"Rethinking General Wesley Clark - The Left made a big mistake in 2004"

[Texas_Kat]

Rethinking General Wesley Clark - The Left made a big mistake in 2004
   by August Keso, June 14th, 2005

http://progressivedailybeacon.com/commentary.php?id=627&ARCHIVAL=TRUE

Perhaps, it is time that the Left in America admitted they were wrong. Very, very wrong and maybe even blew the 2004, Presidential election because of it. Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and General Wesley Clark was a green (not as in Sierra Club "green" but rather new) candidate to be sure, but think back to the Primaries for a moment. Who was the only Democratic candidate to embrace Michael Moore? Well, if you guessed General Wesley Clark, you guessed right.

Many on the Left were reluctant to embrace Wes, because he had that dreaded "General" military tag before his name. Could a military man be trusted - wasn't the military part of the evil right-wing crowd? To be sure some are, but if one thinks back, it doesn't take long to realize the Busheviks made a concerted effort to drum out the best of the best and replace them all with the "yes" of the "yes Sir, Mister Bush! Whatever you say Mister Bush, Sir!" crowd. You know the likes of bungling and failed Tommy "Shockless and aweless" Franks and Ricardo "Torture 'em all and perjury master" Sanchez.

So, sure there are anti-American goose-stepping, lying and torturing punks in the US military. Bush made sure he kept and promoted every one of them. General Wesley Clark however, wasn't among their ilk.

Simply put, Wes Clark has his priorities and heart in the right place. The promise of America and the Constitution upon which it all rests means something to General Clark, and so do the military and the young men and women serving their country. He saw what happened in Vietnam and how arrogant leaders misused, manipulated and abused the military, the constitution and the American people. Rather than get out, he decided to stay in and change it. And change it he had.

....snip

[Catch22Dem]

1. Great article - nominated

Thanks for posting.

[senseandsensibility]

2. kick

:kick:

[Nite Owl]

3. Wes Clark

is a true liberal. Four star General or not he wasn't afraid of being called a liberal either.

[Justice]

31. Wes Clark defies labels and that is why he is so appealing

[goclark]

63. One Class Act is Wes Clark nt

[barbaraann]

4. It wasn't the "left in America." It was the Dems in Iowa and N.H.

I do not believe that they have the right to choose our candidate any more.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Well, Clark didn't go to Iowa. He got in too late to campaign there.

NH was his first primary venture. But by that time the media was trumpeting the Kerry and Edwards inevitability. Dean and Clark had been ahead of Kerry and Edwards in NH, until after the Iowa caucuses.

[snowbear]

6. My thoughts exactly.. He was doing just fine until Iowa...

And face it ---- they resented him for what they feel was a "snub".

I have a feeling he would have ((( ROCKED ))) in Iowa had he ran there!

He's honest about it though.. He says it was the biggest screw-up in his campaign; that he should have never skipped Iowa.

Spilt milk now.. :shrug:

[tjdee]

7. Huge inflected DUH.

First of all, they're right. (Though, I wanted Edwards more.)

Second of all, hindsight is 20/20.

[roguevalley]

8. I will be a delegate for him in '08. If you are reading this, Wes Jr,

you have a delegate from Alaska! :-D

[calimary]

73. I will be a voter for him in '08.

I hope he's our nominee. He was my second choice after Howard Dean.

[Griffy]

9. Kerry won.. just remeber that too.. to keep in context..

Perhaps Clark would have fought for the votes.. perhaps Dean would have too... I'll buy that argument much more! But any discussion as to why bush was inaugurated must start with the fraud. Kerry won popular and electoral... was a nice win, plenty big that we can see the fraud in states across the country.

[snot]

10. Every time I heard Clark speak

He managed to say nothing. I wasn't sure if he was covering a lack of expertise or simply trying to hedge his bets by not committing to anything. Whatever the reason, he left me without any reason to root for him.

[Texas_Kat]

13. Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, Birmingham Alabama, 12/29/03

"... as far as we've come, we are far from the fundamental ideal of 'one person, one vote.' Today, it's only one person, one vote if you live in the right county. And if you vote at the right machine. And if your name happens to be on the rolls," said Clark. "Well, last I checked, there was no 'if' in the 15th Amendment.

One person one vote isn't just a slogan -- it's the highest law of this land. As president, I will not rest until every single American can cast their vote, and every single one of those votes is counted. We shouldn't have to wait for another Florida to fully fund election reform."

Wesley Clark

[FrenchieCat]

14. Because you are not backing up what you've just said with anything

I would question WHO manages to say nothing. I find your comments empty of any substance whatsoever, and so my finger points to you.

It would be very helpful if you could provide some examples to back up your assertions...as I believe that it could lead to a much more meaningful debate.

Thank you for that favor.

[snowbear]

15. Are you serious?

:shrug:

edit- this was in response to "snot"

I had the pleasure of seeing General Clark speak several times live last summer..

Wow! :o ... Just WOW!!!

Did you listen to him give the Democratic Radio Address on Memorial Day?

Did you watch him every night during the early days of Iraq as he worked with Aaron Brown on CNN?

Have you listened to him speak with his heart (as a soldier) to our soldiers?

Have you seen the video of him handing Hannity his ass on a platter on Fox?

Did you see his appearance on the Bill Maher show?

Oh geez... this list could go on allllllll night. :hug:

(me thinks you've mistaken the general for someone else) ;)

[AllyCat]

16. Huh? I thought it was interesting that after Clark left the race,

Kerry picked up many of his talking points. Clark consistently made statements about real problems and talked about how to change them. Clark talked about free two-year college educations to encourage more kids to go to college and be able to get some kind of a degree with not much money. Then Kerry started talking about it.

Clark talked about repealing tax cuts for the wealthy (over $200K) and then cutting income taxes completely for families making less than $50 a year so they could get back on their feet. Then Kerry started talking about it.

Clark talked tough and consistently about Iraq and our dealings there. Of course, Kerry picked up some of what Clark said when Clark coached him later on. Of course, Kerry could never deliver the same message with conviction like Clark did.

Clark was the best chance we had at beating Bush (in a fair fight) and it made no difference. The media would only report on Dean, Kerry, and Edwards. That's who they wanted. He got horrible questions in the debates. He should have entered earlier, but even so, it was so clear he was the best man for the job.

My then Republican fiance switched parties to vote, donate, and work for this man. I have never given money to a political candidate until Clark. He is still out there as a voice of reason.

He'll be back.

[kerrygoddess]

20. Say what?

Kerry had been talking about a program for college education and national service (giving a free ride to college for 2 years) long before Clark even announced he was running. It was a big issue for Kerry. The entire subject of education was something that Kerry stressed frequently!

Kerry talked about the tax cuts from before the damn vote on it and consistently through out the campaign he called for them to be repealed! Again long before Clark announced that he would run, Kerry was on this issue. He still is damn it!

Iraq? Again, Kerry was talking about it long before Clark ever announced. Kerry served on the foriegn policy committee for 20 years. You think he doesn't have a few ideas of his own on this.

Kerry did not get talking points from Clark. Sorry you simply don't know diddly about nothing!

I usually stay out of commenting in Clark threads, but PLEASE do not insinuate that Kerry used Clark talking points. You're asking to be flamed for one thing and for another thing you are grossly misinformed!

[AllyCat]

21. Not misinformed. Just followed it for a long time.

But thanks for all the nice compliments.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Sorry Kerrygoddess....but for sure,

Kerry got his quote about Bush "Prancing around an Aircraft carrier" from Wes Clark.

I do agree that Kerry's proposals were his own, and many had been in the offing for quite some time.

However, Clark was the only one to propose college "grants" of $6,000 for each of the first two years of college to any students who's family earned under $100,000 without any additional requirements.
http://clark04.com/downloads/pdf/Clark04_HigherEducation.pdf

Clark's National Service Idea was different from Kerry's.
http://clark04.com/issues/serviceplan/
http://web.archive.org/web/20040425211809/www.johnkerry.com/pdf/johnkerry_service_fact_sheet.pdf

Clark's tax plan included a surcharge on those making over 1 million per year. I don't recall that as part of Kerry's tax plan.
This editorial explains why Clark's tax plan really was a great one!
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

In reference to Iraq....it is pointless to argue that one. Clark testified before congress (both houses) in September of 2002.....

