Could someone please explain the love affair with Wes Clark

[Island Blue]

that so many on DU and Kos seem to be having? Is it just because he has publicly criticized the Iraq War or is there something else I'm missing? It also seems to be the same way with Howard Dean - it seems to be easier for them to love someone who has had to make only hypothetical decisions, rather than someone who has actually had make those same tough decisions for real. (I'm speaking in regards to the Iraq War here.) I know Wes Clark is wicked smart, but what are his other qualifications for the job? I'm really, really not trying to dis anyone here, I just think there must be something that I must be missing. :shrug:

[Mass]

1. Dean and Clark were the first ones to use the internet extensively

I imagine this is part of the issue.

The other point is that Clark does not have a record, which allows people to think what they want of him (in good or bad).

This said, I like him a lot.

[karynnj]

2. When you have a nearly blank slate, everyone can see what they want to see

Also, I think there is an overlap of the Dean/Clark people. This poll excluded Dean- so I think a lot of the Dean people voted Clark. He also has the advantage of not having beat Dean :) - a sin Kerry committed.

I think that Clark is interesting, but I think that his never having really gone through a campaign is a liability. He made a few gaffs that hurt him in the short time he ran. The process now seems very unforgiving for Democrats.

[paulk]

3. I'm always surprised at the support Clark has in these internet polls

since it didn't seem to translate into support at the ballot box (much like Dean...)

I think the "blank slate" theory is right on - he doesn't have a record to tie him down. Plus - the "political outsider" always attracts a certain group of people.

I've always been very impressed by Clark when I've seen him in interviews - I thought he would make a good VP candidate.

[whometense]

6. Totally agree.

I subscribe to the blank slate theory as well. Plus I like what Karyn said about his not having beaten Dean - a big plus for the languishing Deaniacs.

I fervently hoped Kerry would pick Clark for his VP. I understand the forces that made him go for Edwards instead, but in a perfect world I think CLark would have made a great pick for VP.

[Island Blue]

4. Thanks for your input guys

I was thinking along the lines of not having a record to be judged by, but I wanted to see what others thought. I'd hate to see what some of these folks would do to Clark (or Dean) if he ever were to become President and had to make a decision that went against their way of thinking - would they turn on him and withdrawal support? Eventually every President has to do something that's not popular with his base.

[karynnj]

5. They might change their opinion

They seem to forgive Dean, even if they had previously criticized Kerry for the same thing.

[politicasista]

7. You guys have some good answers

I like the General too. He would have been a cool VP.

[Jai4WKC08]

8. If you'll pardon the intrusion

From a Clarkie...

A friend of mine who is a member of this forum invited me to weigh in to this thread. Please believe I'm not here to argue, but just to offer a perspective from someone involved in what you call "the love affair with Wes Clark." Take it or leave it as you see fit--I don't expect any of you to agree, or you would be Clarkies too. But it does seem to me that the folks who have posted so far don't "get it" and that, if you really want an honest answer to your question, it ought to come from one of us.

Clark's enduring support has nothing to do with his being a "blank slate" as many here have suggested. He may not have a Senate voting record, but he does indeed have a record. He has 38 years of public service, plus the better part of five years since working tirelessly for Democratic causes. During that entire time, he has shown himself to be a man of incredible integrity and courage, standing up for what he believes is right, often to the detriment of his own personal advantage and, in the case of his time in the military, against considerable pressure from within the institution itself. He is also, as you note, "wicked smart" and has almost boundless energy and drive that he devotes to trying to make our nation and the world a better place.

Nor does Clark's record only speak to his character, altho it is probably his character that inspires those of us in his base to still stand with him long after his campaign ended. But we also believe he has just the right sort of experience to qualify him for the presidency. Executive experience. Leadership. A deep and liberal education in economics, philosophy, history and international affairs. And years of work with foreign heads of state and members of Congress on diplomatic and other foreign policy issues, but also in the case of Congress as well as state and local leaders, on education, health care, the environment, budgeting and a myriad of other concerns.

