Clark or Gore?

[LBJDemocrat]

Both of these are possible contenders with huge support on DU. What are the positives and negatives of each? Who would you rather see lead the US? Also say who you're currently supporting and whether you'd keep supporting that candidate if Gore or Clark ran.

I'll start.

Gore:
Positives: Seems a lot more independent than in 2004, used strong words against invasion before it was popular to do so, unites virtually all Democrats easily
Negatives: Served as the Clinton administration's spokesman in favor of NAFTA, ran a weak campaign in 2000, ties to Clinton administration (which brought us NAFTA, normalized trade with China, and the end of welfare), no evidence that he has repudiated Clinton's policies

Clark:
Positives: Consistently anti-neoconservative, less political baggage than Gore or any of the current frontrunners for that matter, can credibly run on an economically liberal platform since he won't need to explain any past votes, probably less divisive on a national level than Gore
Negatives: Criticism of the "New York money people" in reference to a potential Iranian war might hurt fundraising chances

My preference: I lean towards Clark.

I currently support Edwards, but if he dropped out, I would almost surely support Clark.

I'm still waiting for Gore to talk about the issues that matter to the working American.

[Colobo]

1. You know what? I'd like to see Clark as Obama's VP.

[LBJDemocrat]

2. Yeah, but...

How do you view him relative to Al Gore?

[Colobo]

6. I think Al Gore is more effective as an activist than as a politician

Wes Clark, I believe, has more to offer politically speaking at this point.

[wildhorses]

3. gore/clark

yeah, i'm greedy like that

[NMDemDist2]

46. sounds perfect to me! n/t

[Captain Hilts]

4. Clark. And I think he'd draw more crossover voters than Gore. nt

[jenmarie]

7. Right.

I think you're correct.

I like Gore a lot and know he'd make a brilliant president, but I love seeing him focusing his life on his passion and making such a difference. With Clark as president, Gore would have the support of the President of the United States behind him which would bolster his efforts even more.

[billbuckhead]

8. Gore/Clark would be the best ticket in American history, why not go for 60%

Gore's the closest we've had to Jefferson in a long time. Except Gore is quite has made multi millions on that internet thing he didn't invent vs Jefferson's vast debt. Oh and unlike Jefferson, Gore actually went to combat zones, a time or two.

Clark is simply the smartest military man the nation has produced in awhile and actually fought and was wounded as an officer in Vietnam.

[Cameron27]

5. Clark!

[NYCGirl]

9. You forgot — GORE Positives: Won the popular vote in 2000. NT

[IndyOp]

14. He won Florida, too. He didn't just "win the popular vote" -

he won the whole damn election and we had it stolen out from beneath us.

I am picky about the phrasing because we have to fight the battle of the rhetoric before to catapult the truth into the consciousness of Americans.

GORE WON IN 2000! GORE WON IN 2000! GORE WON IN 2000!
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/IndyOp/26

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

10. Clark because I feel Gore may take us for granted

He still hasn't explained his support of NAFTA and welfare reform. I mean if you're doing well for yourself, Gore could be a great President; but some of us are being left out of the party.

[Uncle Joe]

49. Unless, you're a member of the Mass Corporate Media,

the only reason, the world can read your opinions regarding NAFTA or welfare reform is because Al Gore empowered you to voice your concerns, when he championed the Internet.

His reward for his vision and dedication to you and the rest of the American People was to be trashed, slandered, obfuscated,ignored or ridiculed by the MCM for the better part of two years prior to the selection of 2000. I call it the Prometheus effect.

The Internet is the new town hall, it's becoming stronger every day and the fact, you can communicate with us thanks to Al Gore flies in the face of you being left out of the party.

[TwilightGardener]

11. That's a tough one, because Clark is not as politically tested as Gore--

both are good men and would make good presidents, so my main concern is: which one could win? Gore does not seem to have a fire in the belly to run again, and I really don't know why Clark didn't decide to enter the race But if he did, I think he would run hard and match up better against the Repub nominee--he doesn't have the baggage of a negative image that Gore had, and would be a "fresher" choice. Advantage--Clark.

[Big Pappa]

21. They both

have the leadership skill, but I agree that it should be Clark. I truly think he is the only one that could win the South. Gore did not even take his home state.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Yeah--not winning your own state is pretty indicative

that the rest of the region won't be yours either. I had forgotten that about Gore--ouch!

[Clark2008]

29. Just a note: I think Clark could have taken Tennessee om 2004 or, in

the least, he could have made the state more competitive, causing the Republicans to have to spend money here instead of somewhere else.

