Who has the experience that best recommends them for being President?

[maxr4clark]

I don't really see any of the other candidates being nearly as certain to be a good President, based on their prior experience, as Clark. Perhaps one of you can convince me otherwise, though.

First, a look at what I think the President does. The President sets a direction for the country, both domestically and in foreign policy. To that end, he works with Senators and congressmen to identify legislation to propose. However the other major responsibility of the President is to run the Executive Branch, and I believe that this is what the President spends most of his time doing. As head of the executive branch, the President meets with his Cabinet, digesting information about the state of the projects they are pursuing, identifying places where a new direction is needed, and making decisions about how to accomplish the tasks at hand. This is a traditional management task, it involves keeping a broad view of the issues, noticing trends developing over time, prioritizing tasks, and delegating authority.

Dean was a governor, running a large organization. Apparently he did a good job, because he was repeatedly reelected. Dean therefore has demonstrated skill at leading a large organization. He would be effective at running the Executive Branch. The organization he led, however, was the state of Vermont, which has a smaller population than many of America's large cities. Stepping up to the federal level is therefore a big jump, a bigger jump than, say, it was for the former governor of Texas.

Kerry was Lieutenant Governor of Massachussets when Dukakis was Governor. I'm not certain, but I believe that job is similar to the job of Vice President--largely involved with the actions of a legislative body. This is an appropriate role for someone who has training as a lawyer (which Kerry does), but I don't think it involves the kind of management skills that Governor requires. He did, however, see the Governor do his job up close, and should know what it entails, even if he didn't have specific experience running a large organization. Kerry didn't go on to become Governor; he went into the Senate, which I see as more in line with his experience and training as a lawyer. To some extent, then, I see Kerry as lacking experience that shows he can be successful as a manager per se.

Clark's experience in the military was more like being a governor than like being a Lieutenant Governor or a Senator or a lawyer. In fact, I believe it was more like being a President than being a Governor was for Dean. Dean dealt with Vermont's concerns and the conflict between Vermont's interests and the federal government's. He interacted with Canada to a limited extent, but Canada is a close ally (or at least was while Dean was Governor of Vermont). Dean doesn't have any real experience with foreign diplomacy, just like Bush didn't.

In addition to running an organization with more people in it than live in Vermont, Clark had to run his organization efficiently to meet a budget, just like Dean did. Clark had the added dimension, however, especially as NATO SAC Europe, of dealing with international politics, complete with allies, neutral countries, and enemies, all of whom have world-views fairly independent of the American world view.

One thing that everyone in the military agrees on is that Clark was a very effective leader and commander of the people under his command. Even Shelton agrees with this. Clark succeeded at every level of command that he was assigned, including a very complex command for NATO. News stories have made it clear that he was decisive in commanding the NATO forces against Milosevic; that he had ideas that were proven to be correct about how to end the conflict with Milosevic, and that he got those ideas enacted, not only on his own but in coalition with a diverse set of European countries.

I really don't see how even Kerry's experience in the Senate compares to that. Yes, Kerry knows far better than Clark what has happened in the Senate in the past few decades. But Kerry doesn't have a proven track record of executive management, which is most of the job the President does. Clark as President can get someone like Kerry to advise him on the history of an issue when it comes up; Kerry as President cannot get someone to deal with the management issues. The management issues, the executive choices, the responsibility of choosing a direction for the country are the sole job of the President.

Edwards doesn't even have the background in American politics that Kerry has to go on; all he has are the skills of a successful lawyer, and the experience of a single Senate term. Edwards has a lot of potential, but it looks to me like choosing Edwards would be a huge risk: a risk that he would actually be good at a complex management job without any management experience, and a risk that his understanding of the issues is profound enough to help him set a good direction, both in domestic policy (which he has some experience doing) and in foreign policy (which he apparently has no experience in).

Comments?

[Occulus]

1. We need a leader

who knows shame, and loss. We need a real leader who knows what the darker side of life is, because (s)he's lived it.

We need a President who has confronted the daily, ugly realities of life here in the US, and has risen above that darkness. We need a leader who can inspire us to be our best, because we deserve to give our best.

Our next President needs to be a leader who has bubbled up from the muck, so to speak. We need someone who has not only been a hero to others, but also a hero to himself; one who is willing to openly acknowledge his faults while at the same time clearly trying to erase those faults, or at the least mitigate them.

We need a leader who has always lacked a silver spoon, who doesn't eat on fine china from day to day, who is willing to weed his own garden and defend his own home. We need a leader who cannot afford to to hire a maid.

We need someone at the top of our government who is intimately familiar with the day-to-day struggle of the common man, a leader who is insistent that that common man has value and strength at the least equal to the most decorated general in our history, and who at his best symbolizes what makes this country great.

We need a leader willing to realize that he is not the most noble person in the nation; one who understands that that title belongs to the man homeless, who struggles to feed himself and stay warm and as safe as one can be on the streets, who somehow manages to survive despite his destitution. The determination which exists in one such rises far above that residing in any politician.

We need a leader nwho is willing to say that the rich owe the poor, that the managers owe the laborers, that the stockholders are beholden to those on the factory floor. Our next leader needs to be one not of political, but moral integrity; one who is willing to do right at any and all costs, even though it may hurt him personally.

I despair of ever having the opportunity to elect one such as this. But I can, and do, dream of that day.

[maxr4clark]

3. Did you hear Clark speak about faith?

What he said was that the Dem Party has to take back the faith issue, because every faith he knows promotes those who have been fortunate lifting up those who have not been fortunate.

Look at his personal history, too. You can see it on video at this site. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

[Old and In the Way]

2. I like Clark and would be happy to support him if he's the nominee.

That said, I see 3 potential problems for the General.

