Wes Clark annoys me and shouldn't be VP

[woolldog]

I watched morning Joe and they kept asking him about being VP. He tried to avoid answering the question and the way he did it rubbed me the wrong way. He came off as smarmy and insincere. I don't think he's a good politician.

He also seems very green when it comes to politics. Has he ever run for anything before? Has he ever won a campaign? Has he ever stumped across the country or across a state for 6 months, faced relentless pressure and questions from the media? I find his eyebrows distracting too. I hope he's not the VP.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/#24710474

[MadBadger]

1. Has he ever run for anything before?

How bout President?

That said, he isnt that good of a politician. WEs Clark is on my short list, just not at the top

[woolldog]

3. That didn't go very well did it?

On paper he looks great. But he hasn't really been vetted as a politician. He's never campaigned politically and won anything. He's never been under that kind of scrutiny. Obama needs a seasoned politician who knows the political game. i.e., at the very least someone who's won elected office.

Remember Perot and Admiral Stockdale?

[pnwmom]

8. Actually, he did do well. Just not as well as Kerry. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

27. Truth is, no, he did not do well. I was a Clark supporter & contributor.

But even I had to admit that ultimately he was a TERRIBLE politician. He had been a debater at West Point, so I don't know why he was such a terrible debater in the campaign. But he was. He couldn't give a great stump speech, either. He was weak in explaining many of his positions, although his positions were correct, and his reasoning sound.

He's great at many things. But he's just not a politician. He will not be VP. He COULD be, and would be, a great Sec of Defense, but others inform me that he hasn't been out of the military long enough for that.

So I am especially perplexed why others can't recognize or admit when the candidate they support isn't going to make it. They hang on, wishing their candidate would go to the convention, wouldn't drop out. Some can't even seem to recognize the faults of their candidate. I just don't understand that. Been there, done that. When your candidate isn't going to make it, best to move on. When your candidate has failings, best to admit them and see them for what they are. I recognized this in Clark after a debate or two. It was very sad because I really thought he'd be a good President. But there you go. It is what it is.

[woolldog]

29. thanks for the reality check. (nt)

[Apollo11]

35. Wes Clark could be Secretary of Defense

Officially you should have been out of the military for 10 years. But Congress has the power to waive the rule (they already did it once before - for George Marshall back in 1950), and in early 2009 it will be something like 9 years since Clark was in the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense

[goclark]

58. Thanks for the reality check too

I was a big supporter of his but I did not see Morning Joe.

Huum... I was thinking that he was in HC's camp so maybe that would help to heal the division.

But you are probably right.

[Occam Bandage]

67. I'm going to agree with this here. I was huge on Draft Clark, but

once he got out on the campaign trail, I started regretting the money I had sent him. His debates were mediocre, yeah, and his speeches were so-so. But what really killed me was his lack of ability to define himself to the media. Every time he had to answer a one-on-one question, he sounded hesitant and uncertain. He backtracked constantly, often contradicting himself in a matter of minutes if not hours--and not because he had changed his positions, but rather because he wasn't sure how to explain himself, and stumbled into saying things he didn't mean. He obviously just hadn't adequately prepared himself; he wasn't quite sure about the nuances of his positions, and apparently didn't know why he held them. But I kept trying to look past that.

Then he started really fucking up. He didn't know what the Brady Bill was. He went back and forth on whether he would have voted for the Iraq resolution (which was less than a year removed). And then came "Mary, help!" That was perhaps the most pathetic thing I had seen from any campaign, ever--he actually stopped the questioning to ask a press aide why he would have voted for the IWR.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/09/19/clark/

Seriously, after that I couldn't support him any longer. I moved back to Dean, figuring he was at least better than the rest. I still think that, despite his Iowa meltdown.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

76. He gave some great stump speeches and was good in some of the debates.

It was the first time he ever ran for ANYTHING - so I'd say he did pretty well considering.

