What happened to Wes Clark?

[angee_is_mad]

I have been watching the polls and Clark was not even in the top 3 of VP choices. He was not even mentioned as a possibility by the pundits. The only polls that showed that he was a factor for VP was on here.
Where the hell did he go wrong? What happened?
Clark was my candidate, but being a North Carolinian, I am tickled pink with Edwards being on the ticket.
Can't wait for the debates. Can you imagine Teresa and Mrs. Edwards on the campaign trail together, lol!

[spooky3]

1. I think he told Kerry, thanks, but I want to make some money for my family

when Kerry was putting together the list of possible VP candidates. He can make a lot of $ in the private sector right now and he should feel free to do that, having been underpaid in the military for many years. I'm sure when he's ready there will be a place for him in the Kerry admin.

[Droopy]

2. It seems that outside of DU

Nobody is particularly interested in Clark. I don't know why. He would have had my support as either the the president or the VP. I didn't see too much wrong with him.

Maybe people were just turned off by his lack of political experience. Maybe it was the fact that he got started so late in the race. Who knows?

[angee_is_mad]

5. It's a puzzle

that I have not been able to figure out. The part about him turning Kerry down, I do not believe. I guess it is a face saving thing to say right now, but I saw the hunger in his eyes and that was why I supported him, in spite of my senator running against him.
He was slow to get on board, but when he did, he did it wholeheartedly. I sincerely believed that he wanted to help change the country and not giving sound bites on CNN.

[AP]

16. I think it has something to do with the fact that no matter how liberal

Clark is, most Democrats accurately perceive the military as a very conservative institution.

Clark appeals to a very small segment of Democrats who find the military an institution much more compelling than your average Dem finds it, and his appeal to that group is immense since he's as good an example of a 'liberal' military person as you'll find (many starred general, top of his class, voted for a few Republicans in the past and hates genocide, but still making money on Wall St in retirement).

[angee_is_mad]

18. What about the South?

The military is extremely big down here and isn't that one of the regions that the dems are trying to, if not win , be competitive in?

[AP]

22. Even in the south...

OK, there's a rule in the movies: anyone higher in rank than a sargeant cannot be a sympathetic character. IIRC correctly, this was the class/culture conflict in From Here To Eternity. Burt Lancaster had that paperwork which would allow him to enter the program for sargeants to become officers. Why the big deal about filing it? Because once you do that, you cross the threshold from a regular guy to part of the hierarchy.

So, even if you find a part of the country where Democrats embrace the military a little more, they're still Democrats, and they like the egalitarian nature of the armed services up to the rank of sargeant, and not the hierarchical, anti-egalitarian nature of the army once you go over that rank.

Thus, the contradictions of Clark's political persona. Some of the things that made Clark a great candidate were also the same things that made him a candidate with a HUGE uphill climb -- one that his campaign skills couldn't surmount.

For example, could you have a Wes Clark who was a sargeant? Probably not. Could you have a Democratic Party which would passionately embrace a guy who rose to the top of the not-so-democratic hierarchical army (especially in a year with some other really good options at a time when society is probably really, subconsciously, anxious about becoming a fascist banana republic)? I don't know. But I doubt it.

The army is very similar to the church in the way it's structured and how people rise to the top. The army and the church are America's twin conservative institutions. People who find the military appealing also find the church appealing for similary reasons, I bet. Well, can you imagine a monsignor or a bishop running for president or governor? I think people could articulate their objections to that scenario pretty easily. Although there have been many general presidents, nonetheless, I think there are many parallels between people's conscious objections to a bishop in public office and their unconscious feelings about why a general isn't really the best symbol of Democratic party.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I agree with you in large part

"The army and the church are America's twin conservative institutions. People who find the military appealing also find the church appealing for similar reasons, I bet... I think there are many parallels between people's conscious objections to a bishop in public office and their unconscious feelings about why a general isn't really the best symbol of Democratic party"

The Democratic Party shifted from being the clear Majority Party in American politics to growing minority status during the same period that the Republican Party strengthened it's associations with the Church and with the Military. I don't mean formal associations, although there have been those as well. I mean symbolic associations. The Republicans are thought of as guardians of Faith in America, and as protectors of our Nations Security through their long term commitment to defense spending etc.