(1) He's essentially running as an Independent. By that, I mean he is only recently registered Democrat and his bonds in the Party aren't particularly deep. So he will not have strong ties to either side of the aisle. Indiependents need to form coalitions to get stuff passed. Both Edwards and Kerry have Congressional ties that would give them an advantage both in the Democratic Party and some mod. Republicans.

(2) What sort of organization can he put together? He doesn't have a long bond with too many running his campaign, not sure how politically saavy he will be with the press and PR.

(3) How well can he pull in new Congresspeople. Sort of ties in with (1).

Personally, I definitely want to see him in the next administration. I think he'd make a greater contribution to this country reforming the Pentagon and getting the MIC under control.
I think he'd be a good President, but a better SecDef.

[maxr4clark]

4. Thanks for your view.

As for your points,

(1) He apparently is liked by the Clintons, and has inherited a lot of their former advisors on his campaign team. Further Congressional ties would be available through his VP; personally I would like to see Kerry as VP, no matter who is the nominee (other than Kerry). Kerry's experience in the Senate is just what we need for a VP.

(2) Since he entered the race in Sep, he has had an on-the-ground organization rivalling Dean's. He has been very successful raising funds, largely from individual donors. His organization here in Washington state has been more impressive at events attended by supporters of multiple candidates than Dean's or anyone else's, despite not having a formal office established here. I don't know what it is like where you are.

(3) Kerry clearly has a better history with the Party than anyone else. I think, though, that he could be just as effective at pulling the party together as a VP candidate, as a Presidential nominee.

I will be happy to support Kerry if he gets the nomination; he is my second choice, notwithstanding the difference I posted about managerial experience. There are differences between how Dean and Kerry appear on foreign policy that make me strongly prefer Kerry. Although Kerry appears very strong as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, though, I am concerned that he will be an easy target for Bush, and will ultimately fall short of becoming President.

I see a Clark/Kerry ticket as the strongest ticket against Bush. Clark provides the right background to deal with the job of President, in my view, and Kerry provides the party credentials that Clark lacks and the right kind of experience for a VP.

[Old and In the Way]

6. A pleasure to have a rational discussion maxr4clark!

;-)

Clark/Kerry, would float my boat, too! It's all about who can put together the largest coalition of Democrats, Republicans, Independents this election cycle. I want a non-Freepable majority to send a decisive message that change is a'coming!

The task for the next Democratic President will be really tough if he's working with a Republican majority. A ticket that can bring a 60-70% majority will be needed to overcome a hostile majority of Republicans that will probably retain control one or both Houses. Clark and Kerry, in either order, would deliver leadership in spades.

In some ways, I really could see value in Clark as President....he's preceived as less bound by Party politics and that would present a unique advantage in the next 4 years. Whatever the ticket, I see a major damage control and repair project ahead. Our international reputation is in shambles and our domestic economy is in the shitter. We will need 2 Presidents to devote their time exclusively to both issues.

We have 6 strong candidates that have strengths that this country will need. I honestly hope that there is room at the table for all of them. I also hope, after the convention, egos can be set aside for the good of the country and unite on taking our country back. Maybe a summit can be convened to choose the roles that maximize their skills and attributes, then work as a team to solve the problems that this administration has avoided or compounded.

I'm hanging for Kerry now....he's showing that he's caught the attention and minds of the Democrats in the race so far. If he can keep the Mo going, we have to ride the horse that gets us there. But if Clark, Dean, or Edwards should ultimately prevail, I'm going to be their biggest supporter. Because at the end of the day, I want to help free this country from the thugs and criminals who are holding it hostage.

[rpf113]

7. I heard a rumor...

and I believe it was the New Republic. Apparently the Clintons have not endorsed Clark because the other candidates threatened to endorse Hillary's run.

[Abigail147]

5. I like your analysis.

And I agree with it.

[On the Road]

8. Being a Governor

is usually considered the best background. So Dean has the best resume from that point of view.

But I had forgotten Kerry's service as Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts. That counts for something.

[rpf113]

9. I completely agree.

I think a Kerry/Clark or a Clark/Kerry ticket is the way to go. Of course I support Gen. Clark so I would like to see him at the head of the ticket, but it looks like Kerry is going to steamroll right through the rest of the primaries to the nomination. I only hope he is strong enough to be Clark to join his campaign as VP. Can you imagine after 8 years of being VP how qualified Clark would be for Pres? And he could take Hillary as his VP and we could have the White House for the next 24 years!

The only reason why I would really like to Clark at the head of the ticket, though, is that he is much more personable. He doesn't speak in "Senate-speak", the language that turned off so many voters to Al Gore. I think there is a good chance he can win, but I'm afriad the debates are going to be a repeat of 2000, with no expectations for Bush and Kerry being ransacked for tiny things. If Clark were the nominee the expectations for him would be very low--this is his first political race--maybe even lower than Bush's. But we all know that he is a brilliant man--a Rhodes scholar who is very charismatic. I think that this in and of itself is reason enough to put Kerry in the VP slot. After 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clark, Kerry would be unbeatable.

[Old and In the Way]

10. C/K, K/C would be a dream ticket.

I'm partial to mine for the top too. But I think the next VP is going to be very, very busy. Kerry's strength is foreign policy, Clark has the economics degree which would come in might handy on rebuilding the domestic economy. OTOH, I'd love to see Wesley reform the Pentagon. Intel, budget realignment, dumping SDI, changing the Army's mission to fight terror cells, get rid of the neo-con OSP cabals. And reduce the budget and lobbyist influence on same. He has the rank and leadership to succeed like few others.

Honestly, I actually think Wesley would be more valuable in either of these positions