Could General Wesley Clark have won the election???

[Maya29]

I am not Kerry bashing here. I think Kerry is a war hero an intellectual & a statesman of the first order.

Which unfortunately does him no good with the Christian Jihadist's & gay-loathing philistines in today's America.

I think Wesley Clark could have won. He is such a commanding figure & he has a great "every man" quality.

He was my first choice as the Democratic nominee. What do you think?

[TwilightZone]

1. Southern Democrat. Strong military background.

I think he would have done well. It would have been difficult for the Reps to question his military experience as they ridiculously did with Kerry's.

I only wish Wes had gotten into the race about six months earlier. He would have been more "seasoned" by the time of the debates and likely would have done a lot better in the primaries.

[Born Free]

103. NO democrat could have won

NO demcorat can win as long as they control the election process and it is a system that can not be verified. They control it all, includeing all the pre-election and after elction talk. They can say any issue was more important afterwards even though no one talked about it prior to the election and the people will buy into it. We are dealing with a cult like group now, and they will follow their cult leader all the way to hell. Demcorats can beat up on each other until they ar eblue in the face, but it will not change anything until we fix the election process to make sure every one can vote and each vote is actually counted and can be verified later.

[Bucky]

112. Bullsnort. Wes would have won. Kerry slept on the Swifties attack too long

OK, the truth is we don't know for a fact if anyone could have done better. Clark was just as vulnerable as Kerry on gay marriage--and that was the losing issue in Ohio. But Clark might have flipped Missouri, Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, New Mexico, Nevada, or (claro) Arkansas.

Clark was always a stronger contender than yet another northeastern liberal would have been. And we may yet get a chance to see that.

[TexasSissy]

113. In hindsight, maybe he'd have been a better choice for V.P. n/t

[JPJones]

2. If he could have knocked back the Shelton shit

I think he would have done better than Kerry. He would have played better in the Red states. He was also in Vietnam, won the Silver Star, didn't protest the war when he got back. He also was able to get Milosovic out of power without losing a single American life. It would have made a nice contrast to Iraq.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Shelton made exactly *one* statement about Clark then he

backed off and was never heard from again. Clark had a boatload of contemporaries to refute Shelton.

[theangrydem]

3. YES!!!

Because Repugs would have had difficulty running their dirty playbook.

[Democat]

4. I supported Clarke early but he seemed inexperienced in the early campaign

Kerry had the experience to know what was coming his way, or so we thought. Even Kerry seemed stunned by the nature of the attacks on him (Swift Liars) so who can really say if a novice like Clarke was ready for the big leagues?

The worst he could have done is to lose and that's what Kerry did anyway.

[Obviousman]

49. i sadly have to agree

i too was a clark supporter, but he ran an inexperienced campaign. there's a difference between a good president and a good presidential candidate.

[Skwmom]

88. Do you think Bush is an "experienced" politician? The idiot made one

mistake after another and look whose sitting in the WH now. The Republicans painted Clark as a bad choice because he was politically inept and the Democrats fell for it hook line and sinker.

[Quadrajet]

121. * might have been inexperienced, but he had Rove to guide him.

Rove is the man behind the curtain and that's all that * needs.

[cally]

5. I don't think so

Kerry 'lost' because he didn't have a large enough gender gap. There are many reasons why Georgie will be * again, but the Dem candidate did not get the huge women vote we need to win elections. I think it's the emphasis on military service. The General had the same problem in the primaries.

[Skwmom]

89. Funny, I talked with many women who LOVED Clark and thought

Kerry and Edwards were to smucks.

[cally]

6. Dupe...sorry

[Baja Margie]

7. No Man !!!!

Don't you guys get it ???? The GOP's had this in the bag the whole time. No matter else who would've been running. They had the whole OHIO thing set up while we were busy campaigning.

They were laughing then, they knew the fact that no WMD's and the Prison Scandal,the debates, and everything else, wouldn't fucking matter. And they are laughing now.


It was a big fucking set-up, don't you get it??????

[Democat]

10. Is this another BBV post?

Come on, how about your opinion on Clarke vs. Kerry instead?

[Baja Margie]

13. What's BBV ?

No, noone could have won this election against Bush. I love Clarke. But until you guys realize that this is the most contemptible and corrupt regime ever you will not be able to fight them.

Shit, the last election in Mexico was fucking cleaner than this.

We should be asking questions like, why didn't we fucking go after and monitor the black boxes!!!!!!!!!

[Swamp Rat]

68. Estoy de acuerdo con usted!

I get it.

[Baja Margie]

100. Heh you,

Where have you been, what's going on? Hope you are okay !