[melody]

12. Gore

Sorry to bust up the Clark thread. :)

[Clark2008]

30. No probs!

I'm a Clarkie with Gore as my second choice. My husband wants Gore with Clark as a second choice.

The two seem to be linked. :hi:

[IndyOp]

13. Gore: Healthcare, Troops out now...

In his speech at GW - he illustrated his concern about the problems with the American debate by asking whether we ought to focus the public conversation on rolling back a tax paid by gazillionaires or whether we out to discuss providing healthcare to all Americans. Obviously - we ought to discuss health care.

He has made it clear that he wants the troops out of Iraq yesterday and would not have voted for any Iraq funding bill that did not have timelines.

A big part of his conversation about environment has been to stimulate the economy by putting people to work in new eco-friendly industries.

He isn't a candidate, so he hasn't been talking about particular issues - he is keeping things framed, right now, in terms of how we ought to consider the urgent problems we share.

He's always been a populist and if he had $$ for the campaign coming in from 10,000's of small donors he would be less beholden to special interests than some other candidates.

Hillary Clinton is the biggest recipient of money from the healthcare industry - for that reason I don't trust her healthcare plan, which is a shame, because she put so much of herself into the issue during the Bill Clinton administration.

[Donna Zen]

15. A very tough choice

Gore:

Is more independent than 2000, and I think he would be now better able to brush back those weaselly Dem. over-paid wooden-headed consultants whose only claim to fame is their parasitic attachment to the Democratic party. Gore knows the beast.

He has name recognition. That is both good and bad. He also has fairly high negatives the last time I looked.

I have no idea about his current economic policies; however, I think they are improved since his last run. Nevertheless, Gore's personality has always been one of extreme caution. We might not see the same Gore on the trail that we have seen recently.

He's smart. He's concerned about one of the world's major issues, and has earned the world's respect.

He has lots of baggage, and even the new Gore will have difficulty attracting cross-over votes.

(Note: I would vote for Gore so it is difficult for me to gage the pulse of the country about his chances. But looking at the Dem. weaknesses, white guys and NASCAR Americans, I'm doubtful he can bring it home.)

Clark:

A lack of name recognition. This presents the opportunity for him to define himself, but it also leaves an opening for the right to define him. Over the last few days the right-wing has been able to do just that. We'll see.

He is beyond excellent on two of the country's most pressing issues according to the polls: foreign policy/security and the war. He is gifted with the ability to teach those who listen him about these issues.

The country while expecting Clark to be knowledgeable about all things security has no idea of his other interests and talents. While we don't think of the environment and Clark as we do Gore, Clark knows his stuff. And he's been quietly active.

The best on health care. His ideas about economics (holistic) and education are outside the box and far-reaching in scope. He is not a neoliberal.

He's brilliant. The only candidate who could straighten out the culture at the Pentagon.

Questionable if the country will understand the actual role of the modern general. They are high level managers and leaders. Clark may be locked into a stereotype. Nevertheless, he is trusted by moderates and indies and I see an easy win with a realignment of the parties.
^^^^^^^

Personally, at this point in time, and considering the coming crisis of the near future, I go with Clark.

[ben_thayer]

16. BOTH!

Gore/Clark '08...

[Pastiche423]

17. GORE

No contest.

[Imagevision]

18. I can't count the times Gore said he definitly would not be running for President

[rosesaylavee]

22. Maybe because he hasn't said it since 2004?

He hasn't closed the door like he did then. I think that there is still a chance he gets in this fall after his summer concerts are finished and he has a chance to rest up with family.

[Pastiche423]

55. "I have not closed the door on being a candidate"

Al Gore Tuesday May 22, 2007 Larry King Live

[Wesin04]

19. Wes Clark

He's been my preference for awhile, for a number of reasons. Hands down the most capable man in the field for what this country needs. He's put some strength into the Democratic party for the first time in a long time, yet he knows economics, technology, tax structure, healthcare...you name it and he can address it clearly. Look at the states that Kerry lost and tell me which of the current candidates could pick up a couple of those states, IOW, bring in some crossover voters, Independents and moderate Repubs? Clark could.

Gore's a good man and he is making a huge difference doing what he's doing for the planet. I don't think he could have the appeal as an all-around leader and to run and lose would also make him lose his platform for the environment.

I'll stick with Wes Clark all the way.

