Does Clark have mettle for politics?

[gully]

"WASHINGTON - Is retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the latest declared candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, ready for prime time?

It's a legitimate question, considering his out-of-the gate observation that had he been in Congress last fall he "probably" would have voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq."

"Mr. Clark's second-day turnaround, saying he "would never have voted for this war" because "there was no imminent threat" and it "was not a case of pre-emptive war," was more in keeping with his pre-candidacy position. But now he will have to spend much time defensively explaining where he really stands - not ideal for a late-starting entrant."

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.witcover24sep24,0,1925004.column?coll=bal-home-columnists

Howard Dean for President.

[davidinalameda]

1. how about this question

does someone running a state of less than 700,000 have the expertise to run this country?

[gully]

2. This thread is about Clark , start a thread about your Dean concerns

however, considering how well Dean managed Vermont I'd say HELL YES!!!

[sidwill]

3. Hey man

Why the constant attacks on Clark?

If you like Dean then support him honorably, don't act like a Rethuglican and try to build up your guy by tearing down Clark.

That is the type of Rovian smear campaigning that we are fighting AGAINST.

[gully]

4. Count the number of Anti Dean threads by Clark supporters

then, come back and report in. You'll find a far greater degree of
attacks as you call them.

I'd like it to be noted, I posted an article and made NO comments about Clark in this thread.

If you have an issue, address the author of said article.

[davidinalameda]

18. I'm sure some will dispute your claim

of "HELL YES!!!"

[ewagner]

5. Does Clark have the mettle?

That's sort of what campaigns for the nomination are supposed to find out, isn't it?

[gully]

6. We shall see, he's got much support so far by doing very little so,

perhaps it won't matter if he has 'the mettle'?

[dfong63]

7. it only took Clark 6 months to announce he was a democrat,

and in another month he'd already learned to say, "proud to be a democrat". so given enough time, we can expect great things from him. in a non-partisan way, of course.

[WilliamPitt]

8. He got shot four times in Vietnam,

lost enough of one leg that he had to figure out how to walk again, and has served as a General. You tell me. I think he'll be fine as long as no one shoots him again.

[Malikshah]

13. That's a bit apples and oranges.

To equate politics with being shot at is an inaccurate description of the "value" of both.

The terminology of violence is often used with regard to politics, but to somehow say that one prepares one for the other is a rather weak argument.

I would be more interested in seeing discussion of Clark's management style while in the military. How his colleagues, superiors (military, not civilian), those who worked under him evaluated him. Being shot at does not prepare one for a political career on any level--much less the presidency of the United States.

The issue of mettle re: politics is a valid concern--and one that should be addressed for all candidates.

No one receives a "Pass Go" card based upon their military service, however illustrious and/or dangerous.

[Larkspur]

14. Being shot in Vietnam does not qualify Clark for the Dem Prez nomination

Having a record in elected office as a Democrat would at least give us doubters something tangible about Clark's sincerety about being a Democrat. Winning elected office, managing the affairs of that office well, and winning re-election would give us doubters tangible evidence that he could handle civilian elected office.

Generals make poor presidents. At least Andrew Jackson sought elected office prior to running for President, and Ike? He was a mediocre president at best.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. He was shot at in Vietnam.

I think he'll be just fine.

On edit: What Will said.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

10. I think the good nature way General Clark

laughs off critisisms is a lot of mettle.
Sometimes a good nature grin will get you a
lot farther then a bunch of snappy answers
that anybody could come up with.

[Pepperbelly]

11. it's a bullshit question and here is why ....

Joe Connason addressed it far more succinctly than I:

"On his first outing, Mr. Clark provided his adversaries an easy target when he made a typical novice error: He told the truth about a complex problem. Specifically, he confessed to ambivalence about the proper way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That led some of his more eager critics to declare his candidacy almost ruined only days after he declared himself. On the ABC News Web site, an anonymous Democrat wailed in "despair and anger." That single moment of vacillation, it was said, could even "define" the former NATO Supreme Commander—as if he had said and done nothing else in his 58 years.