Margie

[Skwmom]

90. Then I wondered why the Republicans worked overtime to knock Clark

out of the race and to pick the Democratic ticket?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Clark was my first choice, too.

And I think he would have been a terrific candidate, but after considering how the election shook out I don't think he could have done much better than Kerry. I now think the fix was in and none of the candidates could have succeeded unless the party had been able to figure out at least a year ago (1) that the BBV thing was really serious; (2) that there would be extensive voter intimidation and suppression in some states; and, most importantly (3) that the Republicans had mobilized the fundies to vote in droves by getting anti-gay initiatives on many states' ballots. The fact is that they punked us and blindsided us. The personal characteristics of any particular candidate couldn't have overcome this under the circumstances, I'm afraid.

[TimeToGo]

9. I was for Kerry/Clark

I really think that would have helped. But who knows. I guess I really don't care anymore, because my time machines is broken right now.

But we will have to see for 08.

[Dehumanizer]

11. Clark would have been ostracized as inexperienced..

And it would have worked. Sorry, but Kerry was probably the most effective of the '04 lot. :(

[LTR]

17. I agree with that

Clark's inexperience killed him in the primaries. As a person, he seems almost overqualified. As a politician, the GOP smear machine would have eaten him alive.

Kerry was the best candidate to stand up to the GOP hate machine. And I still think he did well. Only thing is, his opponent got more votes.

[Skwmom]

91. Clark was the most substantive and experienced LEADER of the

bunch.

[jacksonian]

12. Clark was the best VP candidate -nt

[indyjones1938]

15. Absolutely not

Clark's only "strength" was foreign policy/military affairs. Had Kerry chosen Clark it would have appeared as if Kerry himself was weak on these issues and needed support.

Besides, Clark is in no position to criticize the Iraq War since he actively pushed for the invasion and championed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz every step of the way. Not to mention that he is a war profiteer whose firm is reaping big $$$ off the Middle East conflicts.

John Edwards was the best choice for VP.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Get your facts straight. That's BS.

This is the some of the same crap that was floating around the Internet during the primaries and it's absolutely false. Clark was ALWAYS against the invasion and repeatedly said so when he was a CNN analyst. And the claim that he is a "war profiteer" is beyond false, it's libelous. I'm not going to re-argue the primaries, but to slander a man of Clark's integrity is the sort of thing I'd expect from Karl Rove.

[indyjones1938]

36. Clark's past is somewhat checkered

I question anyone who goes to great lengths to make their supposed "integrity" the center of their campaign. I guess I just see it as projection on their part. :shrug:

Those with the most integrity are the humble ones like Edwards who don't shout about it from the highest hilltops.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indyjones1938]

64. I know he testified to Congress about it

But that was after the fact. He inititially supported it, and supported it vehemently. It was not merely a nuanced vote in favor of the resolution as was the case with Kerry and Edwards.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Listen, if you think I'm "outing" myself by defending the Democratic vice presidential nominee...well, okay. :shrug:

[RafterMan]

78. No, the testimony in Congress was before the war

He also called it an unnecessary elective war on MTP before it started.

[AllyCat]

83. And the film clip that screened...

...during primary season of him saying he supported the war took his comments completely out of context to make it look like he whole-heartedly believed the war in Iraq was correct.

Wes Clark is a true patriot. He can speak to the masses and make his point clear without talking over their heads. And to anyone with a clue, he is a genius.

He's a good man and didn't deserve the flack he got from Kerry AND Edwards. And the MSM should basically rot in hell for letting this man not succeed to be our next POTUS. He was smart enough to have seen through the BBV thing. He did his damnedest to help Kerry during this election, despite the fact that Kerry was the weaker candidate. Clark actually listened to his supporters. He still does.

[Skwmom]

92. The Repubs want Edwards in 08 which is why they backed off

on attacking him this time around. The question is will the Democrats be stupid enough to be manipulated once again. Based on the comments by the idiot from the Nation, I'm not holding out any hope.

[gulliver]

14. Yes.

Clark/Edwards would have won.

1. Not a "Massachusetts liberal"
2. Southerner
3. Vietnam hero but not a protestor
4. Correct calls on family values and patriotism
5. First Lady compatible wife
6. Highly intelligent
7. Charismatic

Kerry was second best to Clark but should have won too. Our "party" let him down in a way. Still formulating my "what's to be done" opinion, though.

[nomaco-10]

16. I said it months ago and I'll say it again.....

the only hope this party had was a Dean/Clark ticket and I'm not convinced even they could have won, but we'll never know will we?

[Skwmom]

93. They successfully painted Dean as a wacko.

No campaign manager could have overcome that image problem.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. Yes....

Him and Dean or Dean and Him would have won.