Kerry did end up voting for the resolution in October of 2002.

[second edition]

46. Two comparisons from the candidates' web sites and one small

newspaper endorsement doesn't move me. Your supposed facts are still not pr oven as such. Sorry, Kerry was and is still the better candidate. Clark in no way compares to Kerry nor Kerry's achievements.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I wasn't attempting to prove any facts....if you read what I wrote

I gave credit to John Kerry for having his own proposals. I mentioned that their national service programs were not the same. I mentioned that the surcharge on millionaires was not part of the Kerry tax plan, at any point. Also wrote that Clark's Higher Education plan was, IMO, a better plan because it gave a realistic amount of money for a college education for the first two years ($6,000 grants) to parents who might normally not have the means. I found the realism of that plan refreshing because it wasn't about tax credits or grants in exchange for national service, etc.

In addition, I agree with you that Clark or Clark's accomplishments in no way compares to Kerry and Kerry's accomplishments. They are very different people with very different histories. To compare the two man is folly. On who the better might be, we may hold different opinions....but I will say that they are both great men.

It is your opinion that John Kerry was a better candidate. I hold a different opinion.

I think that we can certainly agree to disagree on this point....without attempting to "take away" from one or the other.

:hi:

[kerrygoddess]

96. And of course Clark could not vote

So we only have his word. RIGHT!

Give it a rest. The Primaries are long over and people still need to compare.

Clark's national security program and college program were different from Kerry's yes, but the fact is Kerry was pushing both of those ideas long before Clark ever announced he would run.

And guess what... Kerry won the primaries. I do believe people voted for his experience as a politician and leader and his great stance on the issues, which showed in his record.

Clark being a virtual unknown didn't have all that much to offer.

[Texas_Kat]

99. Not to put too fine a point on it, but

Kerry won the primaries and lost the general election.

(I don't mean to turn this discussion into a 'voter fraud' thread so please refrain).

Clark is no longer an unknown, and speaks effectively for the Democratic party. This discussion is not about Kerry, it is about progressives coming to understand the value Clark brings (and brought) to the party.

If you have a personal agenda, please start your own thread.

[sandnsea]

158. "mistake in 2004"

Trying to rewrite the meaning of the words in the OP along with what happened in the primaries? If some people don't think Clark brings any value to the party, they've got a right to say so. And if some people think there was no mistake in 2004, they've got a right to say that too. If you want to start a world according to Clark supporters thread, maybe you're the one who needs to go do that.

[Texas_Kat]

162. Uh, sandnsea

I know what the OP said.... that was me...

;-)

[sandnsea]

163. Isn't that interesting

Then it's true. Reality doesn't matter, not even your own.

[Texas_Kat]

166. I have no idea what you intended to say, but it made no sense.

Please revise your rhetoric for clarity.

[sandnsea]

170. Oh, I'll make it really really simple

The article says what it says. You don't get to decide what the author meant or the rightness or wrongness of it. As much as you'd like to try, and try to pretend the subject of your OP means people can only praise Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

175. Thanks for clarifying your thought.

You don't get to decide what the author meant or the rightness or wrongness of it. As much as you'd like to try, and try to pretend the subject of your OP means people can only praise Clark.

I assumed that perhaps I hadn't understood you. But now I realize that I DID understand you and you're just plain out to lunch.

It's pretty clear that the author of the article states that progressives missed the boat by not supporting Clark in 2004. His unstated (you get extra credit if you get this 'underlying theme' in the work) caution to progressives is that knee-jerk reactions to 'non-traditional Democrats' by some in the left wing of the Democratic party is unproductive and likely to lose us more elections.

Since (in this thread) it's become clear that you are a Hillary supporter, I think you'd appreciate his words. After all, she's gonna have trouble in that quarter.

[burythehatchet]

28. you simply don't know diddly about nothing

When I see kerry supporters saying stuff like this it confirms to me that Kerry was a trojan horse all the way. He had no intention of winning this fight. Bonesman through and through.

I have no idea who got talking points from whom, but Wes Clark would have fought against the fascists on election day, not capitulate.

[second edition]

47. Bull Sh*t!!!!!!! n/t

[burythehatchet]

51. your eloquence is impressive indeed.

on edit:
these threads and responses are actually quite helpful. As a liberal, I have a lot of important choices to make in terms of where to allocate my resources and energy. As a natural part of that process certain candidates get eliminated along the way. Al Gore should have won re-election, and John Kerry would have been an outstanding president, but when some very basic questions cannot be answered, one has to stop wasting time and focus the assessment on those who remain in the running.

[Clark2008]

30. Yes, he did.

Maybe not specifically the college issue, but there were many...

"Prancing around on an aircraft carrier..."
"Force as a last resort..."

I could go on, but, please do not insinuate that Kerry didn't, because I know good damn and well he did.

This is not a slam on Kerry, just a correction of your mistake.

[CarolNYC]

34. also

the comment about semi automatic weapons and joining the military or whatever it was...Kerry took that from Wes too. Hey Wes had some good lines. Gen Clark didn't seem to mind. He just wanted his ideas out there.

Also not meaning to slam Kerry....I think he's one of the good guys OK?

[sandnsea]

41. This is hysterical

Force as a last resort is a talking point?

Kerry never said "prancing around on an aircraft carrier".

It is amazing to me that people could think that somebody who has been developing policy for 20 years needs to copy anybody.

[Clark2008]

44. And it's amazing to me that you didn't listen to Kerry's speeches.

KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin?

First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections.

In fact, he first didn't even want to do that. And it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind -- his campaign has a word for that -- and went to the United Nations.

Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.

We had Saddam Hussein trapped.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

"Last resort" means something to someone who's seen combat
Bush promised he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter. Today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion - $200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors.
Source: First Bush-Kerry debate, Miami FL Sep 30, 2004

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm#Iraq

[sandnsea]

50. That's a talking point?

Are you kidding me? You think Clark originated the concept of going to war as a last resort? :crazy:

I keep hoping there's alot of young people on this board who are just not familiar with commonly used terminology. It would truly frighten me if adults were so obsessed with individuals that they have become unable to differentiate original ideas from commonly used terms.

[Clark2008]

134. He was the first person to say it in the 2004 primaries.

The other Dems were too busy defending their votes (except Dean and Kucinich).

And, you're being a bit obtuse, oh ancient one.

[sandnsea]

149. lol

This is like arguing over who coined the phrase "I'm hungry". Some people have lost all perspective.

[Clark2008]

153. Yeah... they have.

You can argue the finer points all you want, but everyone who followed Clark saw Kerry co-opt his talking points.

You don't have to believe it and we weren't pissed about it, but he did.

[second edition]

48. You are absolutely right. Kerry wouldn't need Clark's talking points.

I didn't want to get nasty, but the attacks on Kerry are unfair so... If Clark was such a wonderful candidate and inspired so many people how come he did so badly in the primaries? I hate when another candidate's supporters feel a need to but another candidate down in order to elevate their guy. To Clark's credit he hasn't said a bad think about Kerry and they appear to have a good relationship. Obviously, Clark respects John Kerry and visa versa.

[Texas_Kat]

53. It seems that you are trying to start an argument

as opposed to a discussion about the OP topic.

Many here (including the poster you're attacking and myself) worked hard for Kerry in the general election.

There are many reasons that Clark did not succeed in winning the Presidency in 2004 (including a campaign that began and ended in only 4 months).

Tone down the rhetoric a bit... no one is 'putting Kerry down".

Kerry did use Clark's talking points on certain subjects (Gun control was one that came up in a debate... it startled me because it was almost word for word what Clark had said)

It's not a slam on Kerry, it's what politicians do....

[CarolNYC]

130. Gen Clark and Sen Kerry

Yep, they do seem to genuinely like and respect each other....I think they work well together.

[Clark2008]

135. He didn't do poorly in the primaries.

He came in first, second and third in every race in which he competed before he dropped out.