[Labors of Hercules]

20. Both would be my top choices, but BOTH need to throw caution to the wind.

I've watched Gore in the past couple of days, and am detecting a hint of him beginning to weigh his answers politically. That's not good because he's right: he's a much better straight-talker than he is a "politician". I know if people are intelligent enough to elect him, he will become one of the truly great presidents of our History, and he can get there if he can remain a white horse candidate and continue speaking his mind clearly and with no "political fear".

The same goes for Clark. It would be a glorious day for the WORLD if these two teamed up and became our next President and VP, and Clark could continue the legacy for a further 8 years as President.

:woohoo:

[Greyhound]

24. Clark needs a heavy-weight political insider to round out his ticket, he doesn't have the political

"know-how" to get anything done.

Gore has a lot of political liability because he lived in the cesspool for so long.

Clark has a much better cross-cultural appeal than Gore, I have no doubt he would win the general election if only he can get through the primaries, but that seems unlikely.

Gore is much more likely to get the nomination, but turns off too many of the average sheep, it would be a tough race.

That's the Greyhound line, though I respect Al Gore I would prefer Clark.

[Lord Helmet]

25. Gore because of his experience

[lojasmo]

26. Gore, of course.

Anti-neocon?

School of the Americas ring a bell?

[Clark2008]

31. Yes, it does ring a bell and has been debunked, numerous times,

on this board and others: http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clark_and_the_soa_schools.html

Thanks! :hi:

[lojasmo]

33. Quite the citation "walking point for general clark"

Care to provide a worthwhile citation?

Bet not.

Kthx.

"This school is the best means available to ensure that the armed forces in Latin America and the armies in Latin America understand US values and adopt those values as their own."

-General W. Clark (on SOTA)

[FrenchieCat]

34. Seems like the "walking point" for Gen. Clark has "worthwhile" citations

to me!

here's one!

George Bruno will be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said. But if "you find nothing wrong and you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position."
Source-Commondreams.org

Clark did more to Clean up the SOA than anyone else had ever done during his short one year stint as Commander of that area. Meanwhile, most of Congress continue to fund this school year after year.

SOA reknowned for the leaders it produced in the 70s and 80s. In 1996, when Clark was in command.....not so much! In fact, not at all!

[lojasmo]

35. Point stands. Clark is an appologist for the SOTA

SOTA trains to perpetrate human rights abuses.

NOT debunked.

[LBJDemocrat]

38. SOTA trains to defeat communists

It's nothing to apologize for, especially if Clark tried to make the school's program become more ethical.

[Clark2008]

45. Well, it is debunked.

You just choose not to believe what you read (if you read it).

He cleaned it up, he made it an actual school and he told you, yes you (and anyone else who cares) that if he were president and you found actual terrorist training or other similar violations occurring that he would close it down.

What more do you want? An ingraved invitation?

Tell you what. Let's elect him president, take up a collection to send you there to investigate and then you can tell him what you find. If you find nefarious activity, then he'll shut it down. The important thing here, of course, is that we elect him president so he can do it.

Ahem...

[LBJDemocrat]

37. He was working under the Clinton/Gore administration

Give me a break. Please.

[JNelson6563]

27. Gore, he's run and won

Experience matters when running for the highest office in the land. I've no doubt Clark would govern well but the bigger hurdle of getting elected is another story.

Julie

[dogman]

40. If Gore won, how come he has not been the President?

Not the experience I want to relive.

[JNelson6563]

43. Are you seriously asking

or pretending to be clueless?

:shrug:

[dogman]

48. President Gore?

:shrug:

[JNelson6563]

54. Your question was

If Gore won, how come he has not been the President?

Do you really not know why "he has not been the President"?

Go here if you really have to ask: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040517/palast or here http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0621-11.htm or here http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html

That should help you get started.

Julie

[dogman]

57. Simple fact, he is not President.

What if he were to "win" again? Who would be President?

[Sparkly]

28. This is a dilemma I'd LOVE to face!!

Gore has an unsurpassed breadth of experience -- 24 years in government. Clark has unsurpassed experience and vision for foreign policy on both practical and philosophical levels.

Both are exceptionally smart; both are good men; both would make excellent presidents.

I would still lean Clark's way, because I think the foreign policy problems we face -- right down to our national identity -- are in such crisis. I also think he has the greater potential to unite the country, and I think there's value in having a president who's fresh to politics.

I'm hoping either one of them jumps in.

[MrSlayer]

32. Clark is the only person I'll vote for ahead of Gore.

I think Gore/Clark is an unbeatable combo. Clark/Obama would work too.

