Why are the same questions of "experience" not raised about Clark?

[jefferson_dem]

I actually quite like Clark and admire his heroic military service but the "Obama lacks experience" meme is getting a bit tedious.

This is not an effort to ratchet up the "tribalism" here at DU. I'm genuinely curious:: Does it matter to anyone that Clark has never been elected to any political office?

[geek tragedy]

1. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The right person for the job is the right person for the job.

[Nite Owl]

2. Well Clark was a General and

Supreme Commander of NATO so he has quite a bit of experience as the head of a large organization. I imagine a lot of his job was political too. Not the same as being in governing directly but they should translate well. I like him too and also Obama, Gore and Edwards so I'm pretty much in the undecided camp!

[Radical Activist]

3. It matters to me and its the main reason I don't support Clark.

There's a big difference between leading the military and leading the nation politically. I want someone with political and campaign experience. I think it makes someone more electable and more effective as President.
Furthermore, I will never fully trust a candidate whose words I can't check against some kind of record in elected office.

[alfredo]

72. It becomes very political as you move up in the ranks. You

have to be a very good politician. Not only does he have to deal with the military politics, he has to deal with Capitol Hill and with foreign leaders and their militaries.

I'm sure he can play hardball when needed.

[nodular]

112. reminds me of something Sam Rayburn said to LBJ

LBJ was talking about all of the bright young whiz kids in the new Kennedy administration (where he was the VP). "They're so smart Sam!"

"Yeah. But I can't help but wishing just one of them had once run for sheriff."

[Radical Activist]

117. Nice quote.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. As NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he had head-of-state status

which is some pretty heavy-duty experience and authority, not only with respect to foreign policy matters, but logistic, political and practical management of a whole lot of people in a heirarchy. In a way it was sort of like being a governor of a big state, only with an army. His lack of experience as an elected official is arguably overshadowed by this experience.

[Moochy]

5. Not a clarkie

But I'm guessing that many consider his military career and experience are more than sufficient. As to why no one is questioning Clark's experience, I'm guessing thats because of Obama's recent wave of popularity, vs. the lack of a recent "buzz" about Clark.

cheers!

on edit, I'm a bad barometer for "buzz" as I just now noticed all the Wesley Clark Threads :blush:

[IndianaGreen]

6. The Hillaristas are more fearful of Obama's charisma than they are of Clark

I think the Hillaristas have a lot to fear, not just from Obama, but from solid candidates like Wes Clark.

[SaveElmer]

46. Nothing to fear from good well qualified candidates...

A description that applies to both Clark and Obama. I want what is best for the party. I would rather have 4 well qualified candidates go at it, secure that any one of them would be able to take the Republicans to lunch, then to waltz to the nomination with weak or no opposition

I have enough confidence in Hillary to not be afraid of challengers such as these. And if one of them were to be the nominee I would wholeheartedly and enthusiatically support either one of them. Either could defeat McCain, Guiliani or any other pathetic candidate the Republicans put up!

[Captain Hilts]

7. Clark has had executive and international experience. Obama hasn't. nt

[ripple]

30. Obama has a great deal of international experience

and Clark made important decisions on the battlefield, not executive decisions in the White House.

I like Clark, BTW. In fact, I'd like to see an Obama/Clark ticket.

[Texas_Kat]

39. I'm curious about why you say that ...

as a state senator from Illinois, it doesn't seem like much of a venue for sitting down at the table with foreign heads of state.

I'd love for you to list the international (or executive) experience that he has. Being a legislator isn't (by definition) executive experience.

[ripple]

50. His entire life has been an international experience

I didn't claim Obama has executive experience- he WAS President of the Harvard Law review, but that isn't what we're talking about here. I was simply pointing out that Clark doesn't have any real executive experience either, other than serving at the behest of the executive branch.

Obama's international experience has been largely personal, while Clark's has been largely strategic. Each would be a perfect complement of the others' attributes. Together, I think they would comprise a hell of a ticket.

[Texas_Kat]

56. 'His entire life' is kind of a stretch

He's from Kansas, right? Then from Chicago.... (with a stint at Harvard)

I don't have anything against Obama, but I'm really puzzled about all the international experience that you say he has.

A parent from a foreign country doesn't qualify as 'personal international experience"... as events have demonstrated all too recently

[ripple]

83. Ok...I should say he has been surrounded by international and ethnic diversity

I believe he lived in Jakarta for several years while he was growing up. He has also made regular trips to his father's native Kenya throughout his life.

I agree that having a parent from a foreign country doesn't automatically give one international experience. In Obama's case, however, he not only spent some of his formative years overseas, but he has made it a point to understand his family's Kenyan culture and their struggles, as well as prioritizing the plight of African nations during his brief time in the Senate. You might disagree, but I believe personal experience is indeed relevant to how a politician views the world as a whole. I think it's too easy for some to view situations strategically, while being somewhat ignorant to cultural nuances and the human impact of policy decisions.