Sorry, for a novice politician who'd been in the race only four months, I think that's doing fantastically.

[CarolNYC]

129. "prancing around on an aircraft carrier"

Well, Kerry may have changed the postion of a word here or there...but I'm having a hard time believing you never heard Kerry use something very close to this line...No biggie, it was a good line. I'm sure politicians borrow the good stuff from each other all of the time.

[sandnsea]

156. summer 2003

Clark wasn't even running when Kerry said 'he knew something about aircraft carriers for real', and that dressing up in a flight suit in front of a mission accomplished sign doesn't mean Americans won't notice lives lost, etc. There really isn't anything in the campaign that Kerry didn't say first, including "do not rush to war".

The only thing I know for sure that Clark said first was that there should be a resolution to use force against Saddam if he didn't comply with the UN disarmament. And that Iraq had WMD. Way back in Sept. 2002.

The disconnect continues to stun me.

[CarolNYC]

171. no, no, no

I've heard Kerry say those comments you mention....Yes, Clark didn't say those things. I'm talking about a comment, if not exactly word for word, then almost word for word, like Clark's "prancing around on an aircraft carrier"...using the word prancing.

Listen, it's really no big deal. As I said, I'm sure politicians borrow good lines from each other all of the time. I imagine if you looked hard enough, you'd find lines that Clark borrowed also. But it seems to upset you greatly and I'm sorry for that.

No biggie. Kerry had a lot of great ideas, OK? :hi:

Oh, and you can call me an under 25er if it makes you feel better...I'd love to be under 25 again. :)

[sandnsea]

181. the word prancing?

Are you serious? Kerry makes an issue of mission accomplished, the aircraft carrier and Bush playing dressup in summer 2003. Clark changes it to prancing, and you're going to say Kerry coopted the single word prancing???? (I don't think he ever used the word anyway, totally not Kerry)

This discussion is pure insanity.

[Texas_Kat]

182. And thank you for adding to it!

[Boo Boo]

114. Don't forget the whole

Family-Values/Valuing-Families riff. Kerry started using that after Wes dropped out and I'm guessing that he did so with Wes' encouragement and blessing.

[Texas_Kat]

121. I'd forgotten that. :)

Wes's True Grits tour of the South in Dec 2003!

[sandnsea]

157. That is HILLARY'S

For the love of god, you obviously pay no attention whatsoever because Hillary has been using 'valuing families' for several years. And other Democrats too.

Just absolutely stunning. Again, I really hope the people saying this stuff are under 25 or our party is as uninformed as we accuse the right wing of being.

[Texas_Kat]

165. I haven't seen 25 for many years (decades...okay)

Actually I suspect I've been involved in Democratic politics at least as long as you, perhaps longer.

Obviously, Hillary is having a problem getting her message out. After all, politics isn't what you 'say', it's what the voters hear.

(word to the wise: you won't win any converts dissing the intelligence of potential voters)

[sandnsea]

168. No she's not

Obvoiusly you haven't been paying attention, she's been saying that for so long I don't even remember when she started. Based on your belief that you can change what you say the thread is about, despite your own written words; you obviously think you can also change reality for Hillary or Clark or anybody. It's like arguing with a swift boat vet or somebody who says the sky is purple when it clearly isn't.

I don't care about winning any converts, I don't expect to when people are perfectly content in living in the reality they created.

[Texas_Kat]

174. "I don't care about winning any converts"

Okay then.... I guess that says all that needs to be said.

IMHO, I'd say that Hillary needs to work on her 'persona' since (in the last, national 'approval poll' rankings) her negatives were at 46%.

Ah well, maybe it's just me.

[Boo Boo]

185. You're sorta missing the point there S&S, which

doesn't surprise me, because I think you're either in denial or you're just being deliberately obtuse and combative. I'm not talking about two fucking words here, or even who was the first person to think about turning those two words around on the Repubs. For all I know Hillary told Wes to use the two words herself; they are friends, you know.

I'm talking about the fact that when you listen to Wes' speeches from his Southern tour and then compare that to Kerry's after Wes left the race it is clear that he cribbed that material---it is practically verbatim.

Let's face it, Kerry's a bit of a limp noodle when it comes to making a speech. "My fellow Americans, you are feeling very sleepy..." He was darn smart to steal Wes' stuff. Kerry is a darn smart guy. Yep.

[sandnsea]

188. Stunning, just stunning

It's been a stunning experience being a Kerry supporter. The guy who put everybody to sleep with his droning speeches apparently stole every word he uttered from Edwards, Clark & Dean. The country really must be going through some sort of national nervous breakdown, no other explanation.

[snowbear]

22. Great stuff AllyCat =^..^=

Really great stuff ~~~~~ :headbang:

[karynnj]

35. Kerry had those positions long before Clark was in the race

Now, as the positions make sense, I will not say that Clark copied Kerry's positions. In 2004, Clark had not demonstrated that he was a long time Democrat, he didn't have much experience with domestic policy and he had never run a campaign before. On the positive side, he NOW has been a strong Democratic advocate for the last year, he was one of the best surrogates for Kerry, and he is at least creating a paper trail of what his views are, although if he would have had an elected position it would be better. I could happily support him if he wins the nomination in 2008.

As to your comment that he had no press, Clark had a huge burst of very positive press when he hinted he would enter and when he actually entered. (If I remember right the press carried the hints on the day Kerry had his official announcement.) Kerry's fall 2003 press was mainly interested in when he would drop out and that he was crazy to risk his house. When Clark entered, many press stories mentioned that his entry would eliminate any advantage Kerry had from his service. You also had the reported comment that Bill Clinton said that Clark and Hillary were the only stars the Democrats could run.

Someone up-thread mentioned his embracing Michael Moore as a plus. I think this was really more a sign of Clark being a green candidate. You don't see the Republicans endorsing Limbaugh or the SBVT during a campaign for a good reason - they want deniability when these people go beyond acceptability. Any Democrat would have had the RL.

[AllyCat]

37. My point about Clark was not to say how much better he was than

Kerry (I believe he was, but that was NOT the point of my statements). Now that I am not so tired, I will try to clarify (but not apologize for my statements), since the point of the original post to which I replied said that "Clark never made any sense" (snot).

Kerry did not get "all his talking points from Clark". He did not talk about any of the things I mentioned in any great detail during the early part of his campaign. Clark did. What little press Clark got AFTER he announced focused on these points as did his highly-descriptive views and opinions on his website.

When Clark dropped out of the race, he met Kerry right here in Wisconsin only a day or two later to show his support for Kerry. Shortly after that, these points I mentioned, became part of the Kerry platform that was PUBLICIZED. Kerry did indeed meet with Clark to discuss policy positions and help flesh out his knowledge of the military. Both men are veterans with distinguished service, yet Clark's military experience was clearly MORE RECENT and came from a tactical vantage point. Kerry was wise to get input from Clark.

I don't think he presented the points very well on his own. That is my opinion.

I am not misinformed and I do know "diddly" about a few things as do you. My point was not to belittle Kerry, but to respond to a poster who seemed to think Clark made no sense. Kerry sure didn't think so.

[karynnj]

78. I said NONE of the things you referred to

I never said you were misinformed and I have never used the word "diddly" in my life. I DID say Clark was a great surrogate and I did say that if he were the nominee in 2008 I would happily support him.

I know that Kerry used Clark and other military people as advisers and he was certainly wise to do so. Kerry has a record on issues like education going back to the 80s.

You are comparing what you read on the Clark web site to what you heard Kerry speak about. Kerry also had a web site and he had many positions on it.

I still insist that while Dean, Clark and Edwards all had at least one period of positive press when they were the new face, Kerry had mostly negative press until he won Iowa. Even then the press was pretty slow to give compliments.

[AllyCat]

84. Reply to MANY people who didn't like my post.

Didn't think I needed to set up a separate response to each person.