Democrats, in their well founded fear of religious authoritarianism, and in their opposition to police states, at home or abroad, are less than fully comfortable with the roles of Organized Religion and the Military in our society. That discomfort has served to strengthen the hands of those who gladly use both Religion and the Military to further their narrow self interests. They twist Democratic misgivings into an accusation that Democrats undermine morality and our national defense. And they go on to further consolidate their power in the aftermath.

Wesley Clark represented a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to re frame those issues, and dismantle pre conceived notions that are being used to marginalize the Democratic Party in regions of our country sufficiently large to guarantee entrenched Republican control of Washington.

[annabanana]

46. An absolutely correct interpretation!

This is the reason I'm interested in contacting Four Star Democrats, which (with Wes Jr) is trying to point out the existence of a liberal Military! Yes, there is such a thing. Just like there are liberal churches. They are both underrepresented, ignored or taken for granted. As an Episcopalian with a horror of being blindsided again by an un-infiltrated terrorist network. (And mother two near-draft age sons),I am longing to hear from The Democratic Party that I matter!!

[AP]

53. I agree that it's something Dems need to address. But I don't agree that

putting a general on top of the ticket was the best way to do it, either in a symbolic sense or in the specific case of Wesley Clark (since there were other, better options this year).

Here's why, by way of analogy: Democrats wouldn't be strengthening their position viz the church and religioun by saying one day, 'gosh, maybe the church should not be separated from the state.' If they did, people might just say, 'gosh, I guess the Republicans are right about how the world works. Let's vote for Republicans.'

There is a way for Democrats to make their point about the role of religion in society without having to either totally reject it or totally break down the wall separating church from state.

Similarly, the Demcrats don't need to make a stand for liberal internationalism by running a general on the top of the ticket. Secularism about the military is just as sensible as secularism about religion if you want to break down people's perceptions of the party on the issue -- particulary because foreign relations isn't primarily about military force. The military should be a last resort brought out only after the political argument has been made.

This is really a book length argument, but maybe it suffices to say this:

Two of the greatest liberal internationalists of the 20th century were Woodrow Wilson, a university president, and FDR, a physcially-challenged ex-NY Governor (with Roosevelt being probably the most successful liberal internationalist in the history of the world). And how did FDR frame his argument about international relations? He framed it in terms of building up middle class democracies and breaking down fascist imperialism and colonialism because it was bad for people who worked for a living.

FDR didn't need to project a militaristic image to win WWII (that was Hitler's strategy). FDR needed to persuade people that democracy was better for people than fascism and that democracy was worth fighting for. The political argument came first. The military argument was the last resort.

That's why Democrats like politicians who can make the political argument really well first. That's why voters (especially, Democrats) like Kerry and Edwards. These are the candidate who tell you why America is great -- they make the political arguments. When those political values are threatened (and only once you're convinced of the political arguments), then do you bring out Clark (or, for FDR, McArthur and Patton and Eisenhower) to organize the campaign to protect them at your borders.

Republicans, on the other hand, make the military arguments first and hope that in your fear you forget to care about the value of building up the middle class. I think, psychologically, Republicans are more receptive to that sort of strategy. Democrats, on the other hand, are much more suspect of it.

And I think that was the essential contradiction of Wesley Clark. He would have been a great Trojan Horse to run as a Republican candidate because, symobically, many Republicans (in the farthest right 1/3rd of the spectrum) would find him appealing. However, running him as a Democrat and you find him running against the stuff I've described: the urge among Democrats to have people like Clinton and JFK and FDR at the top who articulate first and foremost a concern about working class people that is the umbrella issue under which even foreign policy concerns fall.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. This is a good discussion

I will have to be very brief though because I am working on getting out the door for my trip. First off, the points that you make are basically true about the inclinations of Democratic voters, but I would argue that that by itself would support having Clark on a National ticket, not the other way around, though it does make it more difficult for Clark to get onto a National Democratic ticket (and I am not second guessing Kerry's choice here, it's made and I know there were strong arguments for going with Edwards).

