Wesley Clark, Democratic Frontrunner

[Clancie]

According to a new Newsweek poll, Wesley Clark already outpolls all other nine Democrats with 14% support, (Dean second place with 12%). This, after only 5 days as an official candidate. :)

Here's a good Newsweek article about him:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969047.asp?0bl=-0

I'm impressed that someone so brilliant and so "not one of the boys" not only survived in the military culture, but became a 4 star general and commander of NATO. (The details of his injuries in Vietnam and how he received the Silver Star for continuing to command his troops after being so badly wounded also are quite interesting to read about).

It is heartening that although Clark politically is a mainstream/moderate Democrat, he is attracting a lot of support from the very liberal wing of the party, as well as the more conservative and moderate elements. Apparently he draws votes equally from all nine candidates.

2004....if only....

[arcticpenguin]

Clark is a newcomer to the political scene, so no one knows anything about him. It's like those polls where the incumbent would lose to "unnamed opponent", but when you fill in the name, his support drops.

[Clancie]

Posted by Arctic Penguin

It's like those polls where the incumbent would lose to "unnamed opponent", but when you fill in the name, his support drops.
That's true in the Newsweek poll too, AP, but only when the names they add to choose from are either "Al Gore" or "Hillary Rodham Clinton". :)

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't know enough, yet, about Clark to have an opinion on him. But I am interested enough to go out and try to learn more, the fact that he is a Democrat but a Military man has me hopeful that he might avoid the excesses of both sides. Of course I won't know until I have heard more from him, but I am hopeful

[corplinx]

The general is already turning into "Slick Wesley"

So much for the man of honor who also is a progressive dream candidate of hope.

[Clancie]

Posted by corplinx

The general is already turning into "Slick Wesley"
Lol, corplinx. Yes, your fellow Republicans are already trying to throw mud on General Clark with "guilt by association"....first bringing up Clinton....now, today, publicizing a laudatory letter written to him by (gasp!) Michael Moore!!!!

I guess its just too bad for you naysayers that Newsweek's latest poll says if the election were held now, Bush would get 47%, Clark 43%. :)

This, only a few days into the Clark campaign when many potential supporters haven't yet had a chance to form an opinion about him.

But I guess Clark's ace in the hole is that the voters do already know more than enough about Bush, don't they? :D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Lol, corplinx. Yes, your fellow Republicans are already trying to throw mud on General Clark with "guilt by association"....first bringing up Clinton....now, today, publicizing a laudatory letter written to him by (gasp!) Michael Moore!!!!
[/B]

I haven't brought up Clinton per se. I chose the term "Slick Wesley" because I'm not creative enough to come up with a better name. Sort of like how the media attach the word "gate" to scandals.

Apparently, trying to get Clark's real opinion on Iraq is like a certain mythological figure trying to roll a boulder up a hill.

Hence, he is slick wesley. :)

You heard it here first by the way. Spread it around, Slick Wesley.

[apoger]

> Bush would get 47%, Clark 43%.


Largely due to lack of enthusiasm for Bush. This is not an indication that anyone even knows who Clark is.

I could probably due as well right now.


Things will become vastly more complicated once ordinary people start to care about the distant election.

[Malachi151]

I think that Clark is an neo-con insider working with Rumsfeld and such that is running to maintian neo-con control to hedge the bets against a possible win by one of the other Democrats.

Its looking like a Dem might win, so the neo-cons are ruinning a Dem.

Sick and twisted politics.

[Clancie]

Posted by Malachi151

I think that Clark is an neo-con insider working with Rumsfeld and such that is running to maintian neo-con control to hedge the bets against a possible win by one of the other Democrats.

Its looking like a Dem might win, so the neo-cons are ruinning a Dem.
Malachi151,

The most polite thing I can say about this post is that you really need to read more about Clark. The allegation that he is working with Rumsfeld is ridiculous, and there are significant tensions between him and the Pentagon as his (successful) strategy in Kosovo was contrary to what they often wanted him to do.

Clark once offered his services, as a retired head of NATO Allied command, to the Bush administration, as he felt his military and diplomatic knowledge might be helpful. Karl Rove made it very clear that Clark's services were "not wanted".

You really do need to read a bit more about him before linking him to Rumsfeld and that group. :eek:

[peptoabysmal]

Wesley Clark? Isn't he the guy who was removed from service for carpet bombing Serbia?

[Clancie]

Posted by peptoabysmal

Wesley Clark? Isn't he the guy who was removed from service for carpet bombing Serbia?
No.