[karynnj]

88. Sorry - Just saw the response to

As the tone sounded as if it was directed to a person, rather than reading as though it was simply a factual response to a chain, I wanted to be sure that you saw that a) I did not dislike Clark, but was sufficiently impressed that I would happily support him if he were the nominee (there are many I wouldn't include the word happily for) and b) I did think he was an excellent surrogate and adviser to Kerry. I would actually have thought much less of Kerry if he COULDN'T evaluate and use ideas and words of others to improve his plans, but Kerry did have positions that he has consistently held for 20 - 30 years.

[AllyCat]

173. And if only our stupid corporate media would have focused

on those facts, we might have gotten somewhere. It didn't matter WHO represented the Dems. They weren't going to play them in the same light as Dumbya.

Electronic communication is really flat and rarely conveys the emotion of the writer accurately.

[second edition]

45. Kerry was out in front with these things you mention.

You obviously have a selective memory. Clark comes off as a real nice guy and his time may yet come to serve in a higher office in one capacity or another. It's wrong of you to marginalize John Kerry in order to inflate your image of General Clark. Senator Kerry was by far the best well rounded candidate. His vast FIRST HAND knowledge of many issues,his experience and his presence made him the real and best choice. Kerry came very close and many now think he actually won. I'm sorry, but IMO Clark wouldn't of even come close to the numbers Kerry generated. Talk up your guy, work and promote him, just don't unfairly, mis -represent facts and try to discredit the achievements of Senator Kerry because of an obvious personal preference for Clark. It's not right.

[Texas_Kat]

52. We may always disagree about who may have been the 'best choice"

but Kerry adopted many ideas and policies that Clark advanced.

Clark was a senior advisor to Kerry after the primaries, and I doubt they spent all that time just rehashing war stories over a beer.

It would have been natural when Kerry adopted some of Wes's policies, that he also adopted some of his phrases.

[snot]

18. Maybe I just had bad luck--

I was very hopeful about him, because thought his credentials would appeal to independents. I heard him on Diane Rehm and saw him on a talk show--sorry, I can't recall which, althought the only one I watch regularly is the Daily Show--and in the debates. On those occasions, like I said, he managed to not say much--he actually came across as a bit evasive. Maybe a fluke . . .

[Texas_Kat]

19. He'll be on CSPAN (3, I think) -- Road to the Whitehouse on Sunday nite

Perhaps you could tune in... if not, I'm sure it will be posted at CSPAN's website beginning early next week.

You should try to catch the speech. You might just change your mind. I'd be interested to hear what you think after you get a chance to see him in a real (as opposed to artificial) setting.

One question, though.... how could you have missed his speech at the Democratic National Convention? He brought the house down!

[Leilani]

160. Texas Kat, it will be C-Span 1

Sunday nite...Road to the WhiteHouse...& is usually repeated several times.

[Texas_Kat]

161. Thanks

I sent them an email last night and got the canned "we're too busy to answer".

Their 'preview blurb' still says SUN., 6:30/9:30PM ET, C-SPAN3, but that sounded wrong 'cos I've always seen it on C-SPAN 1.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Leilani]

159. Hey Snot,

Did you see the Chris Matthews Hardball College Tour?

Chris said Wes Clark was the winner.

Given 1 hour to speak & take qustions from the audience, the winner among college students was Clark.

He obviously had the smarts, the gravitas, the right positions, & the personality to appeal to this important group.

I guess you didn't get around much during the primaries.

[Clark2008]

29. Then you didn't listen

Or you only watched the corporate media, who busted their collective asses trying to turn him into a one-trick pony.

[CarolNYC]

33. Hey snot,

It's hard to imagine what you were listening to...or not listening to...that allows you to make a comment like that. I'm assuming you're open minded and sincere so why don't you check out the video section of www.u-wes-a.com and take a second listen? Might be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks much!

[kerrygoddess]

94. Lack of expertise

I must say I agree. I saw him speak in NH at the Dem dinner right before the primary. No enthusiasm in him or for him.

[Texas_Kat]

95. Apparently a different style of candidate appeals to you.

I saw that speech on CSPAN. Apparently the northeast will always prefer the northeast.

[FrenchieCat]

101. Well, I saw Kerry speak.....

and by the time I woke up, he was through. I clapped and called it a day.

On the other hand, when I saw Clark, I hung on to his every word....because he was fresh, not a droning politician and there was no telling what he might say next. I would call him a fascinating speaker......in where you always learn something, not so much about him (not so much the me, me, me), as much as about some important historical events and how they lead back and directly affect the now.

[politicasista]

109. Can we please stop eating our own

and direct our attention towards a criminal in chief and 2006? The primaries are long over.

[FrenchieCat]

113. I was responding to Kerrygoddess' criticism.....

maybe you ought to direct your statement to her as well, Non?

[Justice]

105. It is good to know that as it reveals the bias in your comments above

I supported Clark in the primaries - but I worked my tailed off in NH for Kerry in the general election, as did my family. I can speak well of Kerry without worrying that it diminishes my view of Clark - I am sorry you cannot.

[politicasista]

110. She was talking about her experience

Why can't you just respect her opinion?

[Justice]

137. It actually sounds a little too forced to actually be her experience,

Which is why I questioned it. A little strident, not at all balanced - not one good thing to say.

If she really liked Kerry - Kerry admires Clark very much - so I am having trouble appreciating how she would dislike Clark so much.

[CarolNYC]

141. I hate to say this....

because I usually truly enjoy your posts, politicasista, but your postings in this thread seem more than a little disingenuous. Why is it OK to say negative things about Clark but not positive things? :shrug:

[politicasista]

143. It's not ok to say negative things about the General

I like the General too, I like Kerry, I like Dean, I like Conyers and all the other good dems. It's fine with me that people say positive things about the General. He is cool with me. I just am tired of all the coulda, woulda, and shoulda, when it comes to who should have defeated *. I am just saying that hindsight is 20/20, and we need to look ahead, not look back.

[Justice]

144. oh< yeah, I get what you mean now,,,, just like

the DSM is old news == we should just move on.


Right.

[politicasista]

145. No

We need to pursue this. Anything that exposes * for the lying criminal he is is great with me.

[CarolNYC]

146. gotcha thanks....

Yep, let's look forward...and learn from the past...And, please, let's all move forward together. I like all the good dems too. :)

Thanks, politicasista. :hi:

[politicasista]

147. You're welcome Carol.

:hi:

[CarolNYC]

132. Hmmmm....

maybe you attended the wrong event.

I was in NH for one weekend leading up to the primaries and saw Wes wow a college crowd and completely convert my cousin's girlfriend who knew nothing about Clark until she heard him speak that day.

I always liked this piece from Josh Marshall's TPM right before the primary. He'd gone to an Edwards, then a Clark and finally, I believe, a Kerry event and compared them.


"When I was thinking of what I’d write this afternoon and this evening, and when I was driving to the Clark event, I had thought the story might be the surging Edwards' crowds and the more restrained and perhaps smaller ones for Clark. I thought this because of the Clark event I saw on Friday where everything seemed just a tad off key. But that’s not what I found.

Clark’s audience was in a similar-sized room with just as many people (roughly 600 we figured, with others in overflow) and, in their own way, just as charged as Edwards’. There was the same intensity, the crowd waves, the call and response, chants building up to fury and then lapsing away. The same intensity, but less organized --- and more boisterous --- or not so much directed by one person up on a stage. Everything Edwards is fine-tuned, like Edwards. If these were rival high schools this might have been the one on the wrong side of the tracks.

(snip)

When I saw Clark a few days ago his delivery struck me as a tad rushed. He yelled his presentation a bit, or something -- I'm not sure precisely what -- was just off key. But today was different. He connected with the crowd. He hit the war issue hard --- Bush is someone who “prances around on the deck of an aircraft carrier.”

If I’d expected to glean some clear message from the differences between the intensity and numbers and passion at the Edwards and Clark rallies, it didn’t turn out that way. Each was very different. Edwards is a bit like a high school rally: fun, loud, clean, exuberance, well-drilled. Clark’s event had no less intensity, but it was a bit more rough-edged, grittier somehow."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_25.php

[FrenchieCat]

11. That whole article is great....

and the comments left by readers are also interesting.

Wes Clark is a national treasure. But not enough people got to know that.

