"Why I'm for Wes Clark" - Barbara Lawton (THE NATION)

[Jack_Dawson]

(This article is technically not "out" yet, so I can't provide a link)

Why I'm for Clark.(Comment; Wesley Clark)

Lawton, Barbara
2 February 2004
The Nation
English
Copyright 2004 Gale Group Inc. All rights reserved.

By the end of June last year, I had met all the Democratic candidates for President. Each lent a unique, even critical facet to the debate; not one alone filled the frame with enough force to make me believe he or she could push Bush out of the picture. Nor did any one of them present the convincing stature of the leader we need to meet the challenges our country faces today. I decided to watch the winnowing process from the sidelines.

But decision-making by default and disengagement is not my style. From the perspective of state government, Bush can't leave office soon enough. The former governor has turned his back on us, limiting our policy options by starving the states, all the while shamelessly fattening government in Washington and giving fat tax cuts to his rich supporters.

So, while in Little Rock for the National Lieutenant Governors Association meeting this past July, I invited Wes Clark to lunch. I spent two hours pummeling him with questions.

Arguably a President's most important role is played out on the international scene. Clark towers over the other candidates here, already recognized and respected for his diplomatic credentials. He laid the groundwork for re-establishing strong relations with our allies as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander. He put his job on the line to stop the ethnic slaughter of Albanian Kosovars and did so without losing a single US soldier. He alone presents a smart, realistic exit strategy from Iraq.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[BootinUp]

1. thanks but

this migh break copyright rules?

[Nashyra]

2. Thanks when the link come out I will e-mail exrensively

That was extremely well written.

[D G]

3. Yes, but heck - thanks anyway

I love this article! "scary smart" -- an "intuitive Democrat" -- almost makes up for that trashy piece on Clark that made the cover of the Nation last winter.

[Jerseycoa]

6. "intuitive Democrat"

That's our Wes. :D

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. NICE letter!

I'm surprised The Nation printed it. Thank you, Lt. Governor Lawton!
:bounce:

Go Wes!

[Jerseycoa]

5. That's a beauty

But you'd better edit down to four paragraphs. :)

[Jack_Dawson]

7. Shoot...really?

[Nashyra]

9. We need this out in the mainstream media

ON CNN with the idiot Wolf Blitzer they don't even mention Clark good or bad it's like he does not exist. They are terrified of him.

[Clark Can WIN]

8. It should be OK, he can't link it (not available)

And it is meant for the general public, not copyrighted.

[Justice]

10. Great Letter

I loved this--

"The stakes have never been higher. Whether we view this race through the lens of a state official looking for a partner in good government or of a once-valued foreign ally or of a struggling American family, we look for principled, confident leadership to make our country and our world more secure. As Clark's more tenured opponents lose their footing, or put their foot in their mouth, watch the campaign of the man determined to continue his service to his country. This progressive is betting that Democrats--and then a general-election majority--will choose him in the voting booth."

[kentuck]

11. "The man is "scary" smart. "

:)

[jmoss]

12. I respect Clark, but....

I respect General Clark, implicitly.  Many of the points the
Lt. Governor makes are valid.  But from a non-politician,
public school teacher from the South, I can tell you that John
Edwards would have a much broader appeal during a general
election.

True, he doesn't have military experience.  Neither did
President Clinton. But seeing General Clark in debates seems
to resonate one simple point for me: "He is a fish out of
water".  He has "foreign policy" experience,
really only in tactical execution, acting upon executive
orders and statutes from Congress.  He has not an ounce of
documented experience in running for, nevertheless winning, a
single election in his lifetime.  He has zero experience in
proposing bills, writing legislature, etc., and hence, makes
him a liability as a candidate for President. Moreover, do you
really want another man with no experience as a lawyer, given
the power of veto--i.e George Bush--?!

Rather...the person with great appeal in the South, a strong
background of 20 successful years in the legal profession, 5
years experience inside the Senate, where he sits on the
Foreign intelligence, and dommestic labor/education
committees, & someone with VERY strong family values.....
is JOHN EDWARDS! 

I know he's only 52. So what?! President Clinton was only 46
when he took office. He was about Senator Edwards' age as a
retired, 2-term President!!

If you are dead-set on someone who's a Washington outsider,
I'd rather you back Governor Dean. But NO experience in
Legislative and Judicial process.....no thanks!!