Had Clark been on our ticket very few Democrats would have voted for Bush or Nader because of misgivings of the type you describe, some I suppose, but few, and we always leak votes for one reason or another anyway. Feelings against Bush are running that strong. We may leak a few votes this time because Kerry and Edwards both voted for the IWR, and Clark may have helped there for instance. Your point can help explain why Clark did not make it onto the ticket. However a "military man" like Clark is something Republican voters are conceptually more comfortable with, and that might have given some Republican voters the emotional cover they needed to cross over and vote Democratic this time. Clark can speak their language as well as ours, he is bilingual so to speak (pun acknowledged).

As to your point about the international credentials of a General vs an Internationalist politician such as Wilson or FDR, there are good points made there as well. First though, I feel it only fair to point out that Clark is no longer a General, he is a retired General, Clark is currently a civilian and has been for (very few lol) years. That is not a completely moot point, the implications of an active duty General resigning just days or weeks before a major Party convention just so that he or she could accept an nomination for President or VP, would have a very different tone to it.

But the times we are in are exceptional. I am not sure when the last time if ever public perceptions of the Democratic Party vs the Republican Party were so out of whack in regard to who can defend our country. It has not always been like it is now. I believe this is the byproduct of Anti Viet Nam War elements gaining control of the Democratic Party (and I was part of that, so I'm not complaining). Previously otherwise progressive Democrats like Humphrey were still thought of as Cold War warriors, not to mention men like JFK and Senator Scoop Jackson. Public Perceptions of the Democratic Party have listed heavily leftward vis a vis perceived non support for the military, and it will not be easy to regain balance.

Clark also is an exceptional man, somewhat of a fluke really. There are other noted military men and women with a good firm grasp on strategic thinking that oppose Bush's current policies, men like Anthony Zinni who is Republican in fact. But few have thought as long and deeply on the role of diplomacy in averting war, and maybe none have also have had first hand experience conducting both diplomacy and war. Further Clark is a renaissance man, a speaker of several languages, with Masters in Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy. I honestly don't know enough about General Marshall of the Marshall Plan fame, but perhaps we could look to him to find a comparison. I think of Clark AS a Woodrow Wilson who just so happens to have made a career in the military rather than politics. So my point has always been that Wesley Clark forms the perfect bridge for the Democratic Party to cross over in reestablishing ties with a large bloc of the electorate who simply have written us off as being credible on matters of National Security.

I believe that John Kerry should have that credibility, but he can be type cast as a Liberal Democrat who voted to cut spending on the military X number of times, and thereby dismissed by those who will not even bother to give him a fair hearing. At Clark's meeting and Press Conference in New Hampshire yesterday, the man leading the Veterans for Bush Protest was quoted as saying that he respected Wesley Clark, and that he just would like to ask Clark how can he support someone like John Kerry?. Clark has answers for people like that, and they actually are interested in hearing them from him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. You may be right about some Clark supporters

But I burned my draft card in I think 1970, and surrounded the Pentagon in 1967. And that was just the start of my long and essentially adversarial relationship with the U.S. Military, until the Rape Camps and ethnic cleansing erupted in Bosnia during Clinton's term. Don't minimize the "Michael Moore/ George McGovern aspect of Clark's appeal. He brought together a very diverse group of supporters. When we actually met we all liked each other though :)

[AP]

23. I know a guy who wore his mother's bra to his draft board and got

1-Y or something like that. He's a huge Clark fan (and was a huge Reagan fan before becoming a big Clinton fan in '98 -- he seems to like whomever is president when he gets rich, and hates whomever is president when he doesn't do well financially, however, he is pretty well-read and can articulate his arguments very effectively).

Well, one theme that's been constant for this guy is that he is huge fan of the military from Reagan forward even though he avoided the draft. He loves the show of force.

McGovernism notwithstanding, Clark fans I know definitely have no problems with the military. I don't think that's a strain that runs deep in the Democratic party. Not that they don't like the military. It's just that most Democrats I know think of it like they think of the church: the military should be separate from the judicial, leg and exec branch the same way the church should be separate from the state.

This is the first time I've really put these thoughts together, so I might be way off base.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Well, there are always problems with generalizing from one example lol

That guy you know aside, sure, it is a safe bet that for those who made the journey (I use that term because for me and others I know, that is what it was) to becoming strong Clark supporters, it is hard to love that man and hate the military. That doesn't mean that someone like me had to check his deeply held concerns about American use of military power at the door in order to attend a Clark Meet Up.