What did Mr. Clark utter to provoke such silly overreaction? He acknowledged that the resolution on Iraq confronted Senators with a difficult decision. They could vote no—and embolden Saddam to block the U.N. inspectors from returning to Baghdad. Or they could vote yes—and offer George W. Bush a "blank check" to wage an unwise and unjustified war.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question," he explained. "I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position—on balance, I probably would have voted for it." But his purpose in voting for the resolution, as he also explained, would have been to build "leverage for a U.N.-based solution." He would have fought for a resolution similar to one supported by some Democrats, requiring the President to seek further approval before invading."

[OKNancy]

12. Clark is like RFK

Thirty-five years ago, another late-starting, anti-war candidate, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, jumped in and undercut the candidacy of a like-minded Democrat, Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy. The move was widely resented among McCarthy supporters, but Mr. Kennedy successfully wooed away a substantial amount of McCarthy's support by being just as categorical against the Vietnam War as he was and seeming more electable.


----from the same article you quoted. Dean people are just really pissed that an interloper grabbed up some of the limelight.

[gully]

15. Pissed off Deanies?

This isn't about being pissed. It's about knowing who we are supporting for President of the United States.

I look forward to learning more about Wesley Clark, and I'm sure we will ...

[Pepperbelly]

16. Then read this...

From Joe Connason:

"On his first outing, Mr. Clark provided his adversaries an easy target when he made a typical novice error: He told the truth about a complex problem. Specifically, he confessed to ambivalence about the proper way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That led some of his more eager critics to declare his candidacy almost ruined only days after he declared himself. On the ABC News Web site, an anonymous Democrat wailed in "despair and anger." That single moment of vacillation, it was said, could even "define" the former NATO Supreme Commander—as if he had said and done nothing else in his 58 years.

What did Mr. Clark utter to provoke such silly overreaction? He acknowledged that the resolution on Iraq confronted Senators with a difficult decision. They could vote no—and embolden Saddam to block the U.N. inspectors from returning to Baghdad. Or they could vote yes—and offer George W. Bush a "blank check" to wage an unwise and unjustified war.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question," he explained. "I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position—on balance, I probably would have voted for it." But his purpose in voting for the resolution, as he also explained, would have been to build "leverage for a U.N.-based solution." He would have fought for a resolution similar to one supported by some Democrats, requiring the President to seek further approval before invading."

[gully]

17. Is this supposed to make me vote for him?

I do appreciate your response to the issue however.

Thanks, that's a reasonable explanation regarding this issue.

[Pepperbelly]

19. not vote for him but ...

to make you aware of a perspective that does not mischaracterize the remarks so much as actually puts them in context.

Clark was right. It was a difficult question for a huge majority of Americans. Nothing black and white about it and to now pretend that is was black and white is to disserve the intentions of most Americans. Clark acknowleged that fact rather than taking cheap and easy shot at competitors. That is not how he behaves and I agree with him. It is an honorable and mannered way to behave.

[OKNancy]

20. What's this we thing

"We" aren't supporting Clark. I am supporting Clark and you are supporting Dean. I have read extensively about Clark and am quite sure of my support.

BTW, I did not use the term Deanie, and I will also never start a thread about Dean or any other candidate other than the one I support.

[gully]

23. "We" as in a collective body of Americans....

ok? :eyes: That's what the 'we thing' is...

[NNN0LHI]

21. This is a legitimate question. And I have wondered about it myself

Even with his accomplishments running for elected office is not comparable. It has nothing to do with physical or mental endurance. It is something different. I can't even explain it. But I know that politics can just eat a person up alive. I have seen it happen in union politics. Takes a certain kind of person and there are not too many cut out for it. I hope Clark can do it, but it will not be easy. That is for damn sure.

Don

[janekat]

22. Much ado about nothing... Because he changes 1 statement he

doesn't have the mettle? All of the candidates, Dean in particluar have restated their stances on issues. Kerry and Gephardt are senators and therefore media savvy and are a bit better than the rest of the pack.

It only starts to become a problem if it happens over and over again and starts to look like a habit. When the media and other observers start to dwell on it - you have a problem.

[gully]

24. Does anyone recall the "Mary helllp" line...???

I think it's about more then one statement, KWIM? ;)

However, I live in a state that *uhm* elected Jesse Ventura Governor fer gawd sakes! I guess his Green Beret/former wrestler status was 'appetizing' to the voters :shrug: ... I do know it wasn't his political savvy ;)