Guess you're another one who needs to do some reading....
:rolleyes:

[clk]

Is it just me, or do have the Democrats consistently had smart contendors for President: Clinton (Rhodes Scholar), Dean (M.D.), Clark (Rhodes Scholar), etc., while the Republicans have people like Bush and Quayle? Clark atleast has a resume that is worthy of a Presidential candidate...more than you could say about Bush.

edit: Quayle was a VP...but you know what I mean.

[Clancie]

clk,

I agree with you that Dems do seem smarter. Clark and Clinton, both quite brilliant...Kennedy, a Pulitzer prize winning author (and also war hero)....Carter, an engineer...even LBJ, a schoolteacher, was said to be quite an intelligent man.

I try to be objective, but Bush always seems, well, not very bright. Those short choppy sentences...the inarticulate answers to unscripted questions...the blank stares...it's kind of unnerving to think this man is in charge of so many important decisions with direct impact on millions of lives.

I think he's not smart at all, but in fairness, I guess on paper his education would look okay, even impressive. Bachelor's degree from Yale....MBA from Harvard....sounds very good. (But... listening to him talk...don't you ever wonder...."how did he ever graduate from these universities in an academic program?" I do.) :confused:

[clk]

Originally posted by Clancie


I think he's not smart at all, but in fairness, I guess on paper his education would look okay, even impressive. Bachelor's degree from Yale....MBA from Harvard....sounds very good. (But... listening to him talk...don't you ever wonder...."how did he ever graduate from these universities in an academic program?" I do.) :confused:

Yeah, but he graduated with a C-, if I remember correctly. Is that so hard to do? Not really. A person who graduated from a state college with a B probably worked harder than Bush. The only "achievement" that has been pointed out is that Bush got through the National Guard Air program...which means he managed to get through it without dropping out. Is flying jet aircraft hard to do? Probably, but if the 9/11 hijackers managed to learn, then it can't be all that hard. Bush's resume has a pattern...his dad did everything, from getting him into Yale, into the National Guard, into the oil business, etc. I don't think Bush has done anything for himself.
But being a Rhodes Scholar...I think they only pick 32 scholars each year...they are the best of the best of the best. And while Bush's poppa was getting him a priveleged spot in the National Guard so that Jr. didn't have to go to war, Clark was bleeding on the battlefield after being shot 4 times.
In fairness, Clinton also ran away from Vietnam, and that is also inexcusable.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by clk

In fairness, Clinton also ran away from Vietnam, and that is also inexcusable.

Why is that inexcusable? IMO evryoen should have run away from Vietnam. It was a stupid, senseless, unjust war. By the end of the war many officers were being killed by their own toops adn over a hundred thousand veterans marhced on DC to protest the war.

I have no problem with anyone who did not go to Vietnam, my only regret is that more people didn't refuse to go.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Clancie

Malachi151,

The most polite thing I can say about this post is that you really need to read more about Clark. The allegation that he is working with Rumsfeld is ridiculous, and there are significant tensions between him and the Pentagon as his (successful) strategy in Kosovo was contrary to what they often wanted him to do.

Clark once offered his services, as a retired head of NATO Allied command, to the Bush administration, as he felt his military and diplomatic knowledge might be helpful. Karl Rove made it very clear that Clark's services were "not wanted".

You really do need to read a bit more about him before linking him to Rumsfeld and that group. :eek: [/B]

I've read plenty about him. Asside from his positions that he has outlined in the past couple of months, it all sounds bad. If you read about his real track record the guy is off the hook and trigger happy. Since Dean has become popular with an Anti-War message now all the sudden he's jumping in and calling himself an anti-war candidate. Yet if you go back and look at what he said prior to and during the war he was pro-war.

I think he's just another liar hungery for power.

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

Screw Clark!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by clk
Is it just me, or do have the Democrats consistently had smart contendors for President: Clinton (Rhodes Scholar), Dean (M.D.), Clark (Rhodes Scholar), etc., while the Republicans have people like Bush and Quayle? Clark atleast has a resume that is worthy of a Presidential candidate...more than you could say about Bush.

edit: Quayle was a VP...but you know what I mean.
Yes, we do. You meant Reagan.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Clancie

I try to be objective, but Bush always seems, well, not very bright. Those short choppy sentences...the inarticulate answers to unscripted questions...the blank stares...it's kind of unnerving to think this man is in charge of so many important decisions with direct impact on millions of lives.

Those are just mannerisms. What bothers me is that his policies are not very bright. Let's demonize the Taliban, then come home and put more religion in our own government; how bright is that? Let's cut taxes (for the rich, anyway) and then spend ourselves silly.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Clancie

Lol, corplinx. Yes, your fellow Republicans are already trying to throw mud on General Clark with "guilt by association"....first bringing up Clinton....now, today, publicizing a laudatory letter written to him by (gasp!) Michael Moore!!!!
[/B]

Not a Republican, myself.

