If this array of testimony isn't proof that Clark would have pulled in....

[hailmary]

MANY more swing voters than Kerry did, then I don't know what "proof" means. But perhaps a fellow Bush hater who poo-pooed having Clark as the nominee will read this stellar list of accomplishments and over-the-top list of praise and then tell me why we shouldn't all be kicking ourselves and wearing big hats that say "SUCKERS" for falling for the smear campaign they made up about Clark.
....of course, all of this is not withstanding that Kerry actually won.

www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5458

Incidentally, if anyone's interested, here's an excerpt from my soon-to-be published story that spanks the holy hell out of Bush/Republicans and illustrates how much of a mistake it ostenibly was not to run Clark:

“Besides, experienced and brilliant or not, a president doesn’t have to have legislative experience to be able to negotiate and orchestrate. He merely needs to understand the potential of the bully pulpit. Clark would simply stand in front of Congress on live TV and say, for instance, ‘From now on we’ll have instant run-off voting and Election Day will be a day off. Plan B contraceptive pill will be over-the-counter for any age group and recreational drugs will no longer be a crime. And we’d appreciate it if folks started using the word “shrew” instead of “bitch.” And this week’s reading assignment is: Jeff Faux’s The Global Class War, Ron and Anil Hira’s Outsourcing America, Ravi Batra’s Greenspan’s Fraud, and John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman. So, next week, Congress, when I say, “This has got to stop,” you’ll all know what I’m talking about. If anyone has a problem with any of that then stand up and say why.’ Since there are no good reasons to object, then, problems solved. (And so that the people can have faith once more in our Supreme Court, he ought to ask those 5 criminal Supreme Court judges to either resign or defend their rationale for stopping the vote counting….as well as for their justification in saying that it’s a good idea to put Paula Jones’ rights ahead of the safety of the entire country. (Where’s Howard Dean when you need him?))”

email [e-mail] if you'd like me to foward the whole story. The mother of a soldier in Iraq didn't tell me she was "honored" to have read it for her health.

[Catch22Dem]

1. You'll find a LOT of agreement and disagreement on this topic

I am one of the many who will agree 100%. Nice excerpt!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. I'd vote for Clark in a heartbeat. His resume reads like

a guy who's just SUPPOSED to be president. But his timing in 2004 seemed all screwed up from the get-go.

[blm]

3. They ALL would have had an avalanche of smears against them, no matter

who won the nomination. The other candidates weren't in the position of having to face the worst from the RNC machine - but they certainly would have - the primary media attacks were NOTHING.

The problem wasn't any one candidate - the problem is the GOP control of most broadcast media and the voting machines.

Why pretend it's anything else?

[hailmary]

8. who's pretending that that wasn't an obstacle?

But I can tell you I've met plenty of folks who told me they would have voted for Clark, but didn't vote for Kerry. You're overlooking that despite all of the mud the rightwing media machine would have thrown at him, Clark's resume is such that in very few words a person can absorb SO much. So, aside from being blown away if given the chance to listen to him during the debates, they would have been able to wrap their little minds around West Point valedictorian, Supreme Allied Commander, endorsed by 55 ambassadors, etc. ....let alone my link that started this thread.
So, are you actually contending that my original point, that Clark would have gotten more swing voters is not true? Care to at least proffer who would have gotten more than Kerry?

[blm]

9. No one. The GOP control of broadcast media and voting machines

would give Bush what he needed.

Kerry won his debates decisively. He won all his matchups with Bush, just as Clark would have.

Don't underestimate what would have happened if Clark was being hit with millions of dollars worth of ads from generals and commanders who would claim that he couldn't be trusted - the GOPs were well prepared for that, and then you'd have "lots" of people who would be saying that they would have voted for Kerry but couldn't bring themselves to support Clark because of the ads.

DNC needs to deal with and expose the GOP control of broadcast media and the voting machines.

[Mz Pip]

4. Complicated

I was involved in the Draft Clark movement. Mostly I just sat at tables outside supermarkets and parking lots passing out literature. It was a interesting ride.