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. He was the only candidate other than Kerry to win a primary where he had no favorite son claim

He came in third in New Hampshire behind two New Englenders who lived next door to tiny New Hampshire, Kerry and Dean, even though the media had already gone gaga over the impressive 2nd place showing Edwards had in Iowa where Clark did not compete.

Clark kept getting better at campaigning the longer he was at it. He was a real force for Kerry in the General Election and for Democrats nation wide in the 2006 Congressional Elections.

[nebula]

2. Too bad he said Obama was unqualified for the job

otherwise Clark would have made an excellent choice.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[ruggerson]

5. A year ago you would have been crucified for this post

ah, the fickle heart

[LizW]

46. Isn't it confusing?

We were supposed to hate Dean and Edwards and love Clark. Now we must love Dean and Edwards and hate Clark.

:crazy:

[onehandle]

53. The love for Edwards is fake.

At least at DU from Obama supporters.

One has a journal here that was dedicated to attacking Edwards.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Nah. Most I think love him honestly, since most had him as their #1 or #2.

I don't like him much (though I think his endorsement was more powerful than I thought it would be when I first heard about it) and I think I've been pretty consistent about that.

[QC]

77. Well, Edwards dared to run aganst the Messiah.

That makes him a vile heretic.

[woolldog]

79. bitter, party of 1. bitter, party of 1.

[Blue-Jay]

93. Yes. The majority of the Democratic Party are "cultists".

We get it. You're funny.

[QC]

102. And you're blind if you haven't noticed the whole saint/devil dynamic around here.

People are saints until they do something that someone happens not to like, at which point they become devils. There is nothing in between, of course: people are either virtue personified or absolute evil stalking the earth in human form.

There are too many examples to name them all, good progressives who suddenly became Satan himself when they displeased some faction here: Paul Krugman, Joe Wilson, John Edwards when he wasn't endorsing (now he's a saint, of course), even Maya Angelou.

It got old a long time ago.

[splat]

6. Eyebrowism is really distasteful

[pnwmom]

7. Besides running for President you mean? He's also well known and respected for

being among the strongest voices -- as a television commentator at the time -- among those who were opposing our attack on Iraq.

He was out there in what was, at the time, a very lonely position as a general publicly opposing the war.

[woolldog]

10. yeah I vaguely remembered that he ran for President.

Like I said he's good on paper. Seems like a nice enough guy. But he's underwhelming. And I think he lacks political skills.

It's nice he was out there in a very lonely position opposing the war. But I envision the VP slot not as a position given as a reward for having the right views or doing the right thing, but as a position to, first and foremost, enchance the nominee's electability.

[pnwmom]

15. He's very articulate, smart, and good in debates.

And he adds military credentials and a southern state background to the ticket.

I think he would be a very positive addition to the ticket. Obama has a great campaign organization. Clark wouldn't need his own.

I wouldn't be surprised if it comes down to Clark or Webb. Either would be a good choice.

[woolldog]

17. That's why I say he's good on paper.

But something is lacking. Running for VP is no time to get your feet wet with hardcore campaigning. I mean Obama is kind of inexperienced politically, but he's been in State Senate races a US Senate primary and general, won and lost, and this 17 month long affair. It's the same reason why Condi Rice would be a bad choice for Mccain. She's never run for elected office.

[pnwmom]

18. He HAS been involved in serious campaigning. He had a serious campaign

for President.

As a V.P. candidate, his job will be to do what Obama tells him too. I'm sure he would do very well, if he's selected.

[lumpy]

82. If you would care to examine Clarks credentials:

http://securingamerica.com/about

Clark has more valuable experience than Clinton, Obama and 50% of Congress all together.
And three times the brain power.

[woolldog]

86. If nominees were decided on who has the longest resume or most brain power

then I would be posting about VP candidates for nominee Biden.

[lumpy]

83. " yeah I vaguely remembered that he ran for President"

Where were you during the last election? Why pretend to be an authority on Wesley Clark when you don't have a vague idea about him except you don't like his eyebrows. It takes 'political' skills to work with NATO, military command decisions and in the workplace which he has done successfully. Political skill is not limited to running for governmental positions. You are attempting political skill by expressing yourself on GDP.