There's plenty of guilt by association for Wesley Clark. Not with Bill Clinton, but with his old buddy Ratko Mladic. Remember him?

[Clancie]

Posted by Arctic Penguin

Those are just mannerisms. What bothers me is that his policies are not very bright. Let's demonize the Taliban, then come home and put more religion in our own government; how bright is that? Let's cut taxes (for the rich, anyway) and then spend ourselves silly.
You're right. It's not about mannerisms but his policies. Its alarming to think what harm Bush's policies could do to the economy, the environment, to civil liberties, and to US foreign policy if he's given five more years.

Posted by Malachi151

Screw Clark!
Well, there's no doubt from everything I've read that Clark favored a far more diplomatic approach in Iraq than Bush does.

But, be that as it may, I'm curious, Malachi. If not Clark....then who? :confused:

[Frank Newgent]

I think the Dem ticket will be either Dean/Clark (which I called back in May) or maybe Clark/Graham. The latter might be seen as more substantive. I'll bet anyone one of these two will destroy Bush/Powell next year.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by corplinx


I haven't brought up Clinton per se. I chose the term "Slick Wesley" because I'm not creative enough to come up with a better name. Sort of like how the media attach the word "gate" to scandals.

Apparently, trying to get Clark's real opinion on Iraq is like a certain mythological figure trying to roll a boulder up a hill.

Hence, he is slick wesley. :)

You heard it here first by the way. Spread it around, Slick Wesley.

And here we have an unabashed example of what the right is really all about, intellectually. Throw mud at every opportunity, invent schoolyard epithets, glory in their insulting tactics and avoid honest debate at all costs. You heard it here first, folks.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Sundog
You heard it here first, folks.
It's been apparent for a while.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Clancie

No.

Guess you're another one who needs to do some reading....
:rolleyes:

The Democratic primary is getting as full as the California recall. I can't keep up with all of them :D

Now it's Istanbul, now Constantinople..


Wesley Clark - A War Criminal? (http://www.zpub.com/un/clark.html)

Meet the Real Gen. Clark (http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html)

[SRW]

Originally posted by Sundog


And here we have an unabashed example of what the right is really all about, intellectually. Throw mud at every opportunity, invent schoolyard epithets, glory in their insulting tactics and avoid honest debate at all costs. You heard it here first, folks.


Some what like Clancy did with Bush? Lets face it both parties and their supporters often resort to bombastic name calling. Its called American politics.

What really surprises me is how poorly the original nine must be perceived, at this point in the race. When Clark a political unknown to most people can suddenly shoot so high.

Does anyone really know where he stands on most issues?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by SRW



Some what like Clancy did with Bush?

Cite please?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Clancie
clk,


I try to be objective, but Bush always seems, well, not very bright. Those short choppy sentences...the inarticulate answers to unscripted questions...the blank stares...it's kind of unnerving to think this man is in charge of so many important decisions with direct impact on millions of lives.




Sundog,

Ok not the strongest and most bombastic it have ever heard, but the point is both sides ingage in name calling.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by SRW

Sundog,

Ok not the strongest and most bombastic it have ever heard, but the point is both sides ingage in name calling.
Bush has a record. It is fair to criticise him based on his record. The jabs at Clark above do not seem to based on anything but mean-spirited partisanship.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by SRW



Sundog,

Ok not the strongest and most bombastic it have ever heard, but the point is both sides ingage in name calling.

Oh, ah.

I'll just put this over here in the corner where nothing will disturb it, if that's OK. It seems rather fragile.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Sundog


Oh, ah.

I'll just put this over here in the corner where nothing will disturb it, if that's OK. It seems rather fragile.


Duly noted.

[SRW]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Bush has a record. It is fair to criticize him based on his record. The jabs at Clark above do not seem to based on anything but mean-spirited partisanship.


Not so, Clark does also have a public record. Or are you saying that the records of democrats should not count.

And I was not paying to much attention this weekend, but what I heard was talk about Clark waffling back and forth on his support for the war. however, it is a little early to start name calling.

[Larspeart]

democrats is da CRAZIEST peoples!

(bugs bunny voice)

[Chaos]

According to the T-Online News Service, Wesley Clark has accused Bush of planning to conquer much of the Persian Gulf region.

T-Online (http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/c/09/61/35/961356.html)

This link is not much, and it´s in German, but it´s all the info I have.

Does anybody kow more about this - especially how serious this is?