[Pithy Cherub]

90. Clark has lived on several continents.

He has worked on international treaties, and the Albanians wanted to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Clark has lived in England where he was Rhodes scholar, in Panama and in Belgium as the head of NATO for some comparison. Clark has had other nations commands under his jurisdiction while working for 16 heads of State that all have cultural nuances to traverse. Those experiences significantly exceed the international qualification bar you set. Obama has gone to Africa as has Angelina Jolie, Oprah and Clooney who have all made fantastic contributions to raising awareness, but not a significant impact yet on public policy. Clark certainly intrinsically factors in the human impact of his work and the impact it makes on all people.

[ripple]

94. I actually agree with you

I'm not faulting Clark's international experience at all, but I also recognize his experience has largely been in a strategic role, and at the behest of the executive branch of government. There is nothing wrong with that at all, in fact his career is distinguished and honorable.

This thread actually sidelined a bit when I defended Obama- I disagreed with a poster who said that he has no international experience. I wasn't and I'm still not criticizing Clark. As a matter of fact, I would like to see Clark and Obama on the same ticket.

[Pithy Cherub]

95. No worries.

Me too, but we probably disagree in which order! ;)

[ripple]

97. Yeppers!

Hell, I'd still be happy as hell to see Clark at the top of the ticket. I just think Obama would actually inspire more people to actually go to the polls, even people who may never have voted in their lives. I think the chances of winning are slightly better with him on top, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!

[Texas_Kat]

98. I sincerely didn't mean my question as a criticism

I was curious about your reasoning...

[ripple]

99. No problem

I should have been more clear in my initial post, I think. Hell, I often question my reasoning, too! :P

[cali]

130. You don't know much about him.

He grew up in Jakarta and Hawaii and has traveled world wide. It is chiefly personal experience, but that can be very valuable. In addition, it's ridiculous to compare him to the chimp, who had no curiosity or interest in foreign affairs prior to his being chosen to run for pres.

[nodular]

114. True, but according to that criteria

very few people elected to the presidency had significant international experience beforehand.

[Donna Zen]

49. Errr...Actually Wes Clark worked in WHouse

His first experience was as a WHouse Scholar working at OMB. In that position Clark wrote the WHouse budget. His second stint was as the J-5 on the Joints Chiefs, the seat of policy and planning. In that capacity, he was very influential on what went on WHouse policy, and he had to be there.

Generals do much more than polish their boots and march. They are executives that run huge and varied operations with giant budgets and they must lobby for their troops. General Clark overhauled the education system for the schools, wrote and changed laws that governed domestic issues such as spousal abuse, and as said, was our face in Europe as a diplomat.

Leadership. Leadership means a great deal. Young officers are recognized for their leadership qualities, and then they are trained in leadership.

Obama may be the a gifted leader...or he may not be. We don't know. What we do need to think about is who can and would undercover all that pork buried under the Pentagon rocks. We have to understand how the strategic framework is effecting our country, who understands it, and who can change it. Clark has talked about all of these things, and he is not afraid.

I'm thinking about where we are today; I'm thinking about the country first, and who can lead us in a better direction.

[beaconess]

54. I like Clark, but please don't inflate his resume

He was a White House Fellow, but did NOT write the budget! White House Fellows help with all manner of White House activity, but they don't have that level of responsibility. He was an assistant to the OMB Director. The OMB's assistants don't write the budget.

[Donna Zen]

59. I'm only going with what was written in his bio

...not anything that he said, or that I made up. He was tasked with writing the WHouse budget, and he did. Wes is an economist, and I would imagine that he was able to do it. He was also tasked with the morning briefings...but I didn't say that.

Actually, all WHouse fellows are not even in the WHouse. He was an assistent at OMB in the West Wing. Currently, he is an advisor to the GAO.

[jefferson_dem]

61. Not to be a stickler but isn't the OMB in the EOP rather than the "West Wing"?

So that would be in the Executive Office Building then, more of a bureaucrat than a politico...

[Donna Zen]

66. A difficult call

It was 1975. The only thing that Clark says about the experience is that the morning briefings were weird. Rumsfeld was Chief of Staff, and everyone was discouraged from commenting or asking questions. Hush..hush. Clark was in his twenties, and I doubt if he was considering a run at the time.

Clark liked briefing Clinton because you had to know your stuff, and be prepared to answer tough questions.

My original point was to a poster who seemed to think that generals' experiences are confined to the battlefield. My observations lead me to believe that generals are highly educated and must have executive abilities. Their qualifications are wide and varied. In Clark's case, I believe he is highly qualified.

We have to look around our world, and decide who is best qualified to do the job that needs to be done.

When I studied federal budgeting, I think it was still called the BOB.

[Clark2008]

104. Um... yes, they do. The assistants do most of the work.

That's true of most any assistant job!

[beaconess]

119. Maybe in many jobs, but the "assistants TO" don't write the budgets in the White House

In fact, most of the work done on the White House budget is done in a different department altogether - the White House Office of Management and Administration.

He probably worked on it and was probably extremely helpful. But, as an assistant to the Director of OMB, it is highly unlikely that he "wrote" the White House budget, a tremendous undertaking involving many different people at many different levels.

