* to Iran, as well as Syria about getting Iraq sorted out.

In fact, he was the first to warn people about the White House's plans for continuing the war beyond Iraq.

[Tweed]

21. HE WON'T HAVE A MIC FOR FOUR YEARS

We can't run Clark and I supported him this time around. He is no longer a surprise attack and he won't get to hold an office for four years. The media won't care what he has to say.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. I think Clark has enough substance that he doesn't HAVE to be a

"surprise attack". Even if that approach is useful.

[Abelman]

25. Draft Clark

Just like Jackson, Clark is a general of the people.