He is the President that I was promised as a kid. Someone who cares about everyone, and would do his damnest to make sure that this country would show the world what a great place the United States could truly be.

Plus, he's really the only one that has the where-with-all and the cojones to cut the pentagon budget pork and find the money that we are missing for programs that have been cut to the core.

Others will talk about programs....Clark could actually fund those programs.

Could any other Democrat do this? No....they'd be to busy defending and proving how "tough" they are on defense.

[gardenista]

12. "The Left" really had little to do with it. He entered the race too late

to get any traction.

He could easily have risen to at least the VP slot had he just entered the race even a month earlier.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I have an interesting article for you....

Although you may have already read it, I think it provides a great analysis of the entire 2004 primary process in a nutshell, and gives a short study of the candidates.

Primary Colors by Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16965

[snowbear]

17. Question for Snot (if you'd be so kind)

Why do you think General Clark is not a good speaker?

I'm just shocked that anyone would say that about him of all people.

What makes you feel that way?

Thanks for the response. You brought it up... and I guess I'm just dumbfounded.. flabbergasted... shocked even. :o

[eridani]

25. Two generals Clark needs to emulate

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm

'Nuff said about Ike, but Marine General Smedley Butler was even more to the point.

So, does General Clark think that the US military exists to make the world safe for 50 cents a day labor, or not? The graduation speech at the School of the Americas featured a nice rant about how Venezuela is a danger to the hemisphere. Does Clark buy that, or not?

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[Texas_Kat]

75. I think Ike would be proud of Clark

As for Smedley... as my son would say..."that was then, this is now"

In other words, it's no longer 1933.

[eridani]

150. You're right about Ike, I think

However, the difference between now and 1933 is that then we weren't the dominant world power, and now we are. It's made the behavior Smedley described far, far worse.

Bottom line: does Clark share our current rulers' desire to make the world safer for fifty cents a day labor, or not?

[dave123williams]

26. Ach; they'll still call him 'unfit for command', and then knowingly slader

him...it's page 1 in their playbook.

[tsuki]

27. I'll have them home by Christmas worked for Ike. It was difficult

for the Dems to counter in the 1952 election. Ike spoke with the authority of five stars.

[CarolNYC]

32. WooHoo!

Nice article. Thanks for posting. It's nice to see that some people are seeing the light...Wes Clark is a national treasure....We are lucky to have him as a Democrat.

[Justice]

36. Great Article - Best One Yet Since About June 12 Speech

The best part about listening to that speech on June 12 was knowing that the words were about the future - and knowing with absolutely that Clark was not going to retreat from political/public life.

Wes Clark walked around the room before and after the speech to say hello and shake hands with everyone there. His handshake is as strong as it was the first time I had the chance to experience (when I stuck my arm thru a crowd of people in Dover NH on his first NH trip) to shake his. Then I said, thank you, thank you for running.

This time I said, please, please run again.

I think about what could have been if he had the P nomination, and also about what could have been if Kerry picked him as his running mate. Mostly though, I think about 2008 and hoping that Clark will run again.

[dogman]

38. This expresses how many of us have felt.

This is why my hope is that we get it right in 2008. I hope to be a Clark delegate again. It's not just for the good of the Democratic Party but for the good of our Nation. We will need strong leadership more than ever after four more years of Bushco damage. We also need to help Wes get Democrats elected in '06 and '08 to help get the job done.

[rhett o rick]

39. It wasn’t the left that made the mistake, it was the Demo Party.

Totally different. The Demo Party is a power machine that doesn’t listen much to the grassroots lefts. Don’t get me wrong, they are better than the Reich Wing Repub machine. But sometimes it seems like they are more interested in maintaining their jobs than correcting the horrible wrongs of the Country. How many are hiding from the Downing Street Memo issue? What is the Demo Party stand on the IWAR? Kerry voted for the resolution, but during the campaign he seem to say that he didn’t like it but we had to finish what we started or something like that. Will the Demo Party machine run Hillary and say to hell with the red states? Is this a good strategy? I liked your write up but will you be saying again in 2008, “The left made a big mistake”. The Demo Party is the only option for the left and it doesn’t look like they have a strategy. The grassroots Demo’s will bicker until the last minute then the Party machine will stick in Hillary.

[CarolNYC]

40. Well, unfortunately, I believe you're right

There's definitely certain elements of both parties who view personally staying in power as more important than party, country or anything else....And I think, if a viable third party were to emerge, the same thing would happen there...Power corrupts and it's hard to let go of. No doubt about it.

[rhett o rick]

66. I agree with you. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

42. It seems to me only two entities want to run a national campaign

Dean is absolutely clear that he wants Dems to run a 50 state campaign. He's putting money out there aimed at doing exactly that.

Clark knows he holds appeal in all 50 states and he wants Dems to matter in all 50 states.

I know of no one else who is as clear on this point as these two.

I also think these are the only two who are actually actively working to stay in touch with grass roots groups. Sure, others say they are, but Dean and Clark actually **do** it as part and parcel of their personal styles.

[rhett o rick]

65. If Dean is trying to win red states he is not starting very well.

It is one thing to call the Repub leadership names, quite another to call all Repub's names. Won't win red states that way.
Secondly, appealing to the grassroot Demo's, as you stated, and listening to them are two very different things. Will the Demo Party machine poll grassroot Demo's to see who we want? Or will they shove in the candidate they want? I am guessing the later. Most likely Hillary.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. I disagree with you about Dean .... but this thread's not about him

so we'll have to find another place to discuss it. I prefer not to hijack the OP's thread.

[rhett o rick]

184. Sorry, got sidetracked n/t

[William Seger]

43. " Simply put, Wes Clark has his priorities and heart in the right place."

Damn right! And I've never been a big fan of Generals. The article mentioned that many appreciated his intelligence, but it should have added that he was the most intelligent of the candidates.

[AX10]

49. One can only respect his military career.

Wesley Clark has been a proven leader time and time again. I supported him in 2004 and he is MY choice for 2008!

:dem:

:kick:

:cheers:

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. "The Left made a big mistake in 2004"

UNDERSTATEMENT of the year! They blew it BIG TIME.

Great article! I'm happy to see people are finally seeing in Wes what all we supporters already knew. 'bout time.

[agincourt]

55. I think Clark would have been harder to smear,

but as long as the GOP keeps the sheeple dumb and counts the votes it's hard to win with a "perfect" candidate.

[Larkspur]

57. The Left didn't lose the election. Kerry and the DLC clowns did.

Clark had no verifiable Democratic credentials, and if he was such a great candidate, Bill Clinton would have covertly sent the DLC donors to his campaign to challenge Dean's campaign, but he didn't.

[Skwmom]

176. Clinton was thinking about Hillary in 08.

The problem was Clark was a GREAT candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

58. I'm not sure hugging Michael Moore

was going to ensure a win.

[Texas_Kat]

61. Clark has never put purely political considerations

.. over doing the right thing.

He stood up for Michael Moore's right to speak. Did it hurt him in the long run?

Yes probably.

Has he spoken up for others?

I'd call his defense of Dean a few days ago "classic" Clark. His penchant for speaking 'truth to power' has always been one of his most attractive qualities.

I agree that Wes Clark doesn't consider 'ensuring a win' more important than speaking truth.

edited; Subject space wasn't quite long enough.

[LittleClarkie]

98. I guess I was reacting to the way the author

put forth "he was the only one to stand up for Michael Moore" as if that made him golden somehow. At least that's how I took it when I read it. As I think about it now though, the author might have just been pointing out that the General was more the real deal than folks gave him credit for.

He also started too late. His year will be 2008 if at all. I'm starting to see him emerge. I was concerned when he disappeared from public view, but folks are starting to pay attention to him. He has his signature issue, which is help for the military, and I liked how he and Kerry worked together on that issue.

We shall see what happens. I like Kerry, but a Clark nomination would be okie dokie with as well.

[Texas_Kat]

100. Thanks, LC!

I think the writer was making just that point. Clark was (and is) the real deal.

[CarolNYC]

142. Yep, Clark's not one to worry about

how his actions or words will look to other people if he feels he's doing the right thing. It might not be an advantage politically but it's one of the things I love about him...