John Edwards is charismatic.  HE's the one the Bush
administration fears most for November (if you trust
occasional commentaries and unnamed leaks to the Washington
Press).  I know his campaign rhetoric is repetitive from
speech to speech, but it's useful, and holds substance. I was
disappointed that he didn't get more questions to answer last
night in Greenville, SC, but please take notice of how firm
& confident Mr. Edwards responses are when he does get
asked questions.  He is a VERy strong, dynamic, personable,
& eloquent speaker.

I hope some who read this will consider supporting John
Edwards as Primaries Come to your State.

		Thank you,
            Jeff Moss,
        Special Ed. Teacher, age 27

[Jack_Dawson]

13. R U "Threadjacking" me?

Just wonderin'

[TexasPatriot]

14. welcome to DU

Edwards is a total lightweight... he couldnt beat Clark in NH - so what makes you think he'd have broader appeal in the general? Hell, he's going to lose his home state to Kerry here in a couple days.

Edwards and Lieberman are done - they just dont know it yet.

[girl gone mad]

15. I agree..

If Edwards loses SC, he'll be out. If Dean doesn't win any Feb 3, he'll be out. Clark could be our last hope against Kerry.

[Jack_Dawson]

16. Kick

:kick:

[jmoss]

17. what's threadjacking?

no, seriously, what's threadjacking?

[Jack_Dawson]

18. When someone posts something Clark-related, and

you post John Edwards' bio. Stuff like that.

[jmoss]

20. sorry 'bout that

Sorry about that, Mr. Dawson. It's my first time on DU (obviously!) . And John Edwards is the first candidate in my life I'm passionate about supporting. My wife and I are public school teachers in Chapel Hill, NC, and will be joining his office in Raleigh next week in the evenings. Just a little fired up, that's all!! :-) Please don't mule kick me again. I'll learn the rules!

[Jack_Dawson]

21. No worries! Welcome to DU

:toast:

[jmoss]

19. Iowa?

I seem to recall Edwards receiving only 1 fewer delegates than Kerry just one week prior to NH. Yes, Lieberman, Kucinich & Sharpton are done. Clark is in it, But so is Edwards. One week prior to NH, polls showed Clark in the lead. Thar's because he ducked of Iowa, and spent mucho$$ trying to campaign in the ONLY State where he would be bereft of competition for 1 week. Once the real candidates arrived, he slipped to a virtual tie for 3rd-4th, depending on the 1/2 of the glass your candidate is swimming! :-) Don't let the draaawllll deceive you. Edwards has just begun to fight!!!!

[TexasPatriot]

22. i've said this before

but you're new so i'll say it again...

Edwards did great in Iowa... but when Kerry won, it made Edwards candidacy difficult (just as it made Clark's). In NH he needed Dean to beat Kerry - and he needed to beat Clark. If that had happened - he would have been positioned to take up the 'Dean alternative' mantle.

Instead - he lost to Clark and Kerry locked Edwards out of the 'quiet beltway insider' vote. Clyburns endorsement is an example of that.

Edwards didnt have the money on hand to hire the Gep staffers that would have come to work for him - and considering that those staffers would have been in MO right now working for Edwards, it means he's running on empty entirely on the back of free media coverage generated by his Iowa win.

He doesnt have a natural wedge issue - he doesnt have the experience with foreign policy issues that people feel is a *requirement* for being the dem nominee, and the exit polls in NH had him the least presidential of the big 4.

If other people weren't in the race... say Sharpton and Lieberman weren't in it... he'd have a better shot - but they're in and they wont leave. By keeping all these candidates (like Edwards and Lieberman) in the race, the party machine is focusing people amongst several candidates so Kerry can back into the nomination.

Edwards is doing his job... he's a distraction.

[jmoss]

25. why is distraction his job?

Saying "distraction is his job" would support the premise that Senator Edwards has given up running for his seat in Nov. (here comes Erskin Bowles, take 2 :-) ) because he expects to be the VP candidate for John Kerry. What are "y'all's" thaoughts on that!

[henslee]

23. I agree. Edwards and Lieberman are done.

[Qutzupalotl]

24. Did you know Clark was a teacher at West Point?

Taught Economics and Political Philosophy.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi jmoss!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Moderator]

26. Jack_Dawson

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you


DU Moderator