[Carni]

19. No, I don't and he was my first choice

I don't think any of our candidates could have with-stood bush and Diebold.

[socalover]

20. A Kerry/Clark ticket MIGHT have helped....

[Mike L]

21. No, and I was a Clarkie. He's no politician.

In hindsight, Edwards would have made a better candidate, but I can't say he would have won.

[TimeToGo]

22. Edwards couldn't have won at the top

[indyjones1938]

28. Edwards was our best shot at the top

A southern progressive populist with a squeaky-clean personal life who appealed to Independents and moderate GOPs.

Wesley Clark was nothing but a phony and an opportunist with more skeletons in his closet than a cemetery.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. BULLSHIT!

That's just intolerable! Right from the asshole of Karl Rove! Who the fuck do you think you are?

[TimeToGo]

39. Huh???

This because I said Edwards couldn't win at the top. People all over this board are screaming obscenities at each other and claiming that gays, Jews, women, etc. are the downfall of the democratic party and should be abandoned on the side of the road -- and I get call Karl Rove excrement for stating a calm opinion about a candidate in an election that was lost???

That, sir, is amazing.

And, by the way -- just look at how he campaigned -- do you really think a one-term senator could have stood up to these guys? He surely didn't as VP candidate. I agree he is smart, but that's not enough.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. You misunderstand. My response was to the statement in #28

that Wes Clark was an opportunist with skeletons in his closet- nothing to do with Edwards, whom I liked. I take issue, however, with anyone who gratuitously insults any of the candidates, as the post in question did.

[TimeToGo]

57. Ok, sorry

[indyjones1938]

44. "Who the fuck do you think you are?"

A proud supporter of Senator John Edwards since January of 2003 who is sick and tired of seeing him slandered and attacked by Clark supporters on this website.

I have nothing against Wesley Clark. I have something against the Clarkies here who find a way to insult and demean John Edwards at every turn.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. I have never insulted Edwards; in fact I like him quite a bit.

I strongly object, however, to your insulting Clark. So cut it out.

[high density]

51. Yes, you obviously do have something against Clark

And your lovely candidate, "squeaky-clean" John Edwards, had a buddy named Gen. Hugh Shelton who led of most of the Wes Clark smears right out of the gate.

[knight_of_the_star]

42. Prove it!

So you think that a lawyer who made his money on lawsuits would have a better shot than a four star, 34-years-in-the-Army General? Think of how Bushco would have spun Edwards if he was at the top of the ticket.

[indyjones1938]

59. Why do people here still want to refight the primaries?

To answer your question, yes, I think that a guy who was born into a poor blue collar family, worked his way through college, lost a child in a tragic accident, was elected to the United States Senate against a strongly-favored, well-financed GOP incumbent, served in the United States Senate on the Intelligence Committee, introduced some of the most sweeping domestic and foreign legislation (including Patients Bill of Rights) and performed extremely well in the primaries where he was the only major candidate to address poverty and class struggles in America would've had a better shot than Clark.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. The Clarkies have their opinion. I'm entitled to mine too.

[Mike L]

75. There's no way that the country would have elected a general with no

political experience as President. At least not this General. I like the man immensely and he was a great contributor to the Democratic party. He single-handedly shut most of the "unpatriotic" language from the repukes out of the race. But he is no Washington, Grant or Eisenhower, militarily speaking, that is.

[high density]

46. Stop spewing right-wing LIES about Clark on this thread

That's all you are doing. TELL US WHAT THOSE SKELETONS ARE OR SHUT UP.

[Silverhair]

53. Edwards also lost his own senate seat. He would have lost the top too. NT

[PopSixSquish]

69. Um...Edwards Didn't Run for Re-Election in NC

Erskine Bowles lost that race. And this was after he'd lost to Elizabeth Dole in 2002.

Bowles ran as far away from Kerry/Edwards as possible. Didn't want Edwards to come and campaign with him. Didn't even go to the DNC in New York.

[Kahuna]

67. Yeah right. Edwards was so weak when discussing national security..

it was embarrassing. All the people who said that national security wouldn't be "the" issue, it's time to admit you were wrong.

[Mike L]

76. true, but if Edwards was at the top, he would have been debating Chimp,

not Cheney. Clark could have debated Cheney.

[Skwmom]

94. Edwards is the ultimate political opportunist/hack unlike Clark who

really is one of the last true American patriots.

[nomaco-10]

32. Edwards was one of the biggest proponnents of the war and......

couldn't even carry his own precinct, much less his home state. Think again......

[Carni]

24. I agree with you Clark is a great guy but he isn't a player

in politics--he's too honest and intelligent.

[0rganism]

23. NO Democrat alive or dead could have won this election

The Risen Jesus Himself could not have defeated W without some miracle juice from Sugar Daddy Yahweh.