[ripple]

57. Thank you for that info

I didn't realize all of that, especially Clark's role in OMB. I still contend that he was working at the behest of the executive branch, though, rather than in a more autonomous role as decision-maker. Of course, if that's my criteria, I acknowledge that of the potential contenders so far, only Gore and Hillary (just barely) would meet that standard.

I like Clark and I'll support him 100% if he receives the nod.

[Bryan]

8. His vast body of other forms of experience makes up for it?

I like Clark, so I may be ascribing values to him in a sloppily sentimental way, but I think it's fair to observe that his biography shows a strong ability to adapt quickly to new contexts. Besides, as a old friend of mine who served in the Army once put it, "The military is politics with cluster bombs".

[pnwmom]

9. Or about Edwards?

[alfredo]

32. He knows arguments, He understands how to present them

and receive them. He probably has a good BS meter. I think he would serve us better as Senator.

I like the guy and would work vigorously to get him elected, but if I had to choose, I'd choose Clark. His foreign policy strength and his relationship with European nations would make him a good pick.

If not president, Clark would be a good pick for Sec of State or Defense. Edwards would be a great Attn General. That would flip out the freepers.

[pnwmom]

68. My point was that I rarely hear people say Edwards is inexperienced.

[alfredo]

71. I heard some during the primaries in 2004. Didn't hear much

if any mention during the general election.

[pnwmom]

77. So the question is, why do people seem more likely to say that

about Obama, who actually has more years in elected office than Edwards, who only had a partial term in the Senate before running for President?

[alfredo]

84. To most people, Obama didn't exist before he appeared at

the 2004 convention. They may not see his office in the state legislature as experience or don't know about it.

[pnwmom]

85. To most people, Edwards didn't exist until he began his run

for President during his first term in the U.S. Senate.

So his situation appears very similar to Obama's to me -- except that people seem more likely to say Obama lacks experience.

[alfredo]

87. I heard of Edwards some time before the 2004 campaign

as a rising star. Howard Dean was also mentioned as a rising star.

[ripple]

86. That's an asset

People are fed up with career politicians and the corruption that surrounds them. Obama will play MUCH better without that baggage.

[alfredo]

88. That's true. Let's hope the

American people are color blind.

[nodular]

115. I heard that fairly often

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

129. Tons of people questioned Edwards

I am one of them.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. It Bothers Me

Which is why he should be Gore's VP.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Answer that question another way ........

What had Jack Kennedy accomplished before he ran and won?

The president needs **ability** and **judgement** and **concern for the Constitution**.

He doesn't *need* a long history of getting ossified in Congress or a State House.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Seems he'll be well qualified to deal with the mess that Bush will leave the next President.

I could easily support Clark if he becomes the choice. Certainly any candidate for the position in 2008 has to be evaluated in terms of their ability to extricate us from this quagmire. I think Clark will have the onboard horsepower to get this mission accomplished. Who'd question his street creds in terms of tactics/strategy to deal with this complex mess?

[Auntie Bush]

13. Clark's life experiences all over EU as head of state,

in charge of running a war, negotiating experience and as a true military hero give him all the experience he needs to run for president.
What the heck does experience winning a political election have to do with one's ability to be president? Yes, it is damn good experience to win another election but certainly not a reason to vote or not vote for him as President. Running in the primary will give him that experience.

[jefferson_dem]

18. I appreciate your point. However, running the military is not at all like

like running a government, where countervailing political agendas are routine. That much is clear.

Reminds me of what Truman was known to have said as Ike was stepping into the Oval Office. It was something like, "He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the army. He'll find it very frustrating."

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Being a Senator or Governor isn't like being President either

Clinton and Carter both had trouble in their early days because they found that managing the federal government was not at all like managing the state house. They adjusted eventually and there is no reason to believe that Clark wouldn't be able to do the same.

What Clark has that I think is most important is the experience in making life and death decisions that Presidents have to make but Senators and Governors don't. I'd much rather someone who spends a month figuring out good management style than someone who makes a crappy decision on something important in their first month.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. You do realize that NATO is a consensus based decision making body...

with each decision making member a sovereign nation headed by some one who most likely is used to getting their own way most of the time, right? Seems to me that brings up that matter of countervailing political agendas. Especially when one factors in that Clark was NATO Commander while the Alliance was at war, in fact the first war that NATO ever fought. Talk about high stakes and emotional charges. NATO isn't small, Clark had to hold together Germany and Greece, Italy and Turkey, the Netherlands and Spain. There is a good reason why he NATO Supreme commander has Head of State status in most of Europe. He dealt directly with sovereign heads of State rountinely in his job. Clark had to be one part diplomat, one part commander. Then there is also the matter of Clark's direct deep involvement in negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords for Bosnia, which was a hell of a lot more complicated than just giving orders and expecting them to be followed.

I think the picture you have of Clark sitting around in the Army ordering "Do this, and Do that" is a fundementally flawed one. And you know, despite what Truman might have said, I think Ike did pretty well dealing with the frustrations of the job for 8 years.