Clark made a fatal mistake. He started too late and pulled out of Iowa. After Kerry won Iowa the momentum was with him and the rest is history.

There certainly was a lot of Clark myths that were put out by the Repugs when Clark first started. A lot of them were bought hook line and sinker by Dems. You are new here. You should have seen this board during the primaries. It was the only time in the 5 years I've been here that I put people on ignore.

Yes, he would have been a formidable candidate and I doubt he would have stood by and let the Repugs Swift boat him like Kerry did.

Clark isn't a politician. That's a good thing in my mind but he lack the slick smarmy quality that so many of today's politician have. He would have done a good job for us. Whether or not he will try for this again, I do not know. He seems to be focusing on getting Dems elected to Congress.

We shall see.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[blm]

5. Research Forum.

Had Clark fought back the 200 Generals and Commanders Against Clark, the media would have ignored most of his defense, too, and people would be complaining that Clark didn't fight back because his speeches went uncovered and unreported.

Research Forum has a chronology of Kerry-SwiftLiars that you should see. The pattern the media used to ignore Kerry's defense and his own attack on the swiftlies would have been repeated against any candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[FrenchieCat]

20. Maybe so...maybe not. I know that Gen. Powell and Schwarkopf passed

on the opportunity to smear Clark.....and certainly, they could have.

And then there are quite a few Generals who have come to his defense...

MAJ. GEN. ROBERT SCALES: SCALES: I've known Wes for 40 years; he's also a passionate, committed, empathetic individual. So, soldiers in wartime have to lead soldiers into battle and the lives of men and women are at stake. And sometimes that requires a degree of flintiness that you don't need in other professions.

HUME: What about those who suggest that his character reflects a kind of unbridled ambition that puts his career above all things, fair?

SCALES: No. No. Unfair. Again, like I say I've known him all my adult life. He is an individual who is committed to a higher calling. I mean he's got three holes in him and a Silver Star from Vietnam. He has a…the word patriot only partially describes his commitment to public service. And for as long as I've known him, he's always looked, you know, beyond himself and he's been committed to serving the nation. And I think what you are seeing happen here recently is an example of that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97689,00.html


Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738


General Barry McCaffrey :"(He) is probably the most intelligent officer I ever served with," McCaffrey said. "(He has) great integrity, sound judgment and great kindness in dealing with people. He is a public servant of exceptional character and skill."

McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1047429,00.html
"I have watched him at close range for 35 years, in which I have looked at the allegation, and I found it totally unsupported," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who taught with Clark at West Point in the 1970s. "That's not to say he isn't ambitious and quick. He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."
McCaffrey acknowledges that Clark was not the most popular four-star general among the Army leadership. "This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," McCaffrey said, "but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good-looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture. He was not one of the good old boys."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html


Defense Secretary William Perry: who as deputy defense secretary first encountered Clark in 1994 when he was a three-star on the Joint Staff. "I was enormously impressed by him," said Perry, a legendary Pentagon technologist who served as defense secretary under Clinton.

Perry was so impressed, in fact, that with Clark facing retirement unless a four-star job could be found for him, Perry overrode the Army and insisted that Clark be appointed commander of the U.S. Southern Command, one of the military's powerful regional commanders in chief, or CINCs. "I was never sorry for that appointment," Perry said.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs overrode the Army once again and made sure Clark became Supreme Allied Commander Europe, traditionally the most powerful CINC, with command of all U.S. and NATO forces on the continent.
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. Douglas Macgregor: There is this aspect of his character: He is loyal to people he knows are capable and competent," Macgregor said. "As for his peers, it's a function of jealousy and envy, and it's a case of misunderstanding. Gen. Clark is an intense person, he's passionate, and certainly the military is suspicious of people who are intense and passionate. He is a complex man who does not lend himself to simplistic formulations. But he is very competent, and devoted to the country."
http://www.projo.com/extra/2003/candidates/content/projo_20030921_wpclark.6873b.html

Col. David Hackworth: I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Andrew Young: "I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/asp/FullConv.asp?forumId=F100000035&lastConvSeq=9789
-----------------------------------------

There are only so many Generals, you know....and at this point in history, I wonder how many would actually come out against a Clark Presidency? Maybe None? :shrug:

[blm]

26. Alot of generals came to Kerry's defense, too, endorsing his campaign

wholeheartedly.