[woolldog]

85. LOL

Where did I claim to be an authority on Wes Clark? My OP was filled with questions about him that any "authority" on him would be able to answer easily. I thought it obvious I'm no authority on him and wasn't claiming to be.

I was giving my off the cuff, instant reaction to the video I linked in the OP. Like I said in another post on this thread, I found it alarming at how poorly he deflected/responded to the VP question. He totally flubbed it. He may have a great resume, but his political skills are lacking from what I've seen.

[lumpy]

96. Evidently you have seen little of Clark, but so what .

Instant kneejerk reactions to a person's personna(eyebrows), or not answering to a yes or no question is no way to judge a person capabilities. I could say the same about your candidate about his flubbing, hemming and hawing in answering questions. Obama has a habit of ending his sentences in clipped barked downnotes. Does that disqualify him?

[my3boyz]

9. I used to like him but he had his head so far up Hillary's butt on Morning Joe that

I would NEVER want to see him on Obama's ticket. He knows she is not going to win. He should have been more neutral. He should have at least said they were both qualified but he preferred Hillary. But NO he wanted to go there! Forget Wes Clark! Let him go down with USS Clinton.

[lumpy]

97. Clark supports Clinton

That's all you need to know.

[Rageneau]

11. Does General Clark realize you have such a poor opinion of him?

You ought to let him know. Once he realizes that he isn't behaving up to YOUR standards, this West Point graduate, combat-tested, four-star former commander of all NATO forces in Europe, will beg for your forgiveness and promise to shape up right away.

Perhaps, if you give him another chance, he can yet amount to something.

[woolldog]

14. I don't have a poor opinion of him.

(You forgot Rhodes Scholar. He was a Rhodes Scholar.)

Just don't think he's the right guy for Obama's VP. He would've been a good VP for Hillary and complemented her well. I don't think her VP pick would have been particularly important. For Obama, he needs to pick just the right guy. It's critical, imo.

[rebel with a cause]

112. Actually, Hillary would need a military experienced VP

just as much as Barack probably does when going against McCain. McCain on the other hand needs someone that is not an a**hole for his VP. Sorry, just don't like mccain bush jr.

[MrsT]

12. "I find his eyebrows distracting too."

That is pretty deep.

[hokies4ever]

13. I thought he looked good on Morning Joe

I wasn't a fan of his beforehand, but I would be okay with him as V.P. after watching him on Morning Joe. My favorite is still Kathleen Sebelius, but if Obama wants to choose Wes Clark, he'll get no gripes from me. I don't think it's that big of a deal that he didn't want to talk about the possible V.P. position. It's a very difficult situation considering that he has endorsed Hillary, yet Obama is going to win. The media is just looking to prop up the story that a Clinton supporter is asking Obama to consider them for the V.P. position.

[woolldog]

16. I just expected him to handle it/deflect it more skillfully.

The fact that he did such an awful job with something so elementary set off alarm bells, imo. We don't need a neophyte politician in the VP slot for the general campaign.

[hokies4ever]

21. I thought he made his point clear

which was essentially that we need to focus on more important issues. You could clearly see that he would rather talk about foreign policy (hello Mika, foreign policy was the big story this weekend). He eventually forced them to change the subject to foreign policy They were just trying to get a quote from him that they could loop endlessly, and he didn't want to play their game. He actually scored points in my book for doing this. I also remember when the cameras cut to him during the ABC Dem debate after Hillary threw him under the bus in a way when she praised his support for her. You could visually see him sinking into his seat. I saw a man who honestly thought that there should be a focus on the actual issues and not just who has the biggest name supporters.

[lumpy]

84. Clark doesn't need a neophyte politician from DU-GDP to

direct him in any direction. Watch out for those alarm bells, might be a fire.

[woolldog]

88. My bad.

I didn't realize the electorate was made up of seasoned politicians, not laymen like me. Chances are if he rubs me the wrong way, I'm not the only one who feels that way.