[jefferson_dem]

44. Nice presentation, TR. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

70. Thanks Tom for explaining what I was thinking and couldn't get

it into words. Thank God for your presence here on DU.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

16. Um..."F'in skull"..."loser"? After insults like that, i won't dignify your wild-eyed predictions

with a comment.

Cheers!

[Clark2008]

26. Psssttt... that person isn't necessarily a Clark fan.

He's more of a fluffy-liker.

:hi:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

47. Clark most assuredly is NOT a DLC-type, so that might be so...

[FrenchieCat]

62. Nick likes bandwagons to hop on, if I recall.......

Warner
Edwards

Surprised that Obama and Clinton are not on his list (although I could be wrong). They appear to be strong possible winners with lotsa MO!

If Bayh starts to rise, I'm sure Nick will be the first one there!

But I don't recall him ever being for Wes Clark. Not popular enough on the popular poll scene.

[nickshepDEM]

63. Nonsense, I started the Warner movement here on DU.

Was involved with Maryland for Warner, College Democrats for Warner and the Draft Warner movement.

I'm not with anyone now. Just sort of laying low and seeing how things play out.

[FrenchieCat]

65. I was just being sarcastic!

LOL!

[nickshepDEM]

81. Awww ya got me.

:)

[Sparkly]

45. Sarcastic flamebait, I believe...

Please take it for what it's worth.

[jefferson_dem]

48. Thanks. I have.

Though the little rainy sarcasm thingy after his post would've helped.

[Texas_Kat]

58. Nick was a Warner guy.... now seems to be an Edwards guy

like to mess with people, so take his comments with a grain of salt... a large grain of salt.

[nickshepDEM]

64. No doubt a former Warner guy, but I'm pretty much undecided now

I like 2-3 candidates more than the others, but I can see myself supporting any of the Democratic candidates under certain circumstances.

[Moochy]

20. "Get on board or get left behind, loser."

Next week on Fascist Sloganeering....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. A little diplomacy would be nice here...

[Divine Discontent]

42. that's not asking too much

I'd say... :)



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[beaconess]

25. So you think that Peter Pace or Tommy Franks or John Abizaid

are more qualified to be president than any Democrat (besides Clark) in the field?

Wow.

[nickshepDEM]

27. Of course, foo.

[FrenchieCat]

67. those guys are not Wes Clark. None have been SACEUR....

http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb120701.htm

none first in their class at West Point, none almost died in combat; none most decorated since Eisenhower, None Knighted by the queen of England (maybe Franks), none were Rhodes Scholars....None lead the Kosovo War....none Negotiated the Dayton Accords....none Prepared plans for intervention in Rwanda......none have their photos in the home of Muslims.

[ecstatic]

51. uh oh... Let's just hope Clark has fully abandoned his republican tendencies

Since you bring up Reagan, didn't Clark vote for him? And Bush I?

ETA: I like Clark these days and wouldn't mind voting for him! Every now and then the military career thing and past repub ties do concern me but by 2008 we will have 5 years of observation to work with.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. Oh, please.

Clark was never a Republican; in Arkansas people don't even register with a party. He voted for Clinton twice, then Gore, then Kerry; that's Democratic enough for me. Look at his issues in the 2004 primaries, then try to convince me he's even slightly Republican. The only candidate who was arguably more progressive on more issues was Kucinich.

[nickshepDEM]

53. 1st rule of Clark club...

Do not talk about Clark club.

2nd rule - Do not question the General, ever.

[Captain Hilts]

100. Act nice. nt

[Jai4WKC08]

122. What is the Clark club?

How do you join? Do you get a membership card? Or maybe a decoder ring?

Seriously, what on earth does your post have to do with anything? And where did you get the chip on your shoulder?

[Jai4WKC08]

109. No evidence of Bush I

He was accused of that by Lieberman, but I've never seen anything where Clark said he had. I know he had major disagreements with the Bush I pentagon.

[greenman3610]

15. Repubs guide the conversation by keeping the talk

on Hillary.
It's on the order of "Don't throw me in dat briar patch!"
(because they think they can beat her)

They don't talk about Clark because they
fear running against a Military man from the South.

As far as experience -
Eisenhower did ok.

[thatsrightimirish]

17. I agree with most people here

As NATO Supreme Allied Commander he beats everyone hands down on foreign policy experience. He also has a masters degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. But since foreign policy is likely to be the #1 issue Clark will undoubtedly have the upper hand. Not a Clarkie but ever so slowly moving to that camp.

[ripple]

35. Obama at the top of the ticket, w/ Clark as VP- that's the wining ticket IMO- n/t

[beaconess]

40. I love Obama, but I think the reverse would be much stronger

[mike_c]

19. it makes a great deal of difference to me and I oppose Clark...

...partly for that reason, and partly because I don't trust career militarists at the head of civilian government. Clark could deal with both problems by spending a term or two in civilian government at a lower level than President.

[Bonobo]

23. You would rule out anyone who made a career in the military!?

People who know me will tell you I am the most anti-military person they know and yet even I would not make such a cut and dry, blanket statement like that. At the very least, I would think that you would want to make a closer examination of a presidential candidate then to subject them to that kind of an overreaching, overarching, oversimplified, reductionistic argument.