[Writer]

69. The question should be...

did Michael Moore help the Democratic cause as much as we think he did?

[karynnj]

81. I don't think he did

I think the people who went to and loved F911 already intended to vote against Bush. A women's group I belong to talked about the film. The majority hated the slick snarky way it connected Bush to Bin Laden but found the footage in Iraq and in Detroit(?) very compelling. The overall view was an uneasiness with almost a quilt by association. Now this was a group of liberal, reconstructionist Jews, all of whom were anti-Bush.

I think it was MM and some of the 527 that led some people to feel that the SBVT was fair because the Democrats were doing it too. (I strongly disagree in that their was at least some truth in every LW attack and the SBVT lied about Kerry's service. When people were surveyed, Kerry was thought to have run the more negative campaign as he was blamed for stuff he had nothing to do with.

[Writer]

86. I did a focus group on voting behaviors for a grad. class...

I discovered that F 9/11 accomplished very little, and may have hurt Kerry.

For these reasons:

1) Republicans simply didn't want to go and hear "Bush-bashing" so it was difficult to get them to come despite many assurances on my part that the research would be managed neutrally... the movie was geared toward the wrong audience, if it was, in fact, MM's intent to CHANGE minds

2) Undecideds - the few remaining - felt that MM was making salacious charges about Bush - i.e. that Bush caused 9/11

3) Democrats felt their concerns about Bush were validated; perhaps they were galvanized to go to the voting booth, but nothing more - this movie was for them

Overall many of the participants in my focus group felt that it was only validating at best, and bashing at worst. I think what I found contradicted conventional liberal wisdom about MM. I think many of us felt that "if we just put the FACTS before the voters, people will WAKE UP." It doesn't work that way. Voters vote not on facts, but on intangibles: trust, image, beliefs, impressions, etc.

Because of this research, I discovered that criticism, not bashing, is more effective in challenging the status quo. Ridicule and name-calling helps to attract only those who already believe, but not those who do not yet believe. Republicans understand this well... believe me, I don't think Ann Coulter persuades anyone in the middle to vote Republican. She simply provides validation and talking points for those already voting Republican.

And if I go on from here, I likely will be lynched for saying any more. So that's my story.

[Texas_Kat]

90. No criticism from this quarter

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

One of the most important things you said that we should keep in mind for the future:

"Voters vote not on facts, but on intangibles: trust, image, beliefs, impressions, etc."

Part of the article in the original post addresses the same issue on the progressive side. How many of us (progressives, liberals, whatever) don't vote on facts, but on "trust, image, beliefs, impressions, etc." How many on the 'left" didn't vote to nominate Clark because of preconceived notions of someone who made the military a career without examining the facts?

Generic 'voters' aren't the only ones who make decisions this way.

We (progressives/liberals/etc.) pride ourselves on claiming to examine "facts", but find ourselves repeating the easy smear tactics put out by those who know how to manipulate impressions more effectively. Endless, mindless sloganeering helps create those impressions.

We can only counter the tactic when we recognize it -- on either side of the political spectrum.

Thanks for your insight.... I learned something today.

[karynnj]

183. Actually I think that his miliary career was

exactly what he was running on. I doubt he lost because of it, especially as the only other candidate with a military background won.

I remember that when he first came out his millitary background gave him real allure. The tape of him heaping praise on Bush in 2001, BEFORE 911, made me look no further. The only notable thing Bush did in this time frame was the tax cut. So I was concerned about whether he was really a Democrat. I was also concerned that he had never run a campaign. Even Bill Clinton lost a race early in his career - as did John Kerry. They both learned from these losses and did things differently and better the next time.

For 2008, from my perspective the issue of whether he's a Democrat is gone. I am still concerned that he has never run a campaign, but the primary itself is a campaign and if he wins it may be that he has learned from others' experiences.

[JHBowden]

59. Bullshit!

Maybe 2008 will be different, but in 2004, there were solid reasons not to vote for Clark.

Clark, unlike Dean and Kerry, agreed to cap his fundraising at 45 million, which would have killed us. In addition, Clark would have been hammered for flip flopping on Iraq, in addition to having glowing praise for the worst criminals in the administration after 9-11.

Some might say Clark would have "fought back." With no money? I call bullshit.

[AllyCat]

85. Wrong. He never praised them.

That little tidbit of information about him supporting * and his illegal war came from one conference in which he was repeatedly quoted out of context. I'm sure someone here can find the file, but I am too tired to look for it right now.

It is the same as the RW tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper on the war, even though we know how it all went with Senate votes.

[Justice]

106. I think we were killed even though Kerry had limitless money

and oh, in case you hadn't heard - Kerry was hammered for flip flopping on Iraq. In fact, flip flop actually the term used specifically for Kerry.

I am just sayin' don't be telling us what Clark would have done and what he would not have done. You really don't know. With Kerry, we do know - we watched, we agonized, we saw.

[JHBowden]

124. With no $$$, Team Clark could do little.

Clark limiting himself to 45 million was the most important factor in my decision making. A good sum of cashola isn't a sufficient condition to beat the Republicans, but it is a necessary one. It doesn't matter if their attacks have any truth; the Bushies could have said "Clark molests small children" 24/7 and there would be little that could have been done to retaliate.

Yeah, the money was a big factor why people looked at Dean and Kerry over Clark. But some remember little about 2004 already.

[Texas_Kat]

126. Uh, after the convention (for the general election)

all money comes from the fed... or the party.

Besides, money doesn't buy elections (it buys media, though). Politicians use money for voter contact because they haven't had grassroots support to back them up and take the place of political consultants with their hands out.

You sound like a pragmatist. IMHO, this time I think you made the wrong choice.

[JHBowden]

128. Clark needs to take campaigning seriously.

Fundraising is an essential part of it. If we don't have the funds, we're not even in the game. Hopefully the general has learned something if he chooses to run in 2008.

[Texas_Kat]

131. I believe he's learned several lessons from the previous campaign.

Money and campaign finance. The real nature of the media. The importance of grassroots activism.

Everybody says he's a quick study.... Believe it!

[FrenchieCat]

136. I did have apprehensions on that score.....the money!

What I noticed though was that many didn't let that hold Edwards back, at all. He also had not opted out if I recall, and yet, there was no real mention of that hurting Edwards. Hell, he barely had to spend much based on all of the positive publicity he received after Iowa.

But you are right that the money certainly could have been a factor during that crucial time....March thru July. No doubt about it.

Part of the reason that Clark dropped out when he did was that he saw the writing on the wall, and didn't want to keep asking for money from his supporters knowing that he was waging a losing battle (it was clear after Tennesse and Virginia--that even the South had hopped onto the Kerry momentum wagon). So money is one of the big factors as to why he dropped out.

I just think too many things went against Clark in '04. Whether it was the late entry, having leftover consultants, not contesting Iowa (which also is why the unions didn't endorse him...read that he was the original choice), opting in to public financing and having both the right and the left on his hind leg...with the media alternating ignoring and smearing him, the fact that he was not well known, that he was new to politics.....it just wasn't meant to be.

I will say that he would have been an advantage as VP though....With Kerry stating that the person he picked would be Foreign policy and National Defense strong, I don't know why he ended up with who he ended up with. (well actually, I do have a couple of good guesses)

However, I do see things going differently for Clark in 2008, as long as the conventional Wisdom of a Hillary run doesnt swallo the competition whole (and that we don't let it)....and I do believe that Clark is one man that learned in 4 months what it might take others to learn in a lifetime.

[Clark2008]

138. People looked over Clark for Dean?

Ummm... no.

Clark beat Dean in more states.

Revisionist history at work, I see.

[JHBowden]

178. Even Dean came ahead of Clark in NH and Iowa

Clark tanked when it counted. I told you guys those states mattered, but still, the fanatics think Clark's failure was some sort of conspiracy.

[Texas_Kat]

180. Uh, Clark didn't compete in Iowa

Dean led New Hampshire for months, before Kerry in Iowa started the virtual landslide. Clark went on anyway to win Oklahoma, and place second in Arizona, New Mexico and South Dakota. For a 4-month campaign he didn't do badly.