I'm not saying anything to put down the experience of Kerry or any of the Dems likely to run in 2008. There's no one single set of experiences that qualify someone for the highest office in the land. But it is also unfair or uninformed to say that Clark lacks qualifications based on a real record, or having made "only hypothetical decisions."

I will agree with what someone said, that WKC's support on-line is not representative of his support within the party as a whole, and that this is probably due in part to the fact that his campaign started on-line with the draft, and then used the on-line community for grassroots organization and fund-raising. But we also believe that for a number of reasons, Clark never got the exposure to the rest of the Democratic voters that was needed to make his 04 candidacy viable, but that as more people out in the "real world" get to know him between now and 2008, he will generate the same level of support there as he does here.

That said, I would also offer not all, or possibly even most, of WKC's on-line support comes from the base left over from the draft or his campaign. There are a lot of people who did not support him then, but whom he has won over since. If you read the Clark-related threads here, as well as at Kos, Mydd and so forth, you see them all the time--people who supported other candidates in the '04 primaries but who are at least tentatively supporting WKC now. Even in this thread of dedicated Kerry folks, there are a number of you who like him well enough to think he'd make a good VP. Which theoretically should equate to his being a second choice or close to it.

Back to the original premise of your OP... Clark's criticism of the Iraq War is undoubtedly one of the things that attracted a number of people to his campaign. Another was probably that he is a general and less vulnerable to the "soft on defense" characterization conferred by the Repubs on all Democrats. And finally, some were brought in just from having watched him as an articulate and knowledgable commentator on CNN who never sold out to the corporate media. For me, it was something else entirely: I felt that of the nine Democrats running, Clark would have been the best equipped to clean up the mess the Bushies have made in Iraq, with the world community of nations, and in the war on terror.

But of those of us who are still supporting WKC, who are hoping and praying he will decide to run again in '08, none of those things are why we're still around. It's far more about the man himself, his vision for what this nation can and should be, and our belief in his ability to make his vision real.

[karynnj]

9. I could support Clark, though I prefer Kerry

I do think that Clark would have been a better choice for VP, if only because he could have, in a very dignified way, performed the typical role of the VP - which is to attack Bush and defend Kerry. In last year's nasty environment, the Democrats probably didn't have the luxury of a the VP staying above all the fights to retain his sunny image. Clark was among the best surrogates and with Bob Kerrey and Clealand good on defending Kerry on the swiftboat liars - with the VP platform, he would have been even better as he might have been more visible.

My biggest concern about Clark was that he had never been through an election. (I do know this was true of Eisenhower as well) The current election process seems to be a mine field for Democratic candidates and Clark in the short time he ran in the primaries hit some. Having been through last year's, though not as the candidate, he likely learned a lot.

With the current set of mentioned 2008 candidates, if Kerry decided to concentrate on the Senate, I would likely switch to Clark over Hillary, Bayh, Biden, Warner, Edwards and Vilsack. (The likely would change to definitely if he like Kerry stated he wanted no bases in Iraq - something I don't know his position on.)

[Island Blue]

10. Thanks Jai4WKC08 for your input.

I really appreciate hearing these things from a Clark supporter.

I'm glad to see that many of the things that Clark supporters admire about Gen. Clark, are the same things that Kerry supporters admire about Sen. Kerry including "integrity, courage, standing up for what he believes is right ..." and the "boundless energy and drive that he devotes to trying to making our nation and our world a better place."

I guess when I made my OP it was sort of out of exasperation for all of the negative crap that gets slung Sen. Kerry's way almost daily in GD. (And I'm certainly not saying that it is only, or ever, Clark supporters doing the slinging.) John Kerry has been on the national stage as a senator for over 20 years, and has cast thousands of votes. This make him easy pickins for anyone (and sometimes it seems like everyone) to tear him down based on a handful of very difficult votes he has had to make and will continue to have to make in the coming years. I'm glad he has the courage to keep on fighting for us all.

Again, thanks for your very insightful input. While Kerry will always remain my first choice for '08, I promise to take a closer look at Gen. Clark and his message.