I think Clark is great. I don't yet know enough about Obama and I look forward to reading positive, insightful, educational posts about fellow Democratic candidates, not Jerry Springer like set ups like this OP. It's wasteful, it's embarrassing, it's destructive, it's sophomoric.

Sorry for the rant.

[Clark2008]

29. Well put..

And if I wasn't married, I'd ask you to have great monkey sex.

:7

[Bonobo]

34. Appreciated...

About the monkey sex...

:dilemma:

[Clark2008]

80. Well, with a name like Bonobo...

:hi:

[mike_c]

33. I did not say that-- I said a "career militarist...."

If I have to explain the difference between a "career militarist" and "someone who has made a career in the military" then we probably can't discuss this from a common frame of reference. Lots of people make careers in the military without becoming four star generals. My aversion has much more to do with the incompatibility of autocratic command and civilian democratic consensus building. Clark could demonstate his ability to do this if he would serve in civilian government, but his insistance on pursuing ONLY the top command post betrays exactly the autocratic nature I'm afraid of.

[Bonobo]

41. That was well put.

In the future, I will try to stay within your frame of reference.

I tend to agree with you. That is the dilemma for me. But. BUT! There IS and MUST BE room for individuals who are special to fall OUTSIDE of your formula. I believe that Wes Clark is that kind of exception to your "rule".

I know that when you say that you trust a person for reasons that are difficult to explain, people justifiably are suspicious. But I have never been wrong and have a very good scent for people. Clark honestly, I think, ran for President for the same reason that he was converted to the rightness of our cause. He felt the need, the pull of duty in the most good and patriotic sense. That is what I believe. I think he's a rare guy who knew there was some really deep shit that was/is about the fly our way. That's the only reason he has done this without going the private CEO route thing or similar.

[FrenchieCat]

75. The military is one of the most socialistic systems in the United States....

eat the same, dress the same, earn much the same, same health care, same Educational opportunities.

Clark wasn't always a 4 star general....he was also part of the "troops".

Clark did a lot of concensus building while in command of NATO. He had to satisfy 19 country heads at the same time. He negotiated the Dayton Peace Accord....which could not be done by someone into Autocratic command. Clark is more of a diplomat than you give him credit. Maybe that's why 55 ambassadors endorsed him in 2004. So it is my humble opinion that Wes Clark actually has shown his ability to serve while consensus building in a democratic atmosphere (NATO countries are democratic).

What I like is that Clark earned not much more than $50,000 per year until he became a J5, I believe. Now that would be a war decorated 1st in his class Rhodes Scholar with a masters degree from Oxford in Political Science, Phylosophy, and Economics..... Meaning he ain't it for the money.

[Auntie Bush]

76. He was drafted because he was NEEDED and he still is. It's President now or never...he'd be

too old if he waited and I know he feels needed now.

[lumpy]

79. We need someone of stature , experience and

intelligence, someone such as Clark. Some one we and the world can look up to and respect. After the Dubya experience you'd think people would be clamoring for such a candidate.

[Pithy Cherub]

78. Ah, but where would Romans be

without there citizen soldiers, Cincinatus, Aurelius et al. Clark is my present day citizen soldier to put it right and make it safe for you and me using the tools of Peace and Diplomacy, not turning plows into sword shares. Cincinatus left the stage upon completion as Clark would also, but first they defend Hearth and Home to the betterment of the Globe.

[Jai4WKC08]

107. Clark is no militarist

If you think he is, you don't know Clark, or you don't know what a militarist is.

[mike_c]

113. really...?

Do you honestly maintain that none of these definitions apply to Clark? Or is the problem perhaps that I'm not the one unfamiliar with what a militarist is?

mil‧i‧ta‧rist  /ˈmɪlɪtərɪst/ –noun

1. a person imbued with militarism.
2. a person skilled in the conduct of war and military affairs.


mil·i·ta·rism (ml-t-rzm) n.

1. Glorification of the ideals of a professional military class.
2. Predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state.
3. A policy in which military preparedness is of primary importance to a state.

[Jai4WKC08]

121. Do you honestly expect me to believe you didnt' mean the 1st definition?

To most people, "militarist" means the definition at #1: "a person imbued with militarism" with militarism further defined as the "glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and/or the "predominance of the armed forces int he administration or policy of the state."

I can't see how you could have any complaint about "a person skilled in the conduct of war and military affairs" (#2), or someone who believes that "a policy of military preparedness is of primary importance to the state." As a matter of fact, I think that you distinguish between someone who simply served in the military and someone who rose to be a four-star general officer pretty much proves exactly what you mean. You really don't have to play games about it.

But if it blows your skirt up, let me refine my statement that Clark is no militarist according to the first definition of militarist, or the first and second definitions of militarism. There, happy?

[mike_c]

126. not at all-- I absolutely mean the first definition....

eom

[Jai4WKC08]

127. Then my statement stands

Clark is no militarist.