A devastating response to my criticism would be for you to point out some successful campaign of his, one that he won that disproves my idea that he's not a skilled politician. Good politicians win campaigns, so maybe you can point to me an elected office he's won....even dogcatcher will qualify.

[lumpy]

98. Ike Eisenhower never ran for a poltical office either. He is respected

by both parties for being one of our better presidents. You just don't get it. Not running for political office is no guarantee that a person isn't qualified to do a good job. Bad politicians win compaigns, also. Mr.Bad in the WH ran a good campaign apparently because a lot of ignorant voters thought he was a good guy. Mr.Bad ran a poor campaign in my estimation because I knew he was a liar and his qualifications were far less than desirable. Therefore I voted for the better candidate. Bush has proven to be the worst politicians in US history. Can't verbalize, even his rhetoric is less than lofty.

[thatsrightimirish]

19. totally agree

I just watched it and he sounded ridiculous.

[tishaLA]

20. I think Clark can blossom in the Obama camp

That is an organization filled with pros--and I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here in saying that Clark's campaign, which I supported, lacked the best available talent. These people can help him with the stuff he didn't have when he ran before--an overarching narrative, a strong message, etc. And he is a very impressive, smart guy. I'm sure he'd also get painted as an elite because which Democrat is not, but he is an authentic, hardworking guy with tons of administrative and on the ground experience.

[woolldog]

23. I'm not talking about his campaign organizational skills at all.

Nor am I denying that he's a very smart guy.

I'm talking about how good of a politician he is.

[hokies4ever]

24. the more I see of Wes Clark, the more I like him

My first impression was to question how being a military general means that he would be a great politician and V.P. However, he seems to be very qualified for this position. Plus, hate to say it bluntly, but I put the odds of Bush attacking Iran at around 50-50 before the election. Wes Clark as V.P. would quell some of the foreign policy fears, whether or not they're warranted.

[woolldog]

26. so you think he's a good politician?

why?

[hokies4ever]

28. He'll get people to vote for him

perhaps I should clarify it that way. I think that we agree on the overall sentiment that a war hero does not a good politician necessarily make. However, from the perspective of garnering support for the Dem ticket, I think that he would be very successful. I think that Sebelius would be a better politician in terms of helping Obama to govern overall, but Clark might be a better choice in terms of getting elected when McCain plays the fear-mongering, torture, and attack Iran cards.

[lumpy]

87. War heros John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Ike Eisenhower

were all excellent Presidents.

[Cosmocat]

62. Is BO a "good politician" ???

I mean, by the STANDARD politician bar you are applying to Wes Clark ???

BO's strength is a relentless adherence to being himself and intellectually honest ... He isn't a typical pol ...

Wes Clark shares the same virtues, honesty and intellectual honesty ... He fits in the BO paradigm ...

That he isn't able to lie gracefully enough does not rule him out ...

I will go with whoever BO picks, and I am all but certain he is going to go out of the box a bit ... I don't think Wes Clark is going to be his VP, but as others noted, with BO's infrastructure around him, as the second man on the ballot, Wes Clark would be a darn good out of the box choice ...

Either way, BO is playing chess while most everyone else is playing checkers ... His VP choice is going to be great, whoever it is ...

[woolldog]

72. Yes. Hasn't he proven that over the course of the 17 months

and prior in his senate races? He's a proven winner when it comes to politics and campaigning.

[MrSlayer]

22. I find your lack of knowledge annoying and Wes Clark should be the VP.

I think you have no clue at all what you are talking about when it comes to General Clark. You know absolutely nothing about this great man. I suggest you do a bit of reading before passing such ludicrous judgments.

[woolldog]

25. You have nothing to add, so you resort to personal attacks.

How sad.

[MrSlayer]

30. It's not a personal attack to point out the truth.

You know nothing about Clark, at all. So you have no valid judgment here. If I were to opine on the quality of one's knitting while having no knowledge on the subject of knitting at all, why would anyone respect my opinion? I don't think you're a bad person and I didn't call you names or anything of the like, you just don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Wesley Clark. That's not a personal attack, it just is.