But...that aspect was downplayed and under-reported by broadcast media. However, any time military people supported Bush they couldn't report on it enough.

When it came to veterans, military endorsements and firefighters, the broadcast media always managed to be occupied with some other story someplace else. Don't think for a second it wasn't deliberate. It was, and would have been practiced against any Dem candidate.

[hailmary]

7. yes, it didn't help that he started late and skipped Iowa....

but that should have had no bearing on the top Democrats being able to look at his career and say, "Gee, if anyone could pull in the potential Bush defectors during a war like nobody's business, 'obviously' this is the guy to do it!" ....anyone on here still doubt that, perhaps you're not aware of his absurdly perfect background for the job; also from my story:

“It’s pretty darn myopic to think someone who’s that motivated and that accomplished wouldn’t be able to get the job done. But don’t just take my word for it; ask the 55 ambassadors who endorsed him. They probably had confidence in the guy because he’s a West Point valedictorian Rhodes scholar with 3 Master’s Degrees from Oxford University (and in the perfect subjects: economics, political science and philosophy) who speaks 4 languages. He even taught economics and political philosophy at West Point. He also worked at the White House Office of Budget and Accounting and has an investment banker’s license and was on the board of directors of a business and even started one of his own. And when he was a lobbyist for a security company he had the character to speak up when he thought that their influence was becoming too direct. He was also the military equivalent of mayor of a 10,000-man base. And, of course, as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO nobody can beat his track record for being able to walk the tightrope between logistics, politics and diplomacy when leading a military intervention by many nations in concert, which you would know if you read his book, Waging Modern War.

[Auntie Bush]

12. Swoon! At the thoughts of such a president. Will someone pick me up

after I faint? That man could be dangerous for ones health!

[karynnj]

28. Kerry could have been stopped easily after Iowa and NH

if Clark or Edwards really were as good or better. After NH and Iowa, the first multi state day included 7 states - all but Delaware were Southern/Southwestern or rural. In 1992, Clinton lost Iowa and NH (being called a comeback kid coming in third), then swept a group of Southern/rural states. He was then the front runner.

In 2004, Clark was in NH while Kerry and the others were mostly in Iowa. Even with all that extra time there - Kerry ended up with 38% of the vote, Dean with 26%, and Edwards and Clark were tied with 12%. I know that NH is adjacent to MA, but before the election, it was thought that as a "purple" state that has a somewhat conservative heritage, that Clark would do well. He didn't.

Then in the 7 states, he won Oklahoma with 30% of the vote (Edwards had 30%) as well and Kerry 27%. In every other state Kerry was at least 17 points higher than Clark. In most states Clark was in single digits.

The fact is that in 2004, Clark who had never run for anything just wasn't ready. It is impossible to know the results for a race that never happened. People here during the primaries by and large didn't like Kerry, but the people in the states he campaigned in did. Clark likely learned a lot and may be more competitive in 2008. As to the SBVT, Kerry did fight back. Clark would have been hit with lies as well, likely as successfully. (By what I don't know - it would likely include things that did or did not happen in his military career - likely from RW and fake LW sides, any jobs he had after retirement, after all he was in Arkansas - I would expect the lunatics would connect him to all the evil Clinton people (remember they went so far as to claim that Clinton has people killed)- the point is these people have no honor they will accuse honorable men of anything to destroy them.) Obligatory note: Neither Clinton or Clark would even think of doing these things.

[Burning Water]

6. Clark for Prez!! n/t

[Redstone]

10. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. It's done.

Redstone

[Radical Activist]

11. Very wrong and oversimplified.

Presidents with legislative experience have had more success getting things done. It does matter. If you think that the only thing the President needs to do to pass legislation is give a few speeches then you have no idea how government really operates. Experience matters.

And Clark would have had his own version of the swift-boaters to talk about his military record too. Believe it.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Unbelievable

That has to win an award for the most ludicrous statement made at DU for the month. Maybe longer.