You really have no right to call him one unless you can point specifically to something he's said or done that indicates he is. And his being successful in his military career doesn't cut it -- that's just bigotry and stereotyping on your part.

[Captain Hilts]

101. Being in the military is as close to living under socialism as it gets in this country.

You get on the outside and realize that Joe and Mary Shit are getting screwed over.

Check out the stuff Webb's been saying.

[Radical Activist]

43. Like Jim Webb is doing.

Webb will be a much more attractive Presidential candidate than Clark in the future because of his service in the Senate, if he does well and if he is interested in that.

[Julien Sorel]

22. "Experience..."

1) Ability -- temperament, intelligence, judgment, genuine patriotism -- is more important than "experience."

2) Ike had no "experience," and he had a successful presidency.

3) Bush was "experienced," and came from one of the most politically seasoned families the country has had, but has been an unqualified disaster, quite possibly the worst president in history, and certainly the worst since Hoover (himself a highly experienced and -- unlike Bush -- successful administrator prior to winning the presidency).


Frankly, I don't even know what "experience" means in this situation. I rather suspect that there is no true experience that can prepare someone for the presidency, so in this sense they're all "inexperienced."

Let's think of "experience" this way. Bush has been in office now for about 6 years. That makes him pretty damned "experienced." Would he make a good president if he were able to run in 2008 and won, now that he has all that "experience" under his belt? I think we know the answer to that one. "Experience," whatever it is, is overrated.

[beaconess]

24. I think that the only job that even comes close to fully preparing one to be president

is vice president.

Which means that Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, and Walter Mondale are the only four living people most qualified to be president.

And I'd vote for any Democrat in the field - and even some of the Republicans - before I'd even think of voting for two of these guys.

So, I think you're exactly right about "experience" being overrated. I'm much more interested in the qualities they possess than the jobs they've previous had, since we all know that people end up in various jobs for many different reasons.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. There is no single job that prepares you to be President

If someone had served as a Senator, Governor, Cabinet Secretary, and White House Chief of Staff then I'd say yea that person can claim that they have the experience to be fully prepared for the Presidency. But any one of those positions on their own would not give someone all of the experience necessary to be President.

[beaconess]

38. You're right

You highlight the problem with the "he doesn't have enough {foreign policy/legistlative/executive} experience because he experience because he hasn't been a {senator/representative/governor} meme. Unless he or she has served in all of the positions you describe, something's going to be missing.

Bill Clinton was criticized for only being the "governor of a small southern state" who possessed no foreign policy experience, yet he was one of the most effective diplomats and foreign policy presidents this country has ever had. George H.W. Bush had foreign policy and executive experience out the wazoo, but he was a terrible president (although he's starting to look pretty good compared to his disaster of a son).

[Texas_Kat]

36. Best synopsis I've seen about WKC's qualifications, so I'm posting it here

"In many respects Clark is far more qualified for POTUS than many other potential candidates simply because he has a breadth and depth of experience in policy management and implementation which most of the others do not (Bill Richardson may be an exception).

Holding a Masters in Economics, Clark did a tour with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As a base commander he was a mayor; as head of the Southern Command and later NATO, he functioned as a governor since military bases are cities with military specific components added on.

As the military representative on the American diplomatic team that came up with the Dayton Accords he functioned as a diplomat. NATO commanders have dual responsibilities. One is military but they also hold Ambassadorial rank and are simultaneously dealing with negotiating a consensus with 19 different heads of states. He is also a GAO advisory board member.

Of all the potential candidates Clark is the only one who gets invited to speak at major Arab leadership meetings.

The importance of this? The greatest challenge for the next president is going to be in foreign policy, undoing the damage of the Bush years and dealing with all the fallouts, blowbacks and repercussions and trying to keep the Middle East from going up in flames.

The nature of the office is that presidents have far more direct control over foreign policy than they do domestic policy and because of this Congress has much less to say about foreign policy than domestic policy.

Most any Democratic president can work with a Democratic Congress to undo the Bush damage on domestic issues and it will most likely be Congress leading the way in that regard. Foreign policy is a different story.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Could it be that Wes Clark has experience

in Winning wars without U.S. casualties..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark


in negotiating peace treaties that hold a decade later ....http://www.udnews.org/2005/10/dayton_peace_ac.html

in Holding coalitions of a wide ranging numbers of countries together... http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

in Conferring with Heads of States all over the world....

in Facing dictators and getting them to give up....


in Managing via an executive position hundreds of thousands of military personnels and their families...in areas ranging from housing, education and health care....
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/107th/edr/impaid110801/clark.htm
in Managing budget allotted for needs as stated above....

in Testifying under oath to both houses of congress on Iraq and testifying at the Hague....
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/16/167216
http://hague.bard.edu/past_video/12-2003.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1550366

in Winning multiple awards for valor and bravery.....and being on the record books as the most decorated officer since Eisenhower.....
http://newby45.myweb.uga.edu/whoisclark.htm

in Being shot four times and almost dying while fighting under the American Banner and therefore not being there when his son was born.


in Saying NO to riches (as a Rhodes Scholar, stellar WestPointer and Vietnam hero) and instead choosing to continue in public service (meaning earning less than $50,000 until he reached a certain rank long into his career-1995) within the army ranks for years repairing the Vietnam damage to the military.....


in Being intrically involved in the strategic planning arena as the head of Strategic planning under the Clinton Administration....


in being an emergency prepardeness expert working with the head of FEMA under the Clinton Administration. http://www.wittassociates.com/

In having experience in alternative energy research via the company that he headed for a few years which developed an electric motorbike unique at that time. http://greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm

in having been John Kerry's most effective surrogate during the 2004 election....