I still have big problems with the military, but they involve how the military has been used by our current and many prior Presidents. Now I am more likely to say, how the military has been abused before. Wesley Clark was passionate, you could tell he really meant it, when he would say in one of his speeches, that he would use our Armed Forces "Only, only, ONLY as a LAST resort!".

It's true, as you say, that in describing most Democrats it would be false to say that they don't like the military. But I would go so far as to say that many Democrats don't fully trust the military, and aside from some pacifist types, that stems from two things; The Viet Nam War, and the use of the Military under Ronald Reagan in particular, where he had someone like Col. Ollie North propping up drug running Contras in Nicaragua, and special forces aiding right wing governments in El Salvador and Guatemala. I was on the front line of protests against all of that.

While I always opposed attacking the men and women who actually served in our Military, I mean here men and women not of upper ranks, the people who put in their four years and were out. I'm not saying I attacked lifers, I was just more skeptical of them I suppose.

Going all the way back to Nixon, he had his secret war in Cambodia, a war that was just as illegal as Reagan's military support of the Contras was. So I think you are right about most Democrats being highly concerned over the Executive branches use of the Military as an arm of policy implementation unchecked by the other branches of Government. Democrats felt very differently in JFK's day. What I have come to appreciate, and getting Clinton into Office helped with that, is that the abuse of the Military is just that, a political abuse which must be fought on those terms.

The United States needs to have a Military, and as a world Super Power, we need to shoulder our share of the responsibility for protecting the rights of people around the world to live their lives free of the fear of armed thugs promoting genocide. It's happening in the Sudan right now. It happened in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, and it was starting to happen in Kosovo. I believe the United Nations is an essential institution. Wes Clark used to repeatedly stress on the stump that the United Nations was a policy initiative of the Unites States. We were behind the formation of the UN, it is not a coincidence that it has its headquarters in the U.S.

If the Democratic Party is not sufficiently attentive to the complex web of issues involved in Foreign Policy, and the role that the ultimate threat of force has in backing up diplomacy, diplomacy that should be legitimized through International Institutions like the UN, then the only Americans fluent in those issues will be imperialistically oriented and/or Neocon types, because they DO have an interest, special interests one might say.

[StayOutTheBushes]

41. My curiosity is peaked. How did you surround the pentagon?

:evilgrin:

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Not by myself I must say

It was a major, actually I think the largest up until that time, anti Viet Nam march and Demo in Washington DC. As part of it, crowds encircled the Pentagon and "attempted" to do "an exorcism" of the evil spirits within. I believe Norman Mailor wrote about it in his book "Armies of the Night". Hope I got that right. I was 18 at the time.

[faithnotgreed]

64. awesome story! the pentagon needs another "exorcism" for sure!

[Buffy]

40. Clark supporter here who finds the military TOTALLY unappealing...

Obviously, I don't post much here, but I have to respond to your message because I am an avid Clark supporter who doesn't fall into the "small segment of Democrats who find the military an institution much more compelling than your average Dem finds it." I'm actually really progressive and liberal (I vote Green at the local level when I can). I just find that Clark took what I see as a conservative type of position (general) and transcended and transformed it - he became an advocate for people across the world who are suffering at the hands of genocidal regimes. He introduced a morality into the military that I had never seen before and fought others within the military to save a people from genocide. Plus, he's an internationalist, who can envision an enlightened role for the U.S. throughout the world that goes beyond our military. We need him as our next Secretary of State, and I hope the fact that as a new (and needed!) member of the Democratic party, his lack of connections doesn't stand in the way.

[southlandshari]

55. question

I have always bought into the assertion that the military is a "conservative" institution as well. But in the past couple of years, my perspective on this has been challenged in at least one area.

Perhaps the majority of military personnel have historically voted more conservatively than the rest of the country. That includes issues like abortion, tax cuts/increases, and business regulations. But in the current political climate, I see a big break already happening. If the more "conservative" (read: Republican) path is towards war, I don't think it is accurate to say folks in the military agree with this "plank" in the party platform.

Military leaders are the last to vote for war, because they know better than anyone what that vote means. Many, many military leaders have come out in public against the current war in Iraq, and specifically against the "leadership" of people like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I have two cousins who have served in Iraq in the past two years. I don't know who they will vote for in the next election, but I know they both hate war and consider it the choice of last resort.