[europegirl4jfk]

12. Clark and Kerry - I like them both!

Living in Europe, I knew who Wes Clark was long before he ran for president, and I was thrilled when I heard he was a candidate for 2004. I was only introduced to John Kerry during the primaries and liked him immediately as well when I read his bio etc.

I think a Clark/Kerry or Kerry/Clark ticket - I don't really care which way around ;-) - would be great for America in 2008. Both men have my utmost admiration.

[JohnKleeb]

11. I dont know but

Ive come to like the guy despite my intial unease with him. I just wish he would get some political experience so we can see what he stands for. Just my personal preference, if he wants to run, he should but he'll always have an uphill battle having no politial experience.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I'm was knocking on the door, and let myself in, hope you don't mind!

It's just me, the infamous FrenchieCat dropping in

and I hope that you are all well.

I don't mean to be showing up on your doorstep uninvited, but I found the conversation here fascinating, and so I thought that I'd chance to respond and attempt to provide some quick answers from a "Clarkie's" point of view.

I know that I'm known for writing Clark "books", but I'll try not to (hey!).

In reading this thread, and reading your comment last JohnKleeb, let me say that I don't think that politics is the only way a person can make a stand in life and let it be known. Politics cannot be the sole measure of a man or woman....even for one who runs for our highest office. I think in the end, it is the person, as much as the issues that tends to win elections.

Clark's early retirement story should have given some a notion of what this self made man stood for. If you don't know that story, then yes, it could be hard to understand that when Wes believes in something, he doesn't hesitate in putting his reputation, his career, and his future on the line. He has done it before, and he will do it again.

Here are some of the ways that he could be judged, regardless of the fact that he has never won an election or voted in the halls for congress:

Wes advocated for intervention in Rwanda, and in fact was one of the few.(see Samantha Power's quote on this in her Pulitzer Award winning book; A problem from Hell).

Wes also advocated for intervention in Kosovo to stop genocide, and then insisted that there should be a plan for low altitude apache helicopter massive bombing and the use of ground troops because he felt that the gradual high altitude bombing would create more casualties than was required. The Clinton Republican Defense Dept. was not interested in minimizing civilian casualties, and Clinton was literally in fear of using Ground troops which could have increased the chance of U.S. Casualties.

The point is that the administration was willing (although somewhat reluctant) to get involved in Kosovo, but once they did, hampered the way that the mission was carried out because they cared more about the politics of it all, then the actual mission. Clark was not given the proper military hardware that he requested, and did the best with what he was granted, which as we know, was damn good.

Wes Clark was retired early because he gained no friends in American politics calling for a war on humanitarian grounds, and then having the audacity to even consider endangering any U.S. Troop for the purpose of saving additional civilian lives. Clark actually made a few enemies at the pentagon (Cohen, Shelton & Ralston), because he called them on their priorities. That's what his first book, Waging Modern Wars details.

In the end, Clark carried out the mission that was given to him, and made everyone around him look good. It is true, to this day, that he understands that the approx 500 civilian deaths that occurred on his watch during the 79 days of bombing didn't all have to die, but he did what he could to minimize that....and he earned early retirement for it.
Read the Unappreciated General http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true
and "Waiting for the General" (see paragraph 14 for Kosovo/retirement info) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

Clark also showed what he stood for by vocally supporting Affirmative Action --Did he have to?
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm

He Testified against the Iraq war before both houses of congress, and even got dismissed from his gig at CNN because he got more political than CNN wanted their generals to be -- But did he have to?
http://www.davidwissing.com/index.php/680
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9522

Further, Wes defended Michael Moore on National TV when it wasn't the "in" thing to do. Was that truly necessary?
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2003/09/15.html
He went on defend MM's right to call Bush a deserter, although politically, he might have been better not having done it.

and stood for getting rid of the "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule in the military, while getting his photo snapped for the infamous magazine, the Advocate.
http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.html
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/workschool/p/WesleyClark.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.clark.html

I could certainly go on, because there are many ways in which Wes Clark has let it be known exactly where he stood on very important issues....although he didn't always have to.