Florida and Ohio were the key states, and the GOP wasn't going to let those slip away to the will of a few million voters.

[Carni]

26. I agree 100%

We can bang our heads against the wall repeatedly but there was no winning against the bush reich and their cheating IMO

[gardenista]

29. Bingo. As a matter of fact Jesus would have been attacked for being

a bastard child.

[pk_du]

80. not to mention , one of a slightly less than "white" color

[socalover]

40. True, we must remove these Diebold machines!

[Skwmom]

95. Obviously Rove thought otherwise b/c he worked overtime to knock Clark out

of the race (with the help of Clark's opponents - the self serving (me, me, me - it's all about me) smucks).

[exJW]

25. Yes, I believe he would have...

... I'm such a political newbie, it feels weird thinking my first instincts where correct.

Remember his "values" tour? He was spot on in targeting the presidency; it was the nomination that he was to green to get.

[UpsideDownFlag]

30. only if he'd rejected abortion, gun laws, and gay rights...

(sarcasm)

[FloridaPat]

31. According to Zogby, a blank name could beat Bush.

[andym]

33. We'll never know

I think Clark began to understand the way the smear machine works. To understand and then stop it is another thing altogether. He needed ALOT more public exposure to establish himself with the American public. All of our candidates did.

Maybe they should all become actors or regular talk-show guests before the election cycle so that they can be familiar enough to the American public to withstand smears. The "governator" is a prefect example of how having an established public persona wins elections even when presented with lots of negative press.

He was my first choice. Clark is a very interesting man who like Kerry would have made a great President.

[knight_of_the_star]

35. Not just yes

But HELLS YES!!! He came across as more of a man of vision than either Kerry OR Bush. That was something that attracted me, and others, to him. He was a man who was so obviously honest about what he did and how he acted, it would have shown up so obviously in stark contrast to Bush, and unlike Bush, he would have kept swinging and carrying forward and taking the fight to him and would not have rolled over to attacks like the Swift Boat Vet Liars.

[dogman]

37. We'll never know, but my ticket choice was Clark/Kerry.

I think Kerry would have made a great President of the Senate.

[Skittles]

38. he was my choice but honestly, it is hard to say

the Boston liberal thing was always difficult to overcome but there were so, so many other factors.

[phish420]

43. No democrat could have won the election...

...if clarke had gotten more votes, the would have just taken more awy

We were frauded again, people...jesus

[Silverhair]

48. Yes. Clark didn't have Kerry's negative baggage.

Lots of Vietnam vets that might have voted for Clark hold Kerry's anti-war activities against him. Kerry needlessly opened old wounds. Clark was seriously wounded (four BULLET hits that required serious surgery & prolonged hospitalization.) in Vietnam, and was a serious hero. There would have been no swifties against him. And he stayed with the Army after Vietnam. Vietnam vets would have respected that - big time. He NEVER said that our troops committed war crimes, etc. That stuff came back to haunt Kerry.

Also, Clark had become a general. That qualifies him to know a hell of a lot more about military matters than a guy that got out as a LTjg.

Clark was born to modest surroundings and worked his way up in life, so that he would have been able to identify with common people in a way that someone who was born to wealth can do only with great difficulty.

My relatives who voted for Bush often told me that they would have given Clark a fair hearing, but Kerry never had a chance with them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. You're right about Clark, but I stll don't think he could have won.

I don't think any of them could have dealt with the Republicans' dirty tricks -- that's not their fault, though; I blame the DNC. We had a whole bunch of capable, qualified candidates to choose from. I would have been OK with any of them (except for Lieberman). Clark was my favorite, but I thought Kerry would have been a fine president, and I really got to like Edwards after I saw him speak on Labor Day. We were lucky to have had so much talent, but unlucky to have had a bunch of damn fools at the DNC who couldn't figure out what KKKarl Rove was up to until it was too late. They had almost no grassroots organization set up. Clark and Dean, and possibly the others, had meetups and blogs put together long before the primaries even started, but when I went to the first Kerry meetup in March nobody even had any campaign phone numbers or a way of reaching local campaign staff. It was a disorganized mess. The DNC tried to run the campaign from the top down and I think that was a huge mistake. If they'd run it like the Clark and Dean campaigns, with local people on the ground from the beginning, maybe they'd have figured out KKKarl's strategy soon enough to counter it. So I blame them, not Kerry. Terry McAuliffe needs to be replaced by Howard Dean. Now.

[Silverhair]

71. True, the DNC organization sucked. NT

[mtnsnake]

50. Out of all our candidates, I thought Clark was the most electable.

When he spoke, I really got excited. What a presence he had.