I'm just curious about how others reconcile the idea of the military as:

1) conservative

and/or

2) pro-war

[AP]

56. I'm not saying that soldiers are conservative. I'm saying the institution

itself -- the way it's run, the sentiments it appeals to institutionally, etc. -- is conservative.

It's like the church. Some priests may be liberal, and some congregations may do things to help the poor, but generally speaking, the church is a conservative institution -- it is, for the most part, patriarchal, hierarchical, and tends to look backwards in order to maintain its power, rather than look forwards.

I'll add one more to the list: not only are the church and the military conservative institutions which tend to reject change and progress and democratization (and dowward, outards flows of power, whether internally or in society, generally), but I think the way the notion of family is sociall contructed also tends to be very conservative.

The movie Saved is very interesting in this respect. It usese a pretty traditonal view of religion to deliver an argument about 'family' that is VERY untraditional. I think that it was the message about family and not the one about religion that got right wingers so upset.

[southlandshari]

57. good answer

and thanks for taking the time to respond to my message, buried kind of deep in your thread!

[KittyWampus]

65. The Military Is Essentially SOCIALISM.

Your food, clothing, shelter, health care are all provided by the state.

So the idea it is conservative is bunk.

That there is a hierarchical order doesn't make your point either because rank is given according to MERIT.

It's one of the few places in our society where minorities have begun achieving in real numbers.

[AP]

69. You don't have a vote in the military. It's not democratic.

And you're not given food, clothing, etc. for free. You have to work and risk your life for it. How many socialist countries only take care of you if you put your life on the line?

Democracies (ideally) don't have any hierarchy, based on merit or otherwise -- and I'm talking about governance here. Citizenship and age are the only requirements for running for office, and everyone has a vote. We govern ourselves.

[AP]

72. Furthermore, you don't take orders in a democracy from "superiors"

We agree on the rules for society, and we give orders to our elected representatives.

We call them "public SERVANTS" and not "public superiors."

[Adelante]

43. He would never have turned it down, you're right

I'm not saying he ever wanted it; I have no idea. But he would never in a million years say no to serving his country. This much we know.

[AnnitaR]

3. Never forget the Clark media ignore!

Don't be fooled Clark was someone Kerry seriously considered!

Have no doubts that Clark will continue to be an asset to Kerry in the future!

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. In the last Gallop Poll Clark scored a very close 3rd

behind Gephardt who scored second in popularity for the VP nod. I think each of the two had about 16% support. I think Edwards was in the 30's (not totally sure on his number). I don't think anyone else broke 2 or 3%. Clark also scored well on public internet polls (yes I know they are unscientific), winning MSNBC's poll for something like the last 6 or 7 weeks. He was at or near the top of a CBS internet poll also, and came in second to Edwards in an internet poll CNN conducted weeks ago. All internet polls are non scientific, but the Gallop poll was a standard poll.

Pundits by and large did not talk about Clark, though toward the end he was mentioned, but rarely. There have been many threads speculating about why Clark did not get more discussion time by the media. Personally I am not interested in talking more about that here now. It just takes the focus off of Edwards being our VP now, and into potentially divisive arguments about the process. I see nothing to be gained by having those debates now, maybe later when passions have cooled and it is clear we are all solidly behind our new ticket.

[angee_is_mad]

6. I support Kerry/Edwards

and people on here need to stop being so darn sensitive! I am sure that the majority of the people on here support Kerry/Edwards and still have some honest(non divisive)questions.
In case there is any confusion-I, angee_is_mad support the Kerry/Edwards ticket!

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Sorry if I'm seeming over sensitive

It's just that today there are quite a few people on the board with raw feelings. That will chill in a few days. You know Edwards wasn't my first choice, and I have thought a lot about why Clark didn't get the same coverage as many others. Today just doesn't feel like the best time to reopen those questions now. Obviously feel free to disagree and go for it. Just my opinion...

[AP]

17. Clark probably had more face time on TV (CNN) than all the rest

combined.

(That's because big media only wants to talk about war.)

Clark had a lot of TV time to make his case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. It was great that Clark got that much time to make Kerry's case

and the case against Bush. And sure it reflected well on Clark because he was so damn good at it. Clark was on TV a lot in recent weeks, absolutely. What was lacking was much serious discussion of him as a potential VP candidate. Woodruff just ignored him for 10 full minutes again on Monday.