Legislators are probably the absolute WORST at getting things accomplished. Most of 'em know zip about leadership or management. It takes almost none to handle a staff of a couple dozen professional staffers and stand up in the Senate or House and pontificate.

Which presidents with legislative experience do you propose have had a great deal of success? And don't say FDR. He only had two years in a state legislature over 20 years before his presidency. Hardly counts.

Maybe you were thinking of Warren Harding? :crazy:

[Adelante]

16. mrhopeforwes

Returns to cause more trouble.

[Dinger]

23. TONS Of Incumbents (Mostly r's) Are Getting Booted This November

I wouldn't feel quite so happy to be an incumbent this year. Clark is the silver bullet, the cryptonite, to the repugs. Believe THAT.:patriot:

[Radical Activist]

25. Who got Kennedy's agenda passed?

Lyndon Johnson, the master of the Senate. Jimmy Carter came in as a Washington outsider and had a horrible track record getting his agenda passed due to poor relations with Congress. Bush goes on the stump all the time for his agenda and it often doesn't help. I'm sorry you choose to be blind to history when it proves detrimental to your cause. All laws must pass through Congress so they must have gotten something done in the past 200+ years.

[Jai4WKC08]

31. OK, so who says Clark wouldn't have his own LBJ as VP

(I was gonna say "his own Johnson" and thought better of it :rofl:)

Clark may well select a Senator (from a blue state) as VP. I'd be sort of surprised if he didn't. In addition, he will hopefully have a Democratic Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate who will know their jobs.

Carter went to Washington with the expressed intent to "reform" Washington. He made his own bed with Congress.

Bush has trouble geting his agenda passed because it's such a stupid agenda that even the Repubs in Congress won't go along.

Clark excells at collaboration and team building. He knows how to bring people together. He has worked closely with the Out of Iraq Caucus and brought many of them to see his point of view. He helped Reid and Pelosi put together the Congressional National Security Advisory Board that Bill Perry heads. According to news sources, he was instrumental in putting together the Democratic "Real Security Plan" upon which a lot of '06 candidates will be running. Whether you like the product or not, he got all those legislators to stand on the podium with him for a unified front.

You're the one who's ignoring history. Review the list of presidents for the last 100 years. Most of the best of 'em never served in Congress. Some were good and some weren't, but there's absolutely NO correlation with what they accomplished and the time they spent legislating.

[blm]

29. Actually, I can give you a very HUGE example of what RA is saying.

When Clinton took office his administration was divided on what issue to target first - he went with healthcare, as pushed by Hillary and Stephanoplous and others. Gore said it would be wiser to go with Welfare Reform as it had the best chance of getting through based on his legislative experience, and THEN they could tackle the more progressive issue of healthcare with a big win already under their belt.

Republicans used their defeat of healthcare to set themselves up as major obstacles on everything afterwards, and were able to take the harder line on every other issue, portraying the Clinton WH as chaotic and unorganized, and winning control of both houses in Nov.94.

Imagine the difference in this country if Clinton had followed Gore's advice then.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. I can buy that example

I'm not sure I accept that Gore's judgment was better solely because he'd been a Senator, but it is a good example. Otoh, Gore worked like hell to get Kyoto thru and they ended up not even being able to hold a vote.

I still go back to the counter-example I provided. FDR was a governor who had served only two years in the NY House some twenty years before he became president. He never served in the US Congress. Yet he managed to accomplish a very great deal. Warren Harding had been a senator for several terms, iirc. He got thru almost nothing.

RA positted that one MUST have been a legislator to understand enough about the way Congress works to get his or her agenda passed. That is what I maintain is ludicrous. It would be much more rational to say that someone needs to have diplomatic experience to be qualified to deal with foreign nations, since that is what presidents do. I'm not saying it, but it would make more sense than what RA was saying.

[blm]

33. There are no absolutes on either side - I don't buy that generals can't

be good presidents or that old saw that senators can't be presidents. ALL Democrats are subject to ONE thing right now - the GOP media control that establishes the storyline on any Dem candidate.