In running in a national campaign in less 4 months time with leftover campaign hands, raising the most money in January 2004, and being able to place 1st in one primary and 2nd in 3 contests, and 3rd in 3 others. OK, so he didn't get any press in Iowa to get any momentum... :shrug:

and married for 40 years this year-- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_Feb_3/ai_n6010914


There's a bit more....but I don't want to bore anyone.... :)

[FrenchieCat]

60. But what you'll notice is that "they" ain't talking about Clark......

and they are talking about Obama. Hence, the media doesn't seem to have a problem with mentioning Obama and not mentioning Clark.

BUT
Guess when a country is involved in a few wars, are recuperating from a natural Katrina disaster, have the GOP touting Giuliani and McCain for 2008, and all that's been discussed in the last 5 years is national defense, foreign policy, national defense, Foreign policy, terror alert, terror alert.....we get Hillary and Obama and Edwards (are those all three attorneys/Senators?....my, Oh my!)as our brass knuckles to win the next war to save our democracy that's coming up; the 2008 elections.
Boy, we've got it made! :thumbsup: :sarcasm:

[RoyGBiv]

69. Nope ...

Regardless, I agree with you on the "inexperience" criticism.

The only experience I really care about in this regard is experiencing in leadership and making rational, calm decisions.

[Clarkie1]

73. Eisenhower never held political office, neither did George Washington, and as Tom Harkin put it...

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office." -Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa

Clark has executive experience on the highest of levels. I believe his understanding of international relations is second to none. He has advanced degrees in economics and political science, and understands this country and how to get things done.

It does not matter one iota that Clark has never been elected to political office either historically, politically, or pragmatically. It's a manufactured issue used by Clark's opponents...typically opponents whose favorite potential candidate is a career politician.

Last time I checked, career politicians were not at the top of the most admired profession in America.

And for the record, I like Obama a lot. I think Clark/Obama would be a great ticket.

[Pithy Cherub]

74. Clark has a wealth of experience at the leadership level

that means budgeting, logistics and a sworn duty on life and death matters based on his decision making capability. Those are proven which allows Wes to not need ramp up time or have augmented staff to fill so many critical gap needs. He has had the types of jobs that have tested his leadership capacity and competencies on multiple levels for years. Wes has lived in foreign countries all over the world and managed varying numbers of staff.

The people component is the most critical. A CEO may have between 5 to 250,000 people across business units to manage. A senator may have ten direct reports. A Supreme Allied Commander has to get consensus with fractious heads of state, command tens of thousands of troops,(in Clark's case even other countries armies were under his command) relocate and educate their families and execute logistics to maintain military readiness. Clark lost not one American in Kosovo. Each role is different but leading a federal government with the largest expenditure being defense related means having a competency in place to make the locomotives run on time.

Even being a governor, and becoming president is a tremendous transition. The best experience garnering role in DC is Vice president. Most people forget Bill Clinton's first 100 days in office were a disaster because of his shaky relationship with the military and not having the right people on his staff. (Gore was a tremendous asset.) Multiply Clinton's experience with America being at war and the steep learning curve for even the most intellectually gifted is a true stretch for anyone unfamiliar with the Executive Branch inner workings. Good thing Clark has that Rhodes scholar and graduated first in his class at West Point and serving in a White House and the Pentagon.

Obama has the beautiful thing of offering the idea of hope, promise and potential. He also is tad more experienced at legislating than he's given credit for. However, the national security apparatus is a behemoth that has to be managed in parallel with the political process and having partners within Congress. Obama has claim to one of those along with the Hope factor. It's a powerful combination for some, but Clark is the more compelling to me because of his proven adaptability at the C level in business and during his professional military career. Clark has had to tell parents their children, sons or brothers have died, that's an experience no one wishes on anyone, but it tells me he's paid the price with the awful portions of leadership that no other candidate has. It's Clark for me for so many more reasons too. :patriot:

[LWolf]

82. Yes. It matters to me. n/t

[lillilbigone]

89. Of course it matters.

Unless you are wearing blinders.

[CJCRANE]

91. Oh come on -

Clark already had "Head of State" status at NATO, he is hands down the most qualified in terms of diplomacy, international relations and leadership.

In terms of political experience then Gore and Kerry top the list.

For political connections and savvy Hillary is the best bet.

Edwards and Obama win in the fresh-faced optimism and charisma stakes.

[Alexander]

92. Yes, it matters to me, about both Obama and Clark.

Eisenhower was an anomoly, because he was viewed as almost god-like following World War II.