[tedoll78]

52. Yes.

And he's currently my first choice for 2008. I've heard too many times of folks who would've voted for him but ended-up voting for Bush or not voting at all.

By 2008, he will have had time to play-up his Arkansas roots. I suspect that he already knows a gazillion times more on how the play the "game" of politics. His newby status won't kill him this next time around, should he choose to jump in..

[sendero]

54. It is merely a theoretical argument...

... but I agree with you. Clark is the most impressive political speaker I've ever seen. He eclipses every other Dem candidate and annihilates every Repug.

But we let Iowa and New Hampshire decide who our candidate is going to be. That's real smart.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

58. Clark had the personality, likability, military experience, from the South

Foreign policy experience. He would have gotten better - he's a very quick study.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. Clark was put down by the DNC and The RNC

The DNC saw him as an amateur (and, at the start, he was) and perhaps "not a real Democrat". Indeed, in the primaries he was, in some ways, to the left of even Kucinich, at at least it seemed.

That "not a real Democrat" thing, by the way, ought to have been reason enough to choose him, particularly in that his stated positions were very left of center. In some ways he could have carried that stealth into the hard part of the campaign while looking in a superficial way like a "Daddy" moderate. The non-fundies in the red states may well have bought that and believed it while they were only just starting to assess the candidates.

The RNC did everything they could to put him down. This by way of the media. That one half hearted put down by Shelton was a small part of it, but was squelched by other retired military guys. IMHO Clark was the Rep's worst nightmare. An open critic of the *policies* of the boy king with the bona fides to be such. This was obvious in his lack of media attention and his obvious (intentional) marginalization by the primary debate moderators.

I do not doubt they fucked with the voting process. But if our guy were to have a big enough lead, even that would have been far harder to pull off.

Clark got onto the Moral Values thing before anyone even knew it was an issue. Was he a genius or lucky? I don't have a clue, but there it was. With an experienced legislator as a Number 2, Clark may well have been able to get more of the moderates we all know are out there.

Guess we'll have to wait for 08 to find out.

And yeah, I was a Clark supporter who had Kerry as his 2nd choice.

[springhill]

61. No, because the election

was stolen. There is not ONE candidate who would have defeated Bush. Bush could have had a 10% approval rating and he still would have just barely pulled it out.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. He wasn't politically experienced enough in the primaries

But he keeps getting better in his TV appearances. I think if he continues the trend he's a sure bet for 2008.

[ibegurpard]

63. I don't think so

He'd never run for an office before. Does that mean he would've lost? No. But the people who are looking for an "icon" that is going to be immune from any of the attacks and tricks the Republicans throw are going to be chasing your tails forever.
Go local. Start building the party of tomorrow TODAY at your local level. Build the infrastructure and relationships at the LOCAL level that will help to insulate the party's candidates from the right wing attacks. The Democratic Party has been chasing corporate dollars at the expense of building it's local infrastructure for far too long. We are seeing the price being exacted now.

[DjTj]

65. Edwards/Clark could have won...

...the Senate back, at least.

Edwards is more regular guy than Bush. We needed the American people to put them side by side.

Clark is more policy cred than Cheney. We needed the American people to put them side by side.

Edwards/Clark could have campaigned through the South and appeared on stage with Bowles, Tenenbaum, Mongiardo, Carson, and Castor.

I can't guarantee the White House, but they could have won us the Senate.

[PopSixSquish]

74. Edwards/Clark Would Have Been Something To Watch

Or Clark/Edwards for that matter...

I never got the animosity between some on this forum during the VP search. And I've seen it on more than this thread since Tuesday. And it's over some really stupid stuff. I tried to stay out of it. (Didn't do so well last night, but I was in a bad mood)

Both of these guys come from similiar backgrounds. And they're both very inspirational speakers. The personality mix would have been good as well.

And as for the Shelton thing, as I understand it, Edwards knew Shelton from college. Shelton helped him, but was never a formal campaign advisor.

But Shelton did make some nasty and unfounded comments about Clark and Edwards didn't publically rebuke him. The military particularly when you're dealing with generals, can be pretty damn nasty. And Shelton seems to really dislike Clark. And I'm sure that Clark ain't all that fond of Shelton either.

But politics makes strangefellows and this ticket as I said would have been interesting to watch. Maybe one day...

[Skwmom]

96. Edwards a regular guy? ROFLMAO

How many regular guys do you know that would stand in front of a jury claiming to channel an unborn child?

[PopSixSquish]

104. Question - Are You Ever Going to Shut Up about This?

2nd question - Can you actually debate the merits of your candidate without running down others?

3rd question - Can you show me the video clip from the Cheney/Edwards debate where this was even brought up?