Just thought I'd un-rewrite history.

[Justice]

139. I read your posts during the primary, you NEVER said

one positive thing about Clark, and you never mentioned money.

[JHBowden]

177. Memory Refreshment:

There is nothing positive about never having won an election.

I grudgingly and publically switched my support from Dean to Kerry late in December on grounds that Kerry combined the strengths of Clark and Dean and had little of their weaknesses. One of those mentioned was Clark's self-imposed fundraising cap.

You guys don't listen anyway. I remember arguing with Pepperbelly about how winning Iowa was extremely important since a strong showing gives a candidate 40 million in free advertising going into NH. Oh, but I should forget about all of this realism about politics! Clark has (insert whatever unverifiable personal trait you guys imagine him to have here), and shiny stars!

The fluffy stuff doesn't cut it. Without a focus on the nuts and bolts of politics, Clark will hold the grand political office he holds now for a long time.

[HootieMcBoob]

60. I could not possibly kick this enough

Wes is excellent. As our candidate in '08 he will fit very nicely into both the "nurturing parent" and the "strict father" frames. He is a fighter and he will win in a landslide that will lead the Democratic Party into power throughout the rest of the century! We made a mistake in '04. For the country's sake I hope we don't make the same mistake in '08.

:kick:

[Justice]

62. I agree

Buttons were handed out at the event in NH that said "Get some starch" which blends both the parent and the father.

[trillian]

64. NSS!

:kick:

[Texas_Kat]

72. OKay, that's a new one on me...

What's "NSS" ?

(National Security, Stupid)?

[Adelante]

77. Heh heh

No Shit, Sherlock?

[Clark2008]

154. No Shit, Sherlock... National Security, Stupid

Same difference.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

68. Loony Left/Radical Right converged in their smears on Clark in 2004

Radical Right was to be expected - it was a sorry spectacle when the Loony Left couldn't see past their one-size-fits-all prejudice against anyone who's ever wore a uniform to see what I saw - a truly antiwar four-star general who had George McGovern and Michael Moore's blessing. I am a former anti-military Independent who leaned Green - somehow I saw past my lifelong anti-military bias in 2003 and began to support Wes Clark - too bad leftwing zealots are as as rigidly unyielding as rightwing ideologues.

I still see it in the crap I read online and see being peddled even now. Amy Goodman has a permanent hate-on for Wes Clark, for example - she has always been intellectually dishonest in her portrayal of Wes Clark and continues to smear through insinuation disguised as fact. :puke:

Maybe someone should tell Amy Goodman to sell her books through a proven progressive publisher instead of selling it to the highest rightwing-owned bidder
to prove that she really cares about media reform:

http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/AmyGoodmansCorporateMediaBookByJenniferNix.htm

Great OP and damn high-time someone wrote an article about it, too.

:applause:

[Texas_Kat]

70. Can you fix the link?

or if the link is too long, get a tinyurl or something?

[ClarkUSA]

71. Done.

:hi:

[Disturbed]

76. J. Kerry should have picked W. Clark for VP.

I posted that before the pick and still feel that would have been the better choice.

[FrenchieCat]

74. The "comments" based on the article just keep on coming......

I see a Clark critic with a long list of accusations about Clark. But then, lo and behold, I see a rebut of all of those Clark accusations in another posting.... torn down one by one.
http://progressivedailybeacon.com/commentary.php?id=627&ARCHIVAL=TRUE

Clark supporters and writers truly are informed, and should definitely be used against the rabid right in the next election. Screw paid "consultants" and their press releases.....cause they've got nothin'on us; the people with the truth!

:headbang:

[noonwitch]

79. I voted for him, so I didn't make a mistake!

I thought Wes was a far better candidate than Kerry.

[politicasista]

80. Can we please stop fighting the primary wars?

Remember a criminal in chief named Bush? Remember 2006? It seems like people would rather live in the past and jump ahead to 2008 when we have a incompetent, dishonest man running the country and no control of the media. Stop eating your own and focus on the bigger picture.

[Texas_Kat]

83. Thanks for your input.

This isn't really a rehash of the primary wars, but rather a cautionary tale for progressives that we would do well to remember as candidates for 2006 are signing up.

Those who cannot see beyond traditional 'labels' to the value each potential candidate can bring to the Democratic party are only shortchanging the candidate and the party.

Most of us are already working on 2006..... but you probably don't care about the details of any of that.

Tell you what.... post a thread about 2006 and I'll come by and post in it. And I promise I won't make it a drive-by.

Edited: spelling

[kerrygoddess]

87. It's a rehash of the primaries wars once again!

You can spin it however you like but that's what it is.

[Texas_Kat]

91. There, there ... Don't lose heart...

I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to vote for Kerry again.

[Rainscents]

82. Wes got my vote in '08!!! I didn't vote for him, he'll get all my support

now! I joined his web site as a supporter! I also believe, he'll draw lot of Independents and moderate conservatives!

BTW... Clark/Hiliary '08 is a killer combo!!!

[kerrygoddess]

89. Rethinking Clark...

He tanked in the primaries. He never had an original position.

[FrenchieCat]

102. I don't know about that....

the fact that he talked about cutting the pentagon budget was a great start.

Sorry, did I hear Kerry mention this?

Didn't think so.

But the ironic part is that you criticize the thread and/or the article as a rehash of the primary wars.....and here you are in the thick of things, posting post after posts.

It's ok though....cause it's all about "Freedom to speak"! :hi:

[politicasista]

115. It is a rehash of the primary wars

Clark coulda, woulda, shoulda, won. Kerry was this, Kerry was that, Kerry didn't do this or Kerry didn't say that. Hindsight is 20-20. These type of attitudes are why the Dems will continue to lose elections.

I will say this again. We failed Kerry because we were unorganized and believed the lies of the media. It doesn't matter if the candidate was Clark, Edwards, Dean or someone else, they would have been badly smeared the same way. Just because someone doesn't agree with you about Clark doesn't mean their biased. This is a personal opinion.

We need to stop eating our own and support the good dems are doing good things.

[FrenchieCat]

117. I mean....

why do you keep popping up everywhere in this thread....if, as far as your concerned, this is unhelpful (which I believe is your drift)? I believe that enough folks are interested in this discussion...and so it shall be had.

What you can do is ignore it.

It is true that no one knows whether another candidate would have done any better, or if the candidate picking another VP would have done the trick, or if.....

But someone wrote an article....and folks are making comments.

Accept this thread, hide it, or just ignore it. In a free society, everyone will not always do what you want them to. IMO, you should practice what you preach.

[politicasista]

118. I am being honest

I have a right to be honest, don't I?

[Texas_Kat]

119. Then, instead of "concentrate on 2006!" comments

Staying on topic would be helpful.... and an honest effort to have a discussion.

[politicasista]

123. I am concentrating on 2006

Trying to study and help Harold Ford Jr. and Kweisi Mfume get elected to the Senate.

[Texas_Kat]

127. Excellent!

I'm doing work for a Democratic congressman and a TX state House member, so far. The governor and Senator races in Texas haven't gotten off the ground yet.

That doesn't mean that everything is about 2006.

[kerrygoddess]

164. Well you know...

It seems somedays like the Clarkies just love to push the envelope with bashing Kerry through these little veiled threads of support for Clark.

If a Kerry supporter starts a thread about Kerry you don't see Kerry supporters using their threads to bash the other primary candidates do you? Hell no!

[Texas_Kat]

167. No goddess, you come into Clark threads to do that.

[kerrygoddess]

169. I posted here to defend Kerry when I saw the Kerry bashing!

I read through the thread, saw the Kerry bashing and spoke up. You will not find me randomly attacking Clark, Dean, Edwards or any Democrat for that matter!

[CarolNYC]

172. Interesting...and telling...

that your idea of defending Kerry is knocking someone else. But I think Senator Kerry deserves a better defense than that.