Hey, in this case I think it's no big deal. Kerry was fully aware of what Clark was doing. It just was curious why the media kept dredging up people like Joe Biden to talk about while continuing to ignore Clark who was fully vetted. It didn't hurt his case with Kerry.

[AP]

24. Maybe it was some kind of deal they cut on CNN. If he was in the running

they can't have him as a guest one minute and then argue he should be on or off the ticket the next minute. Maybe they all had to agree that he could come on and argue for Kerry, but they didn't want to be in a position where they were giving him all that time and commenting on whether he was going to be a pick.

Who knows. But he got something none of the other potentials got, and that was a ton of face time to talk and talk and talk on CNN.

[angee_is_mad]

25. and he worked there

I respect Kerry's choice. As a matter of fact, I feel that Edwards was the best choice for him and remember, I was a Clark supporter.

My beef is not with Kerry, but the media. Well, it isn't really a beef, I am just dumbfounded how other people were being mention. Joe Biden is an excellent example. We all know that speculations come from inside leaks.

Why was Clark completely off the radar? Did the Kerry people feel he was too risky? I am a concern supporter of his who hopes and prays that he stays in politics.

[cidliz2004]

73. Clark was best qualified

for VP, but it wasn't knowledge and expertise that was wanted. It was the typical SUPERFICAL appeal to voters who make decisions on sound bite information snippets. Most of us "political junkies" know the policies and can weed through the truth and the bull. The majority of the voters do not know much of anything. That is why JE was the "chosen". Not because he could do a better job, but because he could communicate to the soundbite voters. Sad but true, we are getting we deserve.

The wealth of knowledge and expertise in world affairs don't mean anything to people unless you could put it in 30 seconds.

Futhermore, I am coming to believe that JE was the "chosen" for the VP spot BEFORE Kerry was chosen positively for the #1 spot.

[madmax]

7. Don't make me cry

:cry:

[Adelante]

35. Madmax!!

Been missing you :hug:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Clark Is Doing Just Great

He's right where he said he'd be: fighting the good fight for John Kerry.

DTH

[annabanana]

45. DTH!!

Please post the info about 4 Star Democrats over on the CCN! We are very interested in getting involved. (As per the General's wishes, I support the Kerry/Edwards ticket, albeit with a tear in my eye)

[JI7]

9. i think it was more about Edwards rather than being against anyone

i don't think kerry looked at anyone and said "this disqualifies them". i think he looked at edwards and said "this is the right guy". it's about being for someone rather than against anyone so you can't really explain it in terms of just why he didn't pick a specific person.

[angee_is_mad]

13. but the media blackout?

Hell, you heard more about Iowa Gov than Clark. Richardson had to publicly state, that he wanted his name taken from consideration and still got coverage.
Clark is a great man and I am sure he will pop up in public office somewhere,but it makes you wonder. Especially considering the in depth background search Kerry's campaign did.
Maybe Kerry felt Clark was better suited for a cabinet position.

[JI7]

19. but the vp pick has nothing to do with media coverage

only kerry makes the decision. and it's not based on what the media talks about. but on what kerry and the few around him working on vp selection look at based on information they search out on the potential vp choices.

[Dr Fate]

11. Clark will be a visible member of the Kerry/Edwards DREAM TEAM!

GO DEMS!!!!

[morcatknits]

12. Clark's Around

He's needed too badly in foreign affairs, to let him hang around Washington as VP. We need a truly great Secretary of State, and I think Clark fills the bill. We must get behind the ticket and beat Bush, and I'm sure we'll see Clark in a very prominent role.

Knit on,
morcatknits

[angee_is_mad]

14. Let's hope so!

[Dr Fate]

15. Welcome to our forum. n/t

n/t

[Nederland]

52. Prediction

Clark will not have any place in the Kerry administration.

We all know why, but you can't say it around here without getting jumped on.

[Dr Fate]

60. He has stuck around too long for that to make sense.

But if you are right, I'll eat crow.

[angee_is_mad]

67. WHy?

Why? This has been a very enlightening discussion with no insults being thrown either way.
I wish other threads could be like this!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[AnnitaR]

27. Oh now that was funny!

:eyes:

[dogman]

28. It seems, as Lieberman pointed out tonight,

Kerry-Edwards have moved to the Bush position on Iraq and hope to win on domestic issues.

