Who Still Supports Wesley Clark?

Great Debates
1

When Clark first announced his candidacy for President, I thought he might be a good choice. I figured he’d be tough on defense at least.

But lately, this guy has been coming apart at the seams, and what’s underneath is looking pretty ugly.

The first troubling sign is that his fellow military officers are coming out quite strongly against him. Not just noncommittal, “He’s on the other side” comments, but nearly attacks.

General Tommy Franks was asked if he would consider voting for Wesley Clark, and his replay was, “Absolutely not!”

More ominously, Gen Hugh Shelton had this to say:

“I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote.”

Integrity and Character Issues. Obviously, the exact details are being withheld, but someone in the military removed this guy from his European command because of integrity and character issues.

Then there’s his total flip-flop on the war, for what looks like opportunistic reasons. I’m sure everyone has seen those clips by now of Clark praising Bush, saying that he was the ‘right man at the right time’.

Clark seems to be one of those prima-donna generals who kisses the asses of those who are superior to him, while stepping on anyone lower on the ladder.

To me, this is a frightening combination. This is a guy with no apparent convictions of his own, who will simply do what he has to do to attain power. I now think he would be a very poor choice for President.

Comments?

2

Sam, who was responsible for removing him for power?

I might add that if there is something to be known about his character, it’s better to find it out now than later. What a military man may see as a flaw, I may see as vote worthy. But I have heard that he wasn’t well-liked and I would like to know why – especially since he seems so personable.

I don’t mind his change of opinion on the war. We know a lot more now than we did then.

3

Tommy Franks is hardly an objective source.

4

General Shelton’s character assassination by innuendo doesn’t impress me at all. “He’s bad character. I won’t tell you what he did or how I know that, just that I do and leave you to imagine the worst.”

Clark seems to be running into the sort of campaign problems that people have when they don’t have a good campaign staff and strategy; I get the impression he ran more on “you’re a great candidate” than “we can get you elected.” I think he had inflated expectations about the power of his candidacy (fed to him by a lot of people), and is now suffering for not having backed the essential quality of his candidacy with a tough and experienced campaign staff.

When it’s all over, I think he’ll lose the primary and analysts will blame on the campaign he ran. There’s nothing wrong with Clark that isn’t wrong with any other candidate–everyone deals with a few gaffes, spinning a few flip-flops, etc. The question is how you deal with them, and he’s not dealing well.

5

Well, Clark’s hired Clinton’s campaign staff, so I don’t think that a lot of his “problems” can be blamed on them. As for the “character” comments, I seem to recall a recent two-term President who was attacked with questions of “character” and yet managed to survive the process. Clark’s a Rhodes scholar and graduated tops in his class at West Point, so he’s no dummy. If the Dems want to have a prayer at pulling swing voters their way, Clark’s their best bet.

6

I haven’t made up my mind regarding Clark, one way or the other, but it appears that no one is really treating him as a serious candidate, anyway. The story on his Army associates cutting him is at least five weeks old–possibly eight weeks–and not only has no one bothered to rebut the charges, no one has bothered to dig up any information to see what inspired the nasty comments. (There could, of course, be a huge exposé just around the corner, but I have seen no indications that anyone really cares.)

On the other hand, his “right man” comment is not actually an indication of opportunism. That comment was made during the Afghanistan campaign (and before Bush wandered off to go haring after Hussein and leave Afghanistan to fester its way back to the Taliban). Clark has been quite vocal in his opposition to the Iraq debacle from the beginning. (This does not make him a wonderful candidate, but it does indicate that he is not being hypocritical.)

7

Clark is still significantly smarter and more competent than George W. Bush, isn’t he?

8

The question isn’t whether he is smart. The question is whether or not he has the character to be President.

9

Well,. George W is in office isn’t he? It seems “character” needed for that office isn’t what it used to be.

10

Clark is the only Democrat I could see myself voting for.

I am an independent, socially liberal, moderately hawkish, relatively conservative fiscally. I voted for Bush in 2000, and Clinton twice. I support the war in Iraq, but have some major disagreements with how it was conducted.

Although he may have some of that prickly, Perot-like manner that doesn’t translate well to electoral politics, I haven’t seen evidence that Clark is lacking in character. It’s the standard Republican smear, probably exacerbated by his ties to Clinton. If Clark were running as a Republican, no one would be questioning his ‘character’, although the Democrats would probably be calling him ‘stupid’ – that’s what they do to their opponents.