4th question - Why does this bother you SO MUCH that you would continually harp on it when I doubt even General Clark would even bring it up?

[Kahuna]

66. Sans, imaginery votes for *, yes.

nt

[Julien Sorel]

70. I think Dolstein makes a valid point.

The matching funds kill Clark. He would have been buried under the 250 million dollar disparity in spending.

On paper, Clark was the best candidate, and more importantly, the best man for the job. I believe that is so partially despite, and partially because of, his inexperience. However, the matching funds issue, in retrospect, meant that there were two possible candidates who could have stood up to Bush 1) Kerry; and 2) Dean. Given that choice, I think the Democrats made the right decision.

[Doomsayer13]

72. No - he opted for federal funds

He would've been SMASHED by the bush money machine in the late game. John Kerry was very successful at raising money, and that's what kept us in.

[Mike L]

77. Did Edwards take matching funds too?

[RafterMan]

79. The primary matching funds and the GE matching funds

were two separate issues.

[Julien Sorel]

86. But Bush would still have outspent him

by 250 million bucks or so. Simply too much money. There would have been a "Generals Against Clark" 527 group with ads accusing him of being insane and dangerous, and he wouldn't have been able to effectively counter the avalanche until September. By that point, the damage would likely have been done.

[Ladyhawk]

73. No...VOTER FRAUD. nt

[Dookus]

81. Nope

I was one of the biggest Clark supporters here. But Kerry won, and he was the best candidate.

I *DO* think, however, that Clark could've helped as the VP candidate, but it's all just speculation, and rather pointless to roll around in this week.

[ComerPerro]

82. When I watched the events on 9/11/01, I knew

That Bush had just won himself a second term...

[farmboxer]

84. Gen. Clark Was My First Choice Also.

Yes, I think he could have won big! However, we must always remember the Republican,maunfactured, right wing owned, programmed voting machines and the Republica owned right wing mainstream news media. Still, I think Gen. Clark would have received many more votes, so perhaps fixing the election would have been more difficult, esp. if he won more states without paperless voting machines, etc.

[donheld]

85. Nice try - no use second guessing

Could Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Howard Stern, Tom Cruise, Barbra Streisand, Oprah Winfrey? Maybe, maybe not. With Black Box Voting, Diebold, ESS would anyone have a chance.

[eridani]

87. When are you going to get it?

ANY candidate we put up would have been smeared just as bad. Surely you don't think that the smears would have had to have been true, do you?

[Skwmom]

97. When are you going to get it? With some candidates the attacks wouldn't

have been so successful. The Democrats put two unlikeable smucks on the tickets. The more one learned about Kerry/Edwards the less there was to like.

[PopSixSquish]

106. If John Kerry was an "Unlikeable Schmuck"

then why did you want General Clark as his running mate? Why did you want General Clark to campaign for him?

And since when is a Vietnam Vet, medal-winning, liberal Senator who is intelligent, thoughtful, deliberate and kind an "unlikeable schmuck"

Read the URL at the top of your browser, are you sure you're on the right site?

I'll tell you what...write General Clark and ask him what he truly and honestly thinks about both John Kerry and John Edwards. He'll be a lot more gracious then some of his supporters.

[Zuni]

98. I think it is possible. There would have been no SBVT shit.

[eridani]

99. Nope, just a bunch of--

-- I'm not going to start World War III for you" shit. Just as bogus, and just as effective.

[Leilani]

101. He was a gift to the Dems

& they blew it by not accepting him.

What did people say they liked about Shrub? "Says what he means & means what he says."

Well, that's the quality that Wes Clark has. Maybe because he is not a professional pol, but he has a refreshing honesty that isn't seen in politics today. He doesn't talk in Senate Speak, & he doesn't
parse his answers.

Also, he has a sense of command authority to him. None, nada, zilch of the other candidates had that quality.

He would have been better with Latinos...they comprise a huge percentage of military types, & they are very patriotic. And his daughter-in-law wouldn't have hurt.

I think he could have made a huge difference in the Southwest & in Arkansas & West Virginia.

What-might-have-beens are fun, but don't change a thing.

[RafterMan]

102. Clark's agenda:

Retake the issues of national security and moral values away from the Republicans.

20/20 hindsight: We shoulda retaken the issues of national security and moral values away from the Republicans.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Bread and Circus]

105. Hah....hmmm.......but hey.....John Edwards has a great smile.

[HootieMcBoob]

109. Yup

I was a Clarkie and I also supported him for vice president. That was exactly his agenda. He is very progressive but he knew exactly how to frame issues. He was a missed opportunity. So, I say to everyone "told ya so".