[CarolNYC]

133. Oooh, a bit cranky tonight, eh?

It's unfortunate that you don't have the same high regard for the General that your candidate did...or the same high regard for Clark that the General and many of his supporters have expressed many times for Senator Kerry.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess...I hope your evening gets better. :hi:

[ibegurpard]

92. Impossible to know

I would've supported him if he had been the candidate. However, I find the idea that we can find a candidate who will somehow be immune to attacks from the right to be naive and counterproductive.
They would've found an Achilles Heel with anyone and the sooner we realize that and stop looking for saviors and start getting involved OURSELVES locally to make the changes we want to see, the better off we will be.

[FrenchieCat]

104. I don't really think that anyone said that Clark was immune.....

au contraire....I believe that he was attacked (by both the left and the right) and would have continued to have been attacked. We already know what his Achilles Heel is....but the important news is that it's not a fatal wound. In fact, none of the wounds were so severe...which is why is still ended up doing a decent bit in the primaries, even without any media publicity a la Kerry and la Edwards.

Bottom line is not what attacks are in store....the issue is whether one is willing to fight back and attack hard. I believe the General when he said he would kick the shit out of them....and he did, every chance he could. In the end, it is not the smears that kept him from achieving his goals....it was lack of coverage, meaning not many even realized he was still in the running (24/7 coverage of Edwards, Kerry and the Dean Scream is what we got).

During the general election, Kerry was so on the defensive, he never had the chance to lodge a proper attack of his own. That made him look weak and ineffectual. It reinforced the image the right had painted him.

[nickgutierrez]

93. I disagree.

It's not because he is a former general - it's because he's never won an election. He just didn't have political experience, and that matters in a presidential race.

(Also, I resent the implication that we lost the last election because of 'the Left', but that's another story.)

[FrenchieCat]

111. I disagree with your findings.....

As I can easily name a former general, without political experience, who won two consecutive elections in Presidential races: Eisenhower.

Kerry had more than triple the "political experience" of Bush.....yet Kerry did lose the election and Bush is the President.

Politicians are usually the ones that lose Presidential elections...although they are also the ones to win them...because they are the ones mainly to run.

So you see, your points are not points, but rather conclusions based on skewed and shaky facts.

just remember that playing safe, oftentimes means being sorry. That's what the Democrats can hope for if they decide on picking their candidate based on "conventional Wisdom"...being sorry later on...after losing.

Personally, I can't stand most politicians, their polls and focus groups, their failed promises, their money grumbing calculations, their halting contrived soundbytes and their losing compromises....and I would rather (and have) support a Leader Warrior Diplomat.

Pink Tu-tus need to get out of the way of progress....because politicians is why we are in the deep shit that we are in today. Arguing in chambers and casting votes does not a LEADER make.

Like MLK said.....
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.--Martin Luther King Jr.--1963

[Mich Otter]

97. I am thinking Clark/Edwards for '08

An experienced military/international leader along with a candidate who supports social programs to help American families.
We have to be serious about dealing with the Bush War. It will take international co-operation to settle things in Iraq.

[Skwmom]

140. Clark is already a fighter for the common man.

Those two are polar opposites. There is no way in heck that ticket would EVER happen.

[mtnester]

103. Wes Clark should have been on that ticket.

If not as the presidential candidate, then the VP. I have always wondered how in the hell the Dems passed up a retired general, during a time of "war", for Edwards.

Oh well, same mistake made with a VP candidate in 2000. Picked a Republican for VP candidate...one about as appealing as a steaming pile of doggie doo.

[IndianaGreen]

107. Wes Clark was a recent convert to the Democratic Party

He had no track record to speak of, and his constituency were not voters, but his TV audience and admirers of anything military that does not include jackboots.

If anyone needs to apologize, or deserve blame, is the Democratic establishment that did not want any outsider to win the nomination.

Tactically, Clark made a mistake in waiting too long to enter the fray. It takes time to get to know voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, and TV exposure does not cut it in those two states.

[FrenchieCat]

112. I will agree with you on your statement that.....

the Democratic establishment that did not want any outsider to win the nomination.

When McAuliffe talked about John Kerry's chestful of medals on national television in comparing Kerry to Bush....while the primaries were just beginning, I knew that the Powers-that-be had decided and were working against Clark. Not that Kerry didn't have a "Chestful of Medals"....but that Clark had an amoire full...and yet McAuliffe never even said Clark's...ever.

[democracyindanger]

155. Absolutely unfair characterization of his constituency.

You demean many liberals who supported Clark with such a lame generalization.

[Skwmom]

186. I don't admire "anything military that does not include jackboots."

I supported Clark because of his honesty, his compassion, his leadership, his brilliance, and his dedication to country and NOT self (attributes sorely lacking in the other Democratic candidates)

[bigwillq]

108. I think late entry was a factor

I think also at least for me, Clark at the time, didn't bring anything new to the table to appeal to voters like myself who really didn't know anything about him.

Part of that was my fault for not knowing who a five-star general was but I don't think Clark did much, imo, to separate himself from the othe contenders.

It was hard for anyone not named Dean to get much momentum in the early goings. After Dean busted out to a huge lead in the polls, the other candidates had to become the anti-Dean. Then after Dean failed to make noise in Iowa and NH, Kerry emerged and the rest was history.

[liberalpragmatist]

116. Coulda, woulda, shoulda

This kind of thinking is flawed. Kerry was not a perfect candidate, but all the candidates had flaws that would have been exploited in a race. With any of them the race would have been different. We'd have done better with some groups, less well with some. Maybe we'd have won, maybe not. There would still have been plenty of smears and dirty tricks regardless of who we ran.

At the end of the day, I just think this is an exercise in futility. We CAN'T change what happened in the past and there's no way to prove anyone was right. What if scenarios can be a lot of fun, but when it comes to political analysis all it does is set off rematches of old primary battles. That's silly.

I have nothing against Clark. So instead of talking about how some poeple think he'd have been better in '04, let's talk about why he'd be good in '08. Time to look forward, not think backwards. Besides, 2008 will be a different campaign than 2004 - saying how Clark could have won in '04 ultimately has little bearing on how he'd do in '08 which will have a totally different political climate.

[FrenchieCat]

120. In the end.....you are ultimately correct

However, I think that the individual who wrote the article made some good points as to why Clark had such a hard time in the primaries...why his time at debates was consumed with questions about his intentions, etc.

But yes, it is absolutely true that we will never know if Clark could have won in '04...cause what happened is what happened and nothing can change that.

Being forward looking is a good and positive trait (although looking back cannot hurt, as long as one doesn't get stuck there while making note of the lessons).

I think that I will join you on that forward trail to 2006 and then to 2008! :hi:

[zulchzulu]

122. Babe Ruth would be Home Run King if he wasn't a drunk

Shit happens.

If Clark would have won the 2004 Election, then he would have won the primaries. Whatever happened to make him drop out and endorse Kerry in February was what happened.

As for Ruth, if he had only been a baseball player at the time of steroids...if Da Vinci just had a souped-up Apple Titanium Book... if Beethoven had new hearing aids... if Jesus had one of those Star Wars wands... if....if.... if....

[Texas_Kat]

125. I think you may have not read the article closely.

It's more about the 'blindness' of our own when it comes to 'voting by impression' than it is about replaying the primaries. As has been pointed out 'upthread', it happens.

It would have been clearer had I pointed it out in the initial post, but then, being in teaching, my preference is not to sacrifice the discussion and the journey for the easy answer.

[zulchzulu]

148. I shook Wesley's hand and have it on film

I watched Clark closely. I saw his candidacy. I talked with many of his supporters. I like the guy.

I also know that pure speculation about his candidacy and how "he could have been a contender" is mindless drivel at this stage.

What happened....happened. Period.

[Clarkie1]

151. Well, I could say "I told you so"

But with the lying moron in the White House wrecking our military as well as the freedom and liberty they are sworn to protect there isn't much satisfaction in that.

Onward.

[Dinger]

152. Kicked and Nominated!

Truth, period.

[Sparkly]

179. I'm hopeful it'll be different in 2008.

I think he's learned a lot, the party's learned a lot, and Democratic voters have learned a lot (including about General Clark as a person).

[Skwmom]

187. Don't bet on it.

The Democratic party is flush with self serving political opportunists who will ALWAYS put themselves first.