The sooner Demcrats deal with that GOPcontrol and expose it at every opportunity, the sooner we will win the WH. Cuz if we can break that open, the voting machines will follow.

[Clark2008]

15. What total BS

That is, if you're alleging that Clark doesn't know how government works.

I guess working FOR the government for 34 years, along with working in the Office of Management and Budget, wooing Congress to cut loose with more money for soldiers under one's command, filing friend of the court briefings, teaching economics at West Point, helping restructure an entired armed forces after the worst (until now) American military loss and leading men and women who still admire and respect him doesn't qualify one to "know how government really operates."

Get real. :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

24. I'm sure Congress will operate just like the military

They'll all take orders at the General's command like the article suggests. Obviously all governmental experience is the same. Serving in Congress is just like serving in the military! Why don't you pass me some of what you're smoking.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. You know NOTHING about the military

No general just gives commands and everybody falls in line. Even within his own headquarters, he has to LEAD the other senior officers to get them to do what he wants. At the combatant command level (like Clark in both Europe and Latin America), he has to work with the whole range of government agencies (TO INCLUDE THE US CONGRESS) to make his operation run. And at NATO, he has to bring the allied heads of state and their ministries of defense on board.

If serving in Congress were like serving in the military, then the senators would be much more qualified to take over the executive branch of government.

[mtnsnake]

17. "And Clark would have had his own version of the swift-boaters"

That's pure speculation, but if he DID have his own version of the swift boaters, he sure as hell wouldn't have ignored them to the point of no return. Clark would've fought back, and perhaps he would've been in the WH because of it.

[blm]

27. Check research forum. If no media reports a tree fell in the woods...

.

[AndyTiedye]

13. It's Not The Candidate

It's what the media, the churches, and Diebold DO TO our candidate, whoever he/she is.

[CarolNYC]

18. Geez...how many times are you going to show up here with a different name.

..to spout the same nonsense?

[Adelante]

19. Can you believe it?

:crazy:

Like nobody recognizes a repeat sockie.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Oh shit.....

Now I get it!

I should have not even posted!

Oh well, at least the General's list of Generals for the General is a good post!

So are the 55 Ambassadors that endorsed him!
1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo Verification Mission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

[Dinger]

21. "Eliminating" Clark Was A Colossal Failure IMO

I STILL drool at the thought of him and the giggling murderer debating. Can you even imagine . . .?
Makes me hope jebbie runs, even though it'd be sloppy seconds, if you know what I mean.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Woulda shoulda coulda

How does that help us now?

[Texas_Kat]

35. Santayana

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  George
Santayana (1863-1952)

[LittleClarkie]

36. Yes, I'm sure John Kerry will be thinking about that when he runs again

And not repeat past mistakes.

But you are speaking of a past that never was. We will never know if Wesley Clark could have gotten more votes than John Kerry. I personally think they would have ripped the political newbie to shreds, and I further think that Clark needed the experience he got at he stumped for Kerry and that he's gotten since the election. He should be more formidible this next time. May the best man win. And may the other have a place in that man's cabinet.

But I fail to see how this testimony proves anything about how many swing voters Clark would have gotten. They're swing voters because they don't pay that much attention until the end. It would have been a war of the media. The Republican-controlled media.

And I would say further that it's good to remember the past AS IT WAS, and not as one would have wished it to be.

[cali]

38. Well said!

This rehashing of history is fruitless. We can never know what would have happened had Clark been the nominee. The OP offers nothing in the way of proof because there's no way to prove a hypothetical.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I'm afraid it appears you don't know what "proof" means, then.

All I can find at the site your link goes to is anecdotal evidence. It demonstrates that a large number of senior military officials said that they thought highly of Clark (although the fact that they said it didn't necessarily mean that they meant it), and it's arguably *evidence* that Clark would have been able to pull in swing voters, but it's a long, long way away from proof, I'm afraid, unless I've missed some actual statistical evidence to that effect somewhere on the site.

I'm not saying that your claim is false, by any means - it may well be true - but I don't think your post and link are not sufficient to prove it, or even to be terribly convincing, I'm afraid.

[OKNancy]

39. Lock

This poster is taking a dirt nap.