In my opinion, what supporters have for Wes Clark is respect and admiration for the passion that he has demonstrated in doing what's right when he could, regardless of the consequences. Clark has been consistent on this, when one truly reviews his history.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

Sometimes, its hard for supporters of others to really do objective research about someone they don't really support, and that is human and understandable. However, I think that John Kerry, having been our Democratic candidate last year, did get that benefit.

Well I believe that Wes Clark deserves the same benefit.

Hope my "book" wasn't too long, and I am sorry if it was.....

It's just the passion in me. :hi:

[karynnj]

14. Interesting how many characteristics he and Kerry seem to share

Thank you for the work you did in writing this. You are very correct that had Clark become the candidate (or if he does in 2008), many people would have/will research him. I think it is great that you (and the other Clark supporter up thread) have written such coherent, reasoned posts explaining Clark.

If you think about it, any person who becomes a serious contender has had to convince a very large number of Democrats that he can be President and holds good values. So, as a group any and all of the serious contenders are probably intelligent, good people who can express a vision of where they want to take the country. (If they were graded it's probably fairer to say that you might grade 4 Democratic candidates as 99, 96, 92, and 89 - where Bush might be at 2 (or -1000)) I love reading posts like yours because while praising Clark - it does not tear down his competitors or distort their records to build up Clark.

[JohnKleeb]

15. Can I explain myself

"In reading this thread, and reading your comment last JohnKleeb, let me say that I don't think that politics is the only way a person can make a stand in life and let it be known. Politics cannot be the sole measure of a man or woman....even for one who runs for our highest office. I think in the end, it is the person, as much as the issues that tends to win elections."

I think we agree on most parts that its the person who wins elections, however my personal preference and you and I obviously differ is that I want some political experience, not all want this but I do since I like seeing what a person can do as a legislator or a governor. Not all of us do obviously but my personal preference has always been that I like someone with some experience in government whether as a legislator, governor, or judge. I think if Clark had some experience as a governor or senator, he would have an even more impressive resume than he already has. I'd really would be much more incline to support Clark in a primary election if he had been a governor or senator. Sorry to repeat myself, its just a personal preference I have. I think I agree with you on the ultimate point is that the person is a big factor in the election but experience in government to me at least matters. I guess I disagree with you on that, but thats fine, because if he is the nominee, he'll have my vote and support.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Not to debate what seems to be your opinion.....

and certainly your personal preference is understandable, so we can agree to disagree there.....

However, I will say that in my opinion, your statement of pre-requisite is somewhat ironic, in the sense that the actions that I admire most about John Kerry are not his votes, nor his way of handling elections....But rather his service and heroism in Vietnam, his 1971 congressional testimony and media appearances as a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War, his work with Vietnam on POWs, and his leading role in the IRan-Contra Affair. Without those things present in his past, John Kerry would not be the man that he is today; ready to be President.

It is my humble opinion that what makes John Kerry a formidable leader, and therefore qualified to be President, is not the fact that he served in the Senate all of these years, or the fact that he was elected multiple times by the state of MA. In fact, all of those votes were really not of an advantage to his being elected. I don't think that being from inside the beltway gave him any edge beyond the support of the status quo party membership.

It's the character that he exhibits during the times that he speaks truth to power that made him a great man.

That's why IMO, Gen. Wes Clark doesn't need to have voted on this and that to prove himself to me as a great leader. Nor will winning an election prove that he can win an election....because so many win one, and then lose another. It's what Clark has done via his actions throughout his life....while no cameras were rolling that matters...that gives you the unfiltered snapshot.

Whether a John Kerry or a Wes Clark; what this country needs is a true leader, and being a politician doesn't alway make one a great leader.......while being a great leader can certainly help one become a great politician.

IMO, both Wes Clark and John Kerry qualify for the presidency based on this--the most important pre-requisite that cannot be denied; acting to satisfy the common good of those they serve and for humanity as a whole.

A leader is one who listens to his own heart, and acts on what he hears.....

That's what I think, and that's what we need.