[woolldog]

33. yeah, whatever...

I know a little about Clark. I know he ran for President, didn't win, and was a Rhodes Scholar. I know he was NATO commander and fought in Vietnam.

I also know that every time I've seen him I've been underwhelmed. I know that when I watched him in that video, he seems to have no political skills. My post was about my reaction to him during the Morning Joe interview and his lack of experience at being a politician and how IT SHOWS!

:hi:

[MrSlayer]

34. Let's start over, shall we?

I will have to see this video of "Morning Joe". The Wes Clark I know is articulate, extremely knowledgeable and able to present the complicated issues in terms that the average person can understand. His only problem, I think, is that he's not good at the "blurb", the 10 second bite. It's hard to compress things that need long explanation into little clips for the news. He usually is very good on the talking head shows. Particularly when going against neo-con idiots.

I think he would bring a lot to the Obama ticket. Not only his military credentials (4 star, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, First in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, Vietnam War Hero... Hell, just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wesley_Clark_awards_and_honors) but he also is an economics professor, a well known and respected International diplomat and statesman and he's a "not afraid to say it" liberal. His 2004 Presidential campaign, while ultimately unsuccessful, got him out into the national political scene and he has worked tirelessly to get Democrats elected to Congress. And in that venture he has a good record. When Wes Clark stumps for a candidate, they often win. The thing is, he doesn't lack political experience, he's had a healthy dose of what it's all about over his military career but also over the past 8 years as a media anaylist, candidate and surrogate. He also has good pull in the "purple" states. He would help in states like Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania that have a large military and veteran base.

Despite his support of Hillary and his one public shot at Barack, I still think he should be strongly considered for VP. I believe him to be a man of honor and I do not think his Clinton ties compromise it. He would do what was best for the country and would be a real asset.

[sufrommich]

36. So, what's your position on his eyebrows?

:banghead: :sarcasm:

[Raine]

31. I was a "Clarkie" I love the guy but

I wonder if he isn't too much like Obama. I think he has the same quietness and civility like Obama. I think Obama needs someone more fiery, someone whose more aggressive, kind of an attack dog type.

[cyclezealot]

32. Missed your Clark interview.

But, I well remember his 04 race for president. Michael Moore endorsed him because of his Iraq position. I thought him a decent candidate. Military, from the south, somewhat anti war. A Clinton friend. Perfect match to heal the party.

[Clark2008]

37. You annoy me.

You rub me the wrong way because you obviously have no clue about Wes Clark.

[woolldog]

71. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest....

that you may not be the most objective poster on this topic, "Clark2008" :rofl:

[TexasObserver]

38. No generals on the ticket, and especially not Wes "Clinton" Clark.

He's weak. He has no constituency. He is lousy at public speaking. In spite of his support here, he's not on anyone's VP list.

[Clark2008]

39. Lousy at public speaking?

OMFG... you've obviously NEVER heard him speak and only read what the media wanted you to believe about him.

He wasn't a bad candidate - he was beating John Edwards in key races (but the media didn't tell you that - most people still think Edwards won OK and came in third in NH. :eyes: )

He has a constituency in that he can bring in white males (and Southerners and mid-Westerners). Sorry, but Obama's gonna need that. It's a reality, not an opinion.

And he's the most passive general in recent history, preferring to quote Butler over Patton.

Get a grip on reality and not what the media tells you, please.

[TexasObserver]

41. Yes, lousy at public speaking.

He's an ineffectual speaker. And of course I've heard him many times. Please get over yourself. You obviously don't have any experience in presidential elections or evaluating public speaking.

[Clark2008]

43. And you're clueless.

I was a REPORTER for fuck's sake and probably covered more presidential elections than you have even been close to.

YOU get over your bad self because you're opinion is based on a lack of intelligence.

P.S. As I pointed out below - this current crop of Dem politicians SUCKS and I don't care who wins. I will vote for the Dem nominee only by default. There wasn't a one running who I thought could make any effectual change - Edwards being the worst suck up of them all.

