What do you think would happen if Wesley Clark ran for President? Would he get the nomination? Can he beat Bush?
He’s got the most impressive resume out there, a stellar reputation, and has the demeanor of a true leader. However, some people are saying he is running for VP this time.
I just can’t see a Dean-Clark ticket. So far, from all the available and future candidates, Clark is the only one I would be happy to vote for. If any other Democrat gets the nomination, I would vote for him/her just to vote against Bush.
Additionally, General Clark seems to be admired across the political spectrum.
I mean this two ways. First of all, who is the dude? I haven’t a clue. Fighting ignorance and all that.
Secondly, I follow politics. The fact that I haven’t heard of him is a bad sign. Lieberman has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fact that he was Gores running mate. Regardless of experience of ability or stances on issues this name recognition gives him a big head start on the other candidates.
He’s telegenic, speaks well, easily matches up against Bush on foreign matters… I don’t know much about his domestic policies.
He’s not a political shill, spouting the party line.
I think if he ran for President, the Republicans would attack his lack of experience in domestic matters, but that can be overcome. He’s prettier than Bush, makes better speeches than Bush, has more diplomatic experience than Bush and he’s not Bush. His supporters don’t feel compelled to defend his intelligence and his detractors haven’t been able to call it into question.
Give him a strong VP or Secretary of State and, yes, I think he would be the strongest Democratic challenger to Bush.
As for getting the nomination, I absolutely think he could. The Democratic Party is fragmented and adrift. I think Clark would be someone that everyone could agree on. And I think, after campaigning, he would draw people to the polls. You have to admit, he would be the best looking president since JFK, and no doubt that will get more than a few votes. Clinton picked up a lot of the vanity votes, and he was tubby, pasty and pale.
Wesley Clark has no chance. The only person in the last 100 years to go from general to president was Eisenhower. He was a beloved figure whose great accomplishment was overseeing the entire allied effort in Europe. Wesley Clark is a no-name whose great accomplishment is bungling the Kosovo campaign. He is also a moderate in a year where every Demo candidate is racing to the left except Leiberman, who was booed in the last debate. He is running for VP this year probably with his eye toward challenging Hillary in 08 for the nomination.
The AP wire had an article on his possible campaign yesterday. It’s a quick read, and puts his campaign in context of the Democratic competition.
No one “officially” runs for VP. He’ll put his name in for the Democratic presidential bid, knowing full well the most he’s getting out of it is exposure. He’s probably the best VP candidate out there, and will probably get asked to run with someone. IMO, he’s the Democrats’ best chance for election with him as a VP candidate. Just letting people know that you can be a war hero, have a strong military background and still be a democrat bolsters the democratic party beyond belief.
We need to see more of him on the Sunday morning news shows.
The most mentioned of the draft websites in news articles is DraftWesleyClark. It’s a good site with biography information and links to many articles on Clark. They have received pledges of over $1.2 million so far.
I expected that by actually admitting there was something I didn’t know I might get this sort of snarky response. On a board devoted to fighting ignorance, I don’t think there is anything wrong with occasionally admitting you don’t know something and asking for an explination.
Thanks for the link, though.
And thank you, ** Munch** for the links without the attitude.
I meant to link to this article which mentions details on the Clark v. Bush poll question.
The interesting thing to me is that Clark’s bio information says that he is a Democrat and matches his resume against Bush by name. I’m not saying this poll proves anything definative, but it at least suggests that those who say that Clark “has no chance” are either not following Clark closely or are engaging in wishful thinking. I think that Clark is the candidate that the Bush campaign fears the most.
Bill Mayr interviewed Clark on Real Time this week. The shows runs again during the week and the interview is near the beginning.
I had heard the name but I had no idea who he was until the interview. He knocked my socks off with his demeanor, his words, and his credentials. My husband, who doesn’t bother to vote anymore, is as impressed as I with what we saw. Thank God for a fresh face!
I want to learn more about him. Thanks for the links.
I’m going to have to disagree with you, Puddleglum. Wesley Clark can definitely win. Above all, remember that no one apart from Democratic insiders knew who Billl Clinton was until he announced in Oct. of '90, later than Clark, who many think will announce Sept. 19. And Democratic insiders definitely know him – Bill Clinton called him one of the “stars of the Democratic Party.” I think there’s a lot of uncommitted money out there for the right candidate, just as there’s a lot of uncommitted support. Second, Democratic primary voters can swallow a moderate if he looks like someone who can beat Bush, esp. by being immune to the false-yet-widepread belief that Democrats are weaker on foreign policy than Republicans. Lieberman was booed because, he implied that Dean’s economic policy would be worse than Bush’s, not simply because he’s a moderate. Third, Clark doesn’t have to go negative against Bush because there are other candidates who will do it for him. Just like Bush could pretend he was above negativity in 2000 by letting Rush and others get out the anti-Gore talking points, Clark can similarly “change the tone” while benefiting from the attacks. And like Dean, he can be a new face of the party who can make liberalism look like a good and new vision again and thereby attract people who might not ordinarily vote or vote Democratic. Not that that’s specific to Clark, but he definitely doesn’t have to be as angry as Dean to gain from Democratic anger at Bush. I also think he is a good deal more charismatic than Dean, especially after seeing the Bill Maher interview. The New Republic has a very good Clark-Dean debate, for those who are interested. I also recommend the Clark Sphere, which is a good round-up of Clark blogs and links.
So what are the Republican talking points against Clark going to be, Puddleglum? Bungler of the Kosovo campaign? Maybe war criminal? I heard Fred Barnes on Fox call him a no-name flag officer. You think that will win military or moderate voters?
I think a Dean/Clark ticket would be nearly unbeatable. Combine Dean’s effective grassroots mobilization and record as a governor (historically a very good position to hold prior to the Presidency) with Clark’s foreign policy and military mojo, and you’ve got a really strong combination. I can also see Clark going VP this time because it gives him federal experience to offset the “he’s just a general” attack.
If Wesley Clark decides not to run this month, I can guarantee he will be chosen to run for VP. But if he does run, I am sure he will only have his sights on the number one spot. He isn’t a true ‘liberla’ but he does have the anti-war credentials that Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards don’t really have.
Lieberman was booed the other night because he had the mistaken notion that he was participating in a ‘debate’ up in Albuquerque, and not a Democratic love in.
I know a lot of people are crazy for John Dean…but I just don’t see him happening. He sounds good to college graduates, people on the coasts, and the media, but honestly he doesn’t connect to working class, black, or southern democrat voters at all. No Democrat can win the White House without all three of those groups on their side.
Frankly I am surprised by Gephardt. I have always seen him as sort of a party hack, but he’s actually the only one of the ‘major’ candidates who seems to be fired up.
Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards should stick to the Senate.