If Clark doesn’t get the nomination, I will probably vote for Bush again, with the same trepidation I did voting for Clinton in 1996.

11

Here’s a measure of “character”:

Clark was putting his life at risk in Vietnam while Bush was ducking out of his National Guard duty stateside.

'Nuff said.

12

The question is whether or not the lack of character that you perceive is enough to prevent him from being elected. I don’t think it is, since I haven’t seen any significant attacks on his character. Some high-profile generals saying they won’t vote for him doesn’t a knockdown blow make.

Honestly, Sam, are you impressed by Shelton’s attack?

13

Clark is in far more trouble over his questionable loyalties to the Democratic Party than he is for any content-free slams on his character.

From media darling to also-ran in what, two months? Ah well, there’s always V.P., Wes.

14

Whatever other problems, perceived or real, Clark has he has one monumental problem, lack of charisma. When he announced his candidacy, arguably the high point of his campaign, his speech left me cold. Almost immediately I realized that his campaign would go nowhere, and said so here.

15

No, I don’t think he does. After all, he didn’t spend the Vietnam War snorting coke and going AWOL. He doesn’t bang every female employee less than half his age he can get his hands on, either. He doesn’t lie like a dog, that anyone has seen, at least. So he isn’t right for EITHER party.

To be serious for a moment, do you have any objective evidence the guy’s character is lacking? I’d like to see more specific evidence of this alleged flip-flop on the war (although that could be a legitimate change of opinion,) and Shelton’s comments don’t have any substance at all.

16

Clark leads Democratic polling in Georgia and in South Carolina (where he has passed Edwards in the latest poll). I expect a near-sweep of the Southern primaries.

Don’t know whether he can win any primaries outside the South, though. Time will tell.

17

Some of you folks actually reading what you’re posting? A quick scan reveals the following:

  1. “Character” is an important factor in who should be President
  2. Military service for one’s country does not reflect favorably on one’s “character”
  3. Substance abuse and draft-dodging does not detract from one’s “character”
  4. Ambition is not a positive character trait, and is therefore not a desirable trait in a potential President
  5. Intellectual ability is not a necessary or possibly even desirable factor in who should be President
  6. It is not acceptable to have two ideas at the same time (i.e. be in support of an idea, but against the implementation of that idea)
  7. Marital infidelity automatically invalidates all of a person’s achievements
  8. Not having any achievements at all, or having nothing but negative achievements, does not automatically invalidate a person’s ability to be President

Congratulations - we have been able to comprehensively unmake the American political system in the span of a single Presidential term! The national electoral process is now officially the same as the high school student council electoral process.

18

For me, it’s going to be between Clark and Dean. I’ll probably make my decision the day before I cast my primary vote. Both of them have good points and bad points right now. My decision will probably boil down to which candidate has can muster the best plan for universal health care.

Either candidate has a stronger “character” than George W. Bush. Bush is proven brazen liar and a warmonger willing to put the best interests of his cronies and paymasters above the best interests of the country. Nixon’s got him beat on the “character” issue. He is a disgrace to the office.

19

FYI, Clark will be on MEET THE PRESS this Sunday for the entire hour.

20

Clark’s career stalled when he met with Ratko Mladic, who masterminded the massacre of Muslim civilians at Srebernica. The State Department warned Clark not to go to Mladic’s headquarters, since Mladic is an indicted war criminal (he is still at large). Clark did it anyway, and they exchanged gifts and drank together.

This was in 1994.

His other problems include the fact that his principles seem to be for sale to the highest bidder. He was angling for a position with the Republicans first, and only came out with his ringing endorsement of what he considers core values of the Dems after he decided his chances were better with them.

He is a little too much the political officer to make the “square-shooter, straight from the shoulder” thing work very well, at least to date.

I imagine if he picks a fight with the liberal wing of the Democrats, as Clinton did with Souljah, he might help his perception as an independent Democrat, but unless his campaign catches fire before the end of January, he may be running for Vice-President. So he’d better be careful not to alienate anybody.

He might be able to bring it off. As I said, he is a political officer.

Regards,
Shodan