[TexasObserver]

44. Hahaha!

Sure you WERE. I can tell by your skills.

Now go nag someone else, as you're wasting your time with me. I am familiar with Wes Clark, and like his biggest fans, he's a huge loser.

[truebrit71]

73. Wow. I don't think you could possibly be more full of shit if you TRIED...

...It is plainly obvious you know nothing about which you speak...

[TexasObserver]

107. another one bites the dust

thanks for self identifying! say goodbye, loser

[truebrit71]

115. Right back at ya....

....:eyes:

[lumpy]

100. Clark supports Clinton = loser

x

[high density]

49. Is it opposite day?

I've attended several Clark events and he's a very good public speaker. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[Occam Bandage]

69. I haven't followed him much since he fucked up his 2003 bid. Has he gotten better?

[woolldog]

74. lol, that's terrible.

:spank:

[TexasObserver]

108. No, he's still terrible.

[lumpy]

99. Clark supports Clinton

nuff said

[lumpy]

89. Obviously you don't like Clark simply because he is a Clinton

supporter. e.i. Wes "Clinton" Clark, that's weak.

[jefferson_dem]

40. Have to admit, I was a bit disappointed also.

He seemed much too desperately self-agrandizing toward the end, like he was on a job interview, even when it was obvious they were on a "hard break" and had to close out... Color me not impressed.

[Clark2008]

42. Oh - and one other thing. Wes Clark would make a MUCH

better president than Obama or Clinton.

I really, really, really hated the field in 2008. It really, really, really bites. And the Republicans, naturally, are worse.

I don't give a frig who wins, to be honest. It's all academic now.

[GermanDem]

45. I don't know what your problem is with Clark in this clip.

I just watched the whole thing and actually think he did very well. He wanted to get around the VP question by talking about how great Hillary is, I think that's more than legitimate. (For the record, I support Obama, not Hillary). And when they asked him about Iran and Bush's speech in front of the Knesset, his answer was spot on! Because Clark negotiated with Milosevic face to face (what Republicans would call appeasement!!) he knew the guy quite well. One of the important rules if you go to war: know the enemy. Bush sure didn't know his enemy when he went to war with Iraq... ("Sunni? Shia? I thought they were all Muslims!"). I think Clark would be great in any office: VP, Secretary of State, Secr. of Defense, any of these. He knows more about diplomacy and foreign relations than many, many others, both Republicans and Democrats.

[Doityourself]

47. I am not and have never been a fan of Clark on the ticket. He doesn't come across strong enough n/t

[high density]

48. This is like a flashback to 2003

"He's green."
"Has he ever won anything?"

Yes he sucks as a Hillbot but beyond that he is pretty smart politically. He learned a lot running in 2003/4. He has faced pressure from the media, such as when Michael Moore endorsed him.

[onehandle]

50. Clark would be an excellent VP for Obama. He's a well liked and personable four star General.

With Obama's Senate experience this kills the security question.

Does that annoy you?

[Bread and Circus]

51. I like Wes Clark, but he can be a bit of a wind up toy sometimes...

says "what he is supposed to" almost to a fault.

I'm for Kathleen Sebelius right now.

[onehandle]

52. My understanding is that she's working on a possible Senate run.

Up for Brownback's seat. I hope she goes for that, because she's the only Democrat that has a chance there.

Obama's pick will be from a safe state or will be a non-serving individual.

[madmom]

54. Maybe he just needs an advertising exec to work for him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. He's already almost started WWIII. You Clark supporters seem totally

lacking in any kind of political discrimination. The man is a trimmer.

Someone on here actually touted him as a heroic, lone voice against the Iraq war, conveniently forgetting his demented Nuremberg-type rant about how nobody had better mess with the US now, after the brief "Shock and Awe" triumphlet, on entering Iraq. I think I prefer Elvis Presley's song, US Male. It sounds saner.