[ozone_man]

107. Another DLC candidate won't work.

After two losses that should have been wins, it's time to reconsider the strategy of being so close to the Gods, guns, and gay strategy of the Republicans, that people decide to go for the undiluted version.

I agree that Clark wouldn't have been victim to the flip flop, two sides of every issue characterization as Kerry was. I'm not sure he is really a Democrat either. He seemed to be a late Clinton entry into the race to help shut down Dean, whose candidacy was starting to threaten TPTB (Clintons) in the Democratic Party.

The bright side, if there is one, is that most of the bad stuff that is going to happen in the next 2 to 4 years, in particular economic weakness, possibly depression, due to massive national and personal debt, will stick to Bush, not Kerry. 2006 and 2008 are the years to take back the party, but run real Democrats, not DLCers.

It will be the time for an FDR to take the country back from the ashes of what is left after Bush. Dean or another governor with executive experience would be a better choice. Senators don't get elected as president as a rule, and there is a reason for that. Do we want a general? I hope not. The mounting economic problems will require a civic leader, unless we are so far into war that there is no escape. Time will tell.

I should add that winning is not everything. If we win by running a border line Republican, then what have we really won? Next time (2006/2008), the opportunity should be there to win big and with a real Democrat. Give people a clear choice.

[incapsulated]

120. You don't know what you are talking about, do you?

I knew I shouldn't have come into this thread.

Clark's positions where to the left of Kerry and Edwards and Dean. Even Krugman called him one of the most liberal of all the candidates.

Border line Repubilican? You don't even know his policies, do you? I guess you didn't know that Wes was one of the candidates who actually supported gay marriage, either. NO, you see the uniform and that's all she wrote. So did the DNC, who treated him like crap. Wes was an outsider, he never had the support of the DNC or the DLC.

But because of knee-jerk, ingorant responses like yours, we didn't have a chance to run someone who could appeal to both the security crazed and the independents and at the same time protect all the values this party stands for.


What a fucking waste.

[ozone_man]

125. Well, he did vote for Reagan, etc.

That says something about his background. Regardless of some of the positions that he took in the campaign, he has a history that looks pretty conservative to me. School of the Americas, NED board of directors, consulting business for the Homeland Security industry. I think he has gone back to working in this area again, no?

He seemed to develop some new found liberal ideas, but I don't think he has a long enough track record to trust. What we need is a governor, an executive with alot of civic experience, not a military man or a senator.

There are two separate issues: What kind of a candidate do we want, who will be best to take the country in the right direction, and what kind of a candidate can win. It is best to have both traits, lest we wind up with a democrat who is hardly different than the Republicans that we're trying to oust. Winning isn't everything.

[Renew Deal]

108. Hard to say

His military background would have gone a long way. He is also from the middle of the country and has lived all over.

[KWBS]

110. From a Republican that backed Kerry - Edwards

NOT A CHANCE and I am from Little Rock, went to same high school as Wesley Clark.

In 1980 the South had 26 Democratic Senators, today it has 4. If you look at the national "red versus blue" map at both State and County level it is not hard to see that the DNC has become very isolated from the mainstream of this nation.

2 to 1 Americans classify themselves as conservatives and many moderates vote to the right, not the left on many issues.

Bush has one Achilles Heel that will bring him down, take the wind out of his Imperial Sails and that is 9-11.

I was part of the 9-11 Confronting the Evidence in NYC this year. I was part of the criminal complaint that was delivered to Eliot Spitzer on October 28, 2004.

Over 55 million voted against and many of those voters were ecumenical Christians you people are blindly bashing. They were Conservative Republicans and Libertarians that crossed over to try to stop the Bush Junta and the fascism that is represents.

Right here in Arkansas - two key counties that NEVER vote REP did vote Republican this year. Jefferson and Nevada counties and there were others.

The problem with DNC is DNC and that it represents the fringe left and that is NOT America folks. 2 to 1 says this nation is a conservative nation and one that puts certain values front and center every time.

www.karlschwarz.com

http://www.reopen911.org/petition.php

http://www.justicefor911.org /

All of this talk about running Hillary Clinton in 2008. The RNC has been ready to destroy her since 1994. The strategy that took the House and Senate away from Clinton was designed and largely financed by me. Again, run Hillary, rash into the side of the mountain. They are just waiting for another stupid DNC move.

I took a stand for America, freedom, a turning away from Imperialism and fascism. I have received hundreds of emails from Dems asking what to do now. Frankly, DNC is not "resuscitate-able" in its current form. Lest no one noticed, Bush now controls a stronger US Senate and that is more frightening than him being there for 4 more years.

Every person that voted against Bush should be on those petitions linked above.