[Adelante]

32. So national security is softpedaled henceforth?

The campaign's front issue seemed to be national security. The Democrats taking a position of strength in foreign affairs. Could naming Edwards mean that significant a change in Kerry's thinking? I mean, given we are at war. It's puzzling, this shift in emphasis.

[JI7]

33. i didn't get the same sense

to me the kerry campaign wants to frame the debate on issues which democrats are already strong on. and on issues where republicans have the upper hand to neautralize it since it's just a prejudice people have that is hard to overcome especially while we aren't in power. and i'm guessing kerry feels he has enough credentials enough on his own to assure americans he will do well on national security. but he wants the focus to be on where democrats are strong especially jobs and picking edwards helps put the focus on there. following kerry's campaign it seemed to me more everyday that he was going to make edwards his vp.

and based on the other 2 vp choices which the campaign seemed to give a lot of attention to, gephardt and vilsack confirmed to me he wanted to focus on domestic areas. while gep does have the overall experience in national security and domestic issues he is still more known for his work in the domestic area.

[Adelante]

34. Is polling now showing that JK beats GB on NS?

I thought we did better on domestics than he and worse on national security. Has it changed, do you know? I've been busy getting ready to move and not up on the polls.

[JI7]

37. the polling

yes, we do better on domestics. and they do better on national security. but, on national security there use to be a gap of about 20 points between kerry and bush with bush ahead. but that gap closed and it's now about even or if bush is ahead it's just by a few points.

[Adelante]

38. I see, thanks, J17 nt

[union_maid]

31. Clark wasn't used to electoral politics

Maybe if he'd gotten in at the very beginning he'd have gotten the feel of it, but Clark is clearly more comfortable and at his best in situations where substance is what really matters. That is not electoral politics. He might be great at diplomacy, but that, too, is not electoral politics. He shone best in non-campaigning situations, with the possible exception of that first town meeting in NH, where he was still relatively unselfconscious in speaking his very brilliant mind. My hope is that Clark will be the number one guy behind Kerry to try to fix the mess in Iraq and in our foreign relations. I certainly don't want to lose him as a national voice. I want so much to see him in a position to make decisions that will affect the future of this country.

I don't for a minute mean that Edwards doesn't bring substance. He does and he emphasizes a very important message for the Democrats in his Two Americas theme. If we don't get that across, we lose even if we win. However, he's accomplished in packaging that substance into a message that will reach the masses.

[coeur_de_lion]

36. I think you are right, union maid and also,

Clark may be in a better position to voice strong opinions on foreign policy now than he would have been as VP. He won't have to hold back or be as careful what he says.

I think whether Clark takes a role in a Kerry administration or not, he will continue to speak out on foreign policy issues and openly criticise the * administration. If he were VP he would have to be careful in his choice of words. It would just stifle his naturally direct style of speaking.

Maybe, when Clark said "I've said I'm not interested" he actually meant it. He may be able to do much more for Kerry in his role as attack dog. IMHO.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. You know, I just want to say

It will be a shame if we pigeon hole Clark into only being a voice on Foreign policy. That is the inverse of some saying that Edwards can't talk about anything other than Domestic policy. That was part of the beauty for me of Clark entering politics. It freed him to speak on the whole range of issues facing America. Throughout his campaign Clark was eloquent on the essential right of dissent, on Gay and Lesbian rights, on preserving the environment, on progressive taxation and so much more.

Being a retired 4 Star General wins Clark some access to audiences that are not so open to hearing such sentiments from "Liberal Democrats". I hope he continues to speak out on a broad range of issues, and that the Democratic Party continues giving Clark opportunities to do so. I feel so far that they have, so this is not a complaint in any way, just an observation.

[DaveSZ]

44. Is there a way we could lobby Kerry

to ask him to be Sec. of STate?

That would be an awesome one two three punch against Bush/Cheney.