[GermanDem]

56. Did he really do that?

I remember very well when we was on "Meet the Press" before the Iraq war started. He was one of the very few back then that actually said that it was a very bad idea to go into Iraq.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. No. He did not "almost start a war". Yes he was a voice of reason on Iraq...

Every smear in the book was tried against Clark in 2004, as warm up for how Kerry would later be treated.

This courtesy of Frenchie Cat:

Smear Debunked - "Clark would have started WWIII"

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/smear_debunked_clark_would_hav.html#more

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. Yes. I think it was in Croatia. Russian troops were at one end of an airport there,

and Clark told the British general, General Rose, to clear them out of there. He refused point blank, saying he would not be responsible for starting WWIII.

You should be able to find a lot about Clark on Google. And I think it was Bradblog who really gave the low-down on his almost hysterical triumphalism at the Americans' initial triumph in Iraq, and a whole lot more besides. Clark was retired by his superior early, on what was perceived by him and allegedly others among his peers, on character grounds.

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Bullshit

Why go stirring up this crap again now? Character assasination is ugly and even uglier when done by Democrats on Democrats. Clark is not running for anything. Obama should choose whoever he wants.

I have tons of research on Clark and the way people tried to smear him handy. I can deconstruct the hit jobs line for line starting with the splice job you cited, but do we really need to go there now? Don't we have enough trouble trying to close ranks behind a Democratic candidate for President?

[Joe Chi Minh]

117. What are you talking about? They're matters of public record. Why do you think it doesn't matter

who represents the Democrats' interests in government? Would you be complacent about Lieberman being VP, for instance?

[Joe Chi Minh]

118. He has a record of equivocation, of changing his positions on topics.

Indeed his voting record had been pro-Republican until 1993.

Here is one link, but there is plenty on Google, pro and con (imo, the critical posts are as compelling as they are damning):

http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. I'll take you on around all of this if it actually seems to become relevent to do so.

There have been endless fights over these charges on DU in the past and you know that well. It is a can of worms that only you are insisting be opened by posting links to hit jobs on Clark. There are plenty of activists in good standing on DU; Obama supporters, Clinton Supporters, and those who don't care all that much for either, who have deep respect for Wes Clark. And you know that also.

Newbies here on this forum may not know all the history behind these attacks, but there is plenty to say in response to them, and it has been said here many times in the past. If Obama indicated he was actively considering Lieberman as his VP (to use your far fetched analogy) then it would be relevent to have a full debate about Lieberman. Of course Wes Clark is one of the few National Democrats who got high praise from Ned Lamont's campaign for the direct help and campaigning that he provided them while trying to defeat Joe Lieberman in 2006. If Obama indicates that he is actively considering Clark as VP (after Obama declares victory in the nomination fight) then it would be relevent to have a full debate about Clark. We don't need added fights before then.

[ecstatic]

57. no warmongers on our ticket. CHANGE nt

[atufal1c]

59. Not a good campaigner. But Obama doesn't need a good

campaigner for VP.

He needs someone to bolster his national security credentials and Clark is absolutely perfect for that. With the added benefit of not being dumb.

Plus, Clark also *looks* like he would make a fine President. And that's worth a lot.

I know he badmouthed Obama some, but that's not fatal.

People who think Obama isn't going to have a lot of problems with the national security thing scare me.

[iamthebandfanman]

60. wow

my view of him just changed as a politician.
eegad.

[ShortnFiery]

61. Yes, I saw that interview as well. What turned me off was Clark's "Cameo Shots" during

the "Obama Political hit-job" that was masquerading as the ABC Democratic Candidates' debate a few weeks back. :eyes:

If you wish for an honorable former General who was against the Iraqi Invasion from its inception. Then consider choosing General (Ret-USMC) Anthony Zinni. He resigned as "special envoy to the Mideast" when it was clear that Bush would invade that Country. Zinni has a great deal of background in the Middle East Theater and is one of the MOST highly respected former general officers alive today. :patriot:


"Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise," Tampa Tribune, 24 August 2002
Mike Salinero

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/zinni2.htm

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee, Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives.