It is the only hope you have to stopping Bush, and I am the only Republican of the 100 original names on the petition.

If you have not done so, go to my website under Articles and read the DEMAND LETTER that I sent to Bush September 30, 2004 about 7 hours before the first debate and THEN - get this CLEARLY INTO YOUR HEADS -

that DEMAND LETTER was sent to DNC and Kerry too and they did not use it in the debates to evicerate Bush. CONSIDER THAT!

Both sides of the aisle are covering up 9-11 folks, who did it, who is profiting from it and they are AMERICANS.

Ashcroft was forced to resign due to that letter and I was advised from DC yesterday to NOT accept that as the sacrificial offering and let the rest of the DOERS OF 9-11 OFF THE HOOK!

Wake up Dems.

Karl

[ArkDem]

111. He would have been massacred. In 4 years no one will even

remember him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. Your comments are so constructive

I'll remind you of this post later.

[ArkDem]

122. He's a terrible politician. That isn't my fault.

[Sopianae]

123. Clark was the ONLY one who knew what we needed to do to win.

It was all about national security and values. All the other "professional" politicians were clueless. I'd say he is one of the BEST natural politicians we have. YOU don't like him. We get it. OK?

[SaintLouisBlues]

116. I will

n/t

[lynintenn]

115. I loved Clark

maybe we could get him elected to Go. of Arkansas first

[noonwitch]

117. I like Clark, and voted for him in the caucus.

I thought his military backround and his southern heritage could play well.

I am, however, very impressed with the fact that Kerry refused Clinton's suggestion that he back away from the gay issues. I love the big dog and all, and understand he's a pragmatist, but Kerry was right to stick to his principles.

[Sputnik]

118. Hell

YES! Even Republicans admitted that they feared him most as the Democratic nominee. But our party leadership made sure his nomination would never happen. I even wrote a letter to Jeanne Shaheen when she said that Wes wasn't a "real" Democrat, urging her to lose that kind of talk because she would want the support of Clark backers if John Kerry won the nomination (and that was long before anyone thought Kerry would.)

Our party was stupid for not embracing him. He's proved his stripes. He was a gift and so few recognized it. He would be president-elect today if our party had been smarter.

Back during the primaries, Bartcop asked his readers for a comparison of Clark to Bush. I wrote this and Bart published it on his site:

Clark vs. Bush

A presidential candidate that the rest of the world could respect vs. the un-elected fraud who has pissed off the planet.

A four-star general w/34 yrs service to the U.S. vs. a spoiled brat who didn't even finish his national guard duty.

A man who came from modest means and worked for everything he achieved vs. the slacker born with a silver foot in his mouth and never achieved anything w/out the financial support of his daddy's friends.

A decorated Vietnam veteran vs. the rocket scientist who wasn't even smart enough to release the parachute straps before prancing around on the aircraft carrier.

A West Point valedictorian vs. the boy cheerleader.

A soldier hit by four bullets who taught himself to walk without a limp despite losing a quarter of his calf muscle vs. the dipwad
who fell off of a Segway.

The U.S. Army officer who placed finished first out of a thousand officers on a test to determine which officers could best predict future trends vs. the dude that traded Sammy Sosa.

An author of numerous articles and essays as well as two books vs. the anything-but-intellectually-curious one who can't....er....doesn't like to read.

A man who at the age of 50 rappelled down the side of a mountain to try to rescue fellow Americans whose APC had slid off the road and exploded vs. the drunk who crashed into garbage cans before going in his fathers' house and challenging him to a fight.

A candidate that speaks four languages vs. the candidate that can't even coherently speak one.

A man who holds masters degrees in philosophy, economics, and politics vs. the guy who said "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

The general who led the operation (with the cooperation of 19 other countries) to remove a murderous dictator without one single American casualty vs. the chickenhawk who babbled about a "crusade", cried "bring 'em on", while 456 Americans have died and thousands wounded in order to root a dirty old man out of a hole in the ground.

A movie-star smile vs. the face and laugh of a chimpanzee

[Eurobabe]

119. People could we get a little respect here: CLARK, NO 'E'!!!!

Goddammit this pisses me off, once and for all:

It's WESLEY K. CLARK

(It's RICHARD CLARKE)

[GOPBasher]

124. I think so. Of course, Kerry may have won without fraud.

[Iver Johnson]

126. As an enlisted Marine

of over 27 years service and a registered Democrat, I believe General Clark would have received support and votes from many factions which for whatever reason, just would not get behind Kerry, and from some who actively worked against him. The Swift Boat vets organisation, to give one example, would have never even been formed. I served under General Clark in Kosovo, and have the highest regard for the man. I hated to see his candidacy fold so early. Hopefully he'll reemerge for 2008.