[Nashyra]

50. Clark as the attack dog

Hi MadMax Ruben says hi too. I think because Kerry and Edwards voted for the war they are going to use Clark to attack the * on his policies and the way he conducted the war. There could have been a perception problem with Clark as the veep selection in going after * effectively about the war when Kerry voted for the resolution. This way makes more sense to me when I look at the whole campaign scene. Clark is and has been announced as one of Kerry's Military advisors so he is free to attack away at the repukes and their ungodly foul up they call war and they cannot accuse Kerry of "flip-flopping". He can point out everything they did wrong and are doing wrong, their lies and distortions and he has the credentials and experience to do so. He has just as much experience as Powell had when he became Sec of State. When speaking of Iraq he certainly has the gravitas and experience to back up his words.

[coeur_de_lion]

51. Right on!!! You put it better than I could n/t

[coeur_de_lion]

47. Hi there Tom, of course you are right!

And you are also preaching to the choir. I worked on the Clark campaign as a volunteer until he withdrew, and I think his positions on EVERYTHING are right on target. And I like him ever so much better than Edwards. I've never seen a better candidate than Clark. In fact Clark is the reason I got involved and interested in politics. I had always been an apathetic Democrat before he came along.

But right now, what Kerry has asked him to do is speak out on foreign policy. And he does it so beautifully. Better than all the democrats combined, as far as I'm concerned. Kerry is the nominee and he gets to say who the VP is. I don't want to speculate on what role Clark will have in a Kerry administration, but he is not the VP. Even if we disagree with Kerry we are gonna have to support him.

Clark will have his moment to shine, you can take that to the bank. And when he does all of us Clarkies will just say "I told you so."

Keep the faith. Clark certainly is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Yup. By the way...

I am heading out of town for 5 days on a business trip and I don't have a lap top lol. So I am about to vanish around here for awhile, but it's not because I'm avoiding anyone here OR our ticket. We can win this.

[coeur_de_lion]

49. You'll be missed!

I've always enjoyed reading your posts. Good luck on your trip, and I'll look forward to reading you when you return!

[Joe Fields]

54. As much as many here would like to think it,

the views expressed on DU, by and large do not reflect mainstream political thought.

[Spazito]

58. Wes Clark is out doing what he has been doing from the beginning...

working his ass off to get bush and his cabal out of office. That has been his focus from day one and has not changed one iota regardless of what has happened, imo.

In or out of the Kerry administration, he will continue to fight the good fight because he knows the consequences to, not only the US but the world as well, if this horrendous administration actually gets elected or re-selected.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

61. The General wants to a Father to his family!

I understand why he did not want to be the V.P! He wanted time with his family and I respect that. Though, he may be the Sec of State for JK's first term.

[theboss]

62. I just don't think Clark has any broad support

His win in Oklahoma aside (which looks all the more remarkable in retrospect), Clark just never got any traction in the primaries. I don't know what the actual vote totals are, but I would say that he came out of the primaries 4th in terms of viability (after Kerry, Edwards, and Dean, who still has to be respected for being the frontrunner at some point).

Clark's main problem is that no one knew who he was until very late in the process, and he wasn't that telegenic. If he had another six months, he may have caught Edwards.

The other issue with Clark is that he really doesn't fit the mold for a vice-presidential candidate. I would be concerned that he is a little too independent and has very little experience on the trail. The second needs to either be an attack dog or a cheerleader. And Edwards can work a crowd like no one out there right now.

[sparrowhawk]

63. It's obvious you havn't seen much of Clark

you don't know anything about him.

[LandOLincoln]

66. Clark? Not telegenic???

You're a guy, aren't you? ;-)

[Auntie Bush]

68. Clark is a heart throb! Pure eye candy!

I just hope he is in the Kerry cabinet so I get to see him often.

[Zen Democrat]

70. Clark at Treasury? He's an economist, you know.

When he was attached to the White House he worked at OMB. He's an investment banker now.

Maybe, just maybe, Clark and Kerry have a side deal.

As for the top three, I read tonight that Kerry never had a short list. There were 25 - 30 names on the list down to the end. Edwards was always in the top slot because he came in second. Remember, Edwards beat Gephart and Dean in Iowa.

[Still_Loves_John]

71. Well, as far as the media goes

They never really talked to him because he was never on the short list. Kerry never vetted him, so they didn't treat him like a choice.

I think there are a few arguments to why Clark wasn't picked, but I think the main reason was that there are some clips of him saying good things about Bush, which would have been seriously embarassing in the ads.