``I can give you many more before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.

Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

``We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back,'' he said.

[lumpy]

90. He supports Clinton, right ?

x

[Occam Bandage]

63. I supported him until "Mary, Help!"

Then I realized that he simply didn't have what it takes for a Presidential campaign, and switched back to Dean.

The most surreal moment came when the Iraq questions were getting tougher, and Clark called for his press aide Mary Jacoby. "Mary, help!" the retired general cried, in a moment that could define him, and not as the tough military leader his supporters tout him as. The soothing Jacoby reminded Clark, "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/09/19/clark/

[hayu_lol]

66. Back when Clark ran the first time, he was a joy to those who can listen, read and comprehend...

the statements he was making. They really made sense. The joy entered into the situation when he was being 'grilled' on one of the FAUX shows where the interviewer slimed the troops. Clark almost came over the table at the interviewer...and then very effectively chewed ass for a bit. The interviewer quickly backed down and shut up.

Big advantage to us at this time, Clark knows the crooks and yes-men at the Pentagon and throughout the military structure. He would make Hillary--and all Americans--a great VP.

The naysayers above need to do some in-depth research on General Clark.

[Occam Bandage]

68. How could you understand what he was saying? Even Clark didn't understand what he was saying.

And later, in an interview with the Miami Herald, he seemed to endorse a moratorium on the death penalty, because there has been "a lot of discrimination and a lot of injustice," and suggested cases be reviewed with DNA evidence. But when the reporters asked if he'd back a halt to executions, they noted, "Clark sat up straight. 'Stop. Stop,' he said. 'I promised I wasn't going to take a strong position.'" He defended his lack of policy prescriptions and "strong positions" by noting that he only made his decision to run on Monday, VandeHei noted, and asked that voters give him time to think things through.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/09/19/clark/

[lumpy]

91. Clark supports Clinton?

Right

[woolldog]

109. OMG.

:rofl:

[mystieus]

65. I don't see him as our VP as well. mainly because of past comments as a Hillary surrogate.

[DefenseLawyer]

70. He has always come off as smarmy to me

I think he is a good man, but his creepiness factor is rather high.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

75. "F" off

that's all I have to say...

[babylonsister]

103. That's grown up; so someone has a different opinion than yours, that's

your response? :eyes:

[QC]

78. One of the most idiotic posts in the history of this site,

and the competition for that honor is pretty stiff.

[woolldog]

80. bitter, party of one. bitter, party of one...

[lumpy]

92. Why don't you just come out and say you don't like Clark

because he supports Clinton. Much more honest thing to do.

[woolldog]

95. That would be petty.

Guess who was one of the first floating the idea of Rendell as a VP pick? Guess who likes the idea of an Obama/Strickland ticket?

Yours truly.

[lumpy]

101. Bully for you. That clears it all up

not

[Occam Bandage]

114. I think Clark is a fine man who served this country honorably for many years. I think he still

has a lot he can give this country.

I think that letting him within a quarter-mile of a Presidential campaign would be disastrous.

[Swamp Rat]

94. He'd make a great Secretary of Defense.

:patriot:

I hope Obama considers him for his cabinet.

[babylonsister]

104. I'm not a big fan either, but I never was. So sue me! I do like

the passion his fans show though.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. Green? Yes, on environmental issues he is

Wes Clark was the most requested speaker on behalf of Democratic candidates for Congress in 2006. He worked his heart out to elect a Democratic Congress, and he was there for Ned Lamont when he needed him too.

There isn't a neighborhood in America where Wes Clark can't go and be effective on behalf of Democrats. He was welcomed to campaign for the Democratic Senate candidates in Montana and Alaska when no other National Demcrat was wanted.

[woolldog]

106. thanks for that info, Tom (nt)

[Stinky The Clown]

113. Where were you in 04?

He won a primary or two .... and was the most indefatigable Kerry surrogate on the trail.

[woolldog]

120. LOL--who's the clown who kicked this thread?