[Thirtieschild]

36. Clark first

If not Clark then Gore. The two together leave me breathless. So much experience, so much intelligence, so much vision, so much caring, so much charisma.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Has America ever elected someone who'd never won a political election of any sort before?

Other than maybe the founding fathers, that is. Serious question....have we?

[Auntie Bush]

41. Remember... "I Like Ike"?....right out of the military and he warned

about toe Military Industrial Complex as Clark has also promised he'd control if he were President. There would be no wasteful spending or non-bid contracts given to political donors or buddies. Sounds good to me and I bet Halliburton would be thrown to the wolves!

[Honeycombe8]

51. Oh, yeah....Ike. Good example. I was just wondering.

Still, just one example doesn't bode well for a novice politician. It's possible, but it takes someone pretty politically savvy, I would think, to run for the highest office. It's brutal, even for experienced politicians.

But, hey, if Clark were in the general election, I'd vote for him. Don't know if the majority of the voters would, though. He was really bad at politicking. A great man, fully qualified, admirable, ethical, and all. But you gotta know how to "politick" to win. Maybe he's gotten better.

I wonder why he doesn't run for gov of Arkansas?

[Clark2008]

56. Why doesn't he run for Ark gov?

Because it would be a waste of his skill set.

He's much better suited to handling domestic AND foreign policy issues. He wouldn't be handling too many FP issues as a governor.

[Honeycombe8]

58. Is that the reason he gave for not running for Ark. gov?

That was a serious question I asked. I understand some people think he is the best qualified to be President. That's not what I was asking.

Really...he hasn't got a chance of winning an election for President. That's big time politics for experienced politicians, usually. Ike was a good example, though. But he was world famous and had made much more of a name for himself. Everyone knew who he was. And he was, well, Ike. Few people know who Clark is, whether worldwide or in the country. And he was just terrible at politicking the first go-round.

It's possible to so admire someone that they become blind to the realities. Really, seriously....Clark is not now and will never be a serious contender for President in 2008.

He would stand a much better chance of becoming a governor. Plus, that would provide much needed political experience. And, that could be used as a springboard to a presidential run in the future, like so many others have done. That was why I asked. If he wants to be a politician, he needs to start with a more modest goal. I frankly think he is not going for the "gold." I think he's hoping to get some sort of official appointment.

I admire him. I'd vote for him. I supported him for 2004 and contributed to his campaign. But as the campaigning unfolded, I saw how ill prepared he was to be a politician. It opened my eyes. Good intentions aren't enough. Qualifications aren't enough. Like John Travolta said in the movie "Primary Colors," you can't do anything if you don't get elected first. So the goal is to get elected....and that takes the utmost savvy politicking at the national level. That's the harsh reality of it.

[Auntie Bush]

42. I love Gore but I think Clark would have a better chance of winning the General Election.

A lot of Bush* supporters still don't like Gore from the 2000 election or his closeness to Clinton. Clark is a fresh face and an outsider. We need that to make this nation whole again and Clark could do that! We and the whole world NEED his military expertise.

WE NEED WES CLARK AND WE NEED GORE TO FIGHT FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT!
For me that means CLARK/OBAMA or CLARK /CLINTON. I wouldn't mind a
CLARK/EDWARDS ticket if they could forgive and forget. That would also
heal a lot of wounds here on DU.

[Honeycombe8]

52. Bush supporters aren't going to vote Democratic. Only Independents will.

The Bush supporters may refrain from voting, if they don't like the Repub candidate, but very few Repubs cross the line and vote for "the opposition." The main thing about being a Repub is party loyalty, above all else.

The Dems need to get some independent votes, though, and they have a good chance of getting them, IMO.

Clark isn't running, and neither is Gore. I'd vote for either of them in the general election. Until then, it looks like the choice is Clinton or Obama. I like some things about both of them, and I dislike some things about both of them.

[KT2000]

44. Clark

He knows how to take down the conservative set ups in a way that everyone can understand.
He is straightforward in his answers.
Gore still has the placating tone that happens to most senators and it does not come across well.
Would love to see Clark's intelligence leading this nation.

[PresidentObama]

47. I support Edwards too. I like Clark and Gore. Gore/Clark 08? n/t

[MasonJar]

50. Both of these men are true statesmen; either would be a great

president. I am sorry that neither is running. I will back Gore above anyone; I'd love to see a Gore/Clark ticket. How magnificent that would be. At the moment I like all the candidates, but without Gore or Clark I am leaning toward Hillary. It is time for a woman.

[Mark_Pogue]

53. If he runs...

This is a chance to redeem ourselves!