Wesley Clark http://slate.msn.com/id/2076528/ The centerpiece for the 58-year-old Clark's campaign would obviously be his biography, and it's an impressive one: first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, wounded in Vietnam, recipient of both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. In 1981, when Clark was a 36-year-old lieutenant colonel, the Washington Post magazine profiled him as "the ideal, the perfect modern officer." Since then, he continued his career as an Army "water walker," moving effortlessly up the ranks to four-star general. Just as Dr. Bill Frist gives the Republicans some moral authority on health care, a traditional GOP weakness, Gen. Clark could strengthen the Democrats' national-security hand. One of the most compelling things about Clark is his ability to articulate—better than other Democrats, who sometimes resort to tiresome calls of "chickenhawk" or "quagmire"—the intellectual justification for what many Democrats feel in their gut: skepticism about the need for immediate war with Iraq; concern about the status of the war against al-Qaida; a preference for working with allies over going it alone; and a respect for the institutions that make up the international order that the United States built upon the ashes of World War II. Clark is no dove. But he argues that the biggest mistake the Bush administration made in the aftermath of Sept. 11 was its refusal to conduct the war under the auspices of NATO, despite the alliance's declaration that an attack on the United States was an attack on all its member nations. As a result, Europe is not accountable for success in the war on terrorism, only the United States is. European leaders see it as George W. Bush's war, according to Clark, because Bush has made it his war. "Not a single European election hinges on the success of the war on terrorism," Clark wrote in the September Washington Monthly. Clark even went so far as to employ a classic Vietnam metaphor to describe Bush's policies: "Because the Bush administration has thus far refused to engage our allies through NATO, we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."
i've been screaming Clark for Prez for months, but I'm thinking at best he'll be VP candidate. Whoever is the Dem nominee, they need to bring Clark on staff and have him as a loud spokesman.
When I read that article, I immediately thought, what a great VP candidate. It's unlikely he's well-suited to the presidency. He's never held elective office. In ain't 1952.
Our current president hardly held elected office before now. I'd personally say it could be a plus rather than a minus.
You can dismiss him outright with the fact that he wouldn't be able to raise the $50 million ante that is required to even think about playing the Presidential game. Seems like a decent guy, though. Could be valuable in some other form down the road.
he would have to get in quick to see if he could raise the money. i'm not sure that he couldn't. but i really think he's aiming for the VP slot to set up future prez run
I think he would cover the Dems on National Security for sure, especially if the top dog is a social liberal. Would make for a strong ticket.
Clark could never get elected in a Democratic primary. The whackjobs who vote in those elections "loathe" the military. He'd be a decent VP pick, but VP's give the nominee like two extra votes nationwide, that's all. The top of the ticket is what matters. The only Democrat who can win is Edwards, period.
This guy could never win a democratic primary, and the convention would never put him on the ticket as VP. Keep dreaming. Al Sharpton is going to be your VP candidate.
Does that mean that Tawana Brawley will become Secretary of State? "Nobody manipsnates me or my family."
If the Democrats have the stones to nominate Sharpton as VP, I will gladly give my vote in the next presidential election, and all future presidential elections, to the Democratic Party. Keep dreaming.
Ugh, Ian is right. I can't see a Genneral ever being the nomiee for the Democaratic party. He's way too white. And VP choices don't mean shite anymore.
Being VP sets you up to be president the next time. Reagan's VP and Clinton's VP both got more votes than their opponents, and I don't think Bush the Younger would be CinC without pappy being there first. Not that I think Clark would be happy being VP. It would mean being subservient to the main candidate. If he has any integrity, he would not like it one bit.
Does this mean that the Dems are trying to "out miliatary" the Republicans now? Who's kidding who? The Dems are looking for another moderate Clinton clone and Edwards is the closest thing to it. While Clark seems qualified from a military & foreign policy standpoint, he doesn't have the touchy-feely quality that today's Dems so love in their leaders. He won't bite his lip at a podium or make out with his wife for 5 minutes on stage. Your best hope is for McCain to jump parties & that ain't happening.
Clinton was a Boy Scout I think. There was a picture of him smiling like a brown-nosing monkey as a teenager shaking JFK's hand at the White House. But they didn't show him sniffing his fingers afterwards. Willie was marching against the Vietnam War in England although he was draft age. Great to see Democrats are even-handed on an issue.
The moment someone brings up Tawana, Al will be screaming racism. I would love to just ask him right to his face just to see his reaction.