Clark hasn't defended the country from any major national threat, and cannot count on military experience alone to help a run for the presidency.

I wouldn't mind him as Secretary of Defense or governor of Arkansas. But I won't be supporting him in the presidential primaries.

Let it never be said that I am inconsistent with my calls for political experience.

[Clark2008]

93. Then you should learn something about political experience.

For one thing, Clark cannot, by law, be named Secretary of Defense. The Def. Sec. has to be inactive military for 10 years. Clark retired in 2000, making him ineligible to serve in the position in 2008.

[janx]

105. Congress can override that. n/t

[Alexander]

106. Fine, in 2010 then. But don't preach to me what I need to learn.

Besides, your 2008 date is off - no administration elected in '08 would take office until 2009. So whoop-de-do, Clark misses out on a whole year of being Gore's Def. Sec., assuming the Democratic Congress doesn't override it anyway. Maybe you should learn something about when terms begin?

Got anything else I "should learn", or is your teaching lesson done for today? :eyes:

[beaconess]

111. Really? That's interesting. Thanks.

[lojasmo]

96. I was "clark lacks experience" before it was declasse. EOM

[Infinite Hope]

102. Necessary Experience = Issue Experience not Electoral Experience n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

103. W-a-y back in the day...

on DU this was discussed a LOT and was a big issue for many here. When the Clarkies found the board there was much back and forth with them about his lack of experience. I think you don't hear much about it now because there is a huge number of his supporters onboard and most of his critics have gone elsewhere.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. He also has a lot more political experience now n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

108. The two are not comparable, and here's why:

First, let me ask you something. What is the difference between being "elected to political office" and working your way up thru the system to achieve some high-level government office?

As far as I can tell, the only difference is the election part. The ability to get into the office by having people vote for you, as opposed to having superiors select you. The electioneering.

If you want to talk how qualified Clark is to run a campaign, then the electioneering part it relevant. He has little experience in that art and had essentially none at all when he ran in 2004. He will have to prove he has learned enough of the art to win the party's nomination by winning a series of primaries. It may nit be a perfect system, but then neither are winning local elections, since the politics of single state or even region are very different from the nation as a whole.

But if you want to talk about qualification to actually serve in in the office of POTUS once the election is over, then Clark has more the experience than anyone, and I mean anyone, even Gore.

Clark has served in government office for 34 years (I'll leave off the 4 years at West Point, altho that is technically government and he did hold leadership positions there). That means he has 34 years of learning the ropes of how government works, at almost every level. He may have been assigned to the Dept of Defense, but at one point or another, he worked extremely closely with almost every other agency within the federal bureaucracy and Congress too. Plus, he was responsible for functions within the Dept of Defense that closely replicate state-level agencies, such as Education, Health and Welfare, infrastructure management, environmental management, and so on. He has also had to interface with civilian agencies such as unions, humanitarian agencies, and international organizations. Additionally, perhaps completely unique to Wes Clark, he has also worked within the State Dept, helping to negotiate the Bosnia Peace treaty. There are not many with a foot in both of the two largest federal agencies. And of course, he ultimately held office in an international alliance, as the Supreme (there's a reason they use that word) commander in NATO, second only to the Secretary General.

I find it hard to imagine how can anyone say that sort of experience doesn't matter.

[MrSlayer]

116. Probably because he has a ton of it.

His not having been elected to a political office doesn't mean he lacks political experience. I'd say his political experience far exceeds that of any candidate on the Democratic radar excepting perhaps Al Gore. He's already an international statesman and had Head of State status when he was The Supreme Allied Commander. He is well known and more importantly well liked by our allies and respected as a reasonable man by our enemies in the international community. Has tremendous diplomatic and leadership skills that are proven. Practical experience in the political realm is the last thing Wes Clark lacks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. One, presumably, wants political experience so one is not voting for

a pig in a poke. For me, "lack of experience" means lack of taking a stand.

It's true for both of them, at this point.

[Jai4WKC08]

123. You don't know shit about Clark

If you think he's never taken a stand.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

125. You just think you know shit about Clark.

:eyes:

[rapallos]

120. Nicely Played

Prepared to get spun.

Here we go again. Now when Hillary or Obama win the primary.

Dems will just abandon the party and run to Nader.

[robcon]

124. It matters to me.

The only generals who went from the military to the White House were Washington, Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower, AFAIK.

Clark is NOWHERE near their league in terms of popularity, awareness and hero-worship. He was a NATO commander, in his most prominent post, and he didn't do anything heroic I've ever heard of - and more importantly - as far as Americans know.

I think he'll be a great VP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

128. Being a General IS political.

That's why.

[robcon]

131. I disagree completely that a general is "political."

An occasional appearance before Congress is barely political - it is an opportunity for public speaking - a small part of politician's work.

It's not committee work.
It's not constituent service.
It's not horse trading/persuasion with colleagues, the administration and lobbyists.
It's not writing/sponsoring bills.
It's not running a campaign.

I think Clark is well qualified for political office - just not the presidency. He should start with something more modest, IMO.