Announcement

**Sava** · July 21, 2003, 00:29

Though if I could ONLY vote for a Democrat, I'd vote Dean, of course, I don't know if Clark is more centrist or not.

Wow, I'm surprised. I would have figured you for a Lieberman lover. I thought Republicans wanted to paint Dean with the "Leftist" brush.

**Sikander** · July 21, 2003, 01:00

Originally posted by cinch

That's not just fluff. That's a seriously opinionated position to make, right there; one that he could catch a lot of guff for, I'd think.

A lot of politicians in both parties have come out against the embargo, but very few have done so while they are running for president lest they throw away the Cuban vote in Florida. It's an easy position to take, as most Americans are against the embargo, and unless you are running in Florida or New Jersey there isn't much of a downside. The real test will be whether he maintains that position, or allows the party platform (or some other machination) to negate this position as the election heats up in the fall.

The problem with career military people running for office is that they don't have a political track record. They may show themselves to be excellent administrators (or not), leaders etc., but how much they actually care about a particular issue is very difficult to gauge when they haven't ever had to balance policy A against policy B in a compromise. I'd feel a lot better about him if he were running for congress or a governorship instead of going immediately for the top position, as we would be able to get a much better sense of him once he has established a political record at a lower level of government.

His experiences as NATO commander are all to the good, as he obviously has some experience dealing with dimplomacy and international organizations in general, and NATO (and Europeans) in detail. However I'd like to know more about him before I even consider voting for him. He has been playing things very coyly on the talk shows, evading a lot of questions in his interview with Tim Russert for example. I usually only expect that from sitting officeholders. His criticism of Bush was quite cogent, but that is very easy to do. I'd be impressed if he managed to articulate a coherent policy on the macro level, but he hasn't yet done that. The information provided above is quite indicative of what I have seen from him. While everything sounds good, you can't really connect the dots and figure out what he would actually do. He doesn't stand out from other politicians running for office in this regard, but they have a political track record which I can judge, and he does not.

**Ted Striker** · July 21, 2003, 01:40

Look at the last one.

Attached Files

**Zkribbler** · July 21, 2003, 01:41

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton

Gen. Wesley Clark has the best handle on international relations and on the military than any of the people running (including W). But I've never heard him comment on domestic issues and have no idea where he stands on any of them.

**cinch** · July 21, 2003, 01:42

Originally posted by Sikander

A lot of politicians in both parties have come out against the embargo, but very few have done so while they are running for president lest they throw away the Cuban vote in Florida. It's an easy position to take, as most Americans are against the embargo, and unless you are running in Florida or New Jersey there isn't much of a downside. The real test will be whether he maintains that position, or allows the party platform (or some other machination) to negate this position as the election heats up in the fall.

The problem with career military people running for office is that they don't have a political track record. They may show themselves to be excellent administrators (or not), leaders etc., but how much they actually care about a particular issue is very difficult to gauge when they haven't ever had to balance policy A against policy B in a compromise. I'd feel a lot better about him if he were running for congress or a governorship instead of going immediately for the top position, as we would be able to get a much better sense of him once he has established a political record at a lower level of government.

His experiences as NATO commander are all to the good, as he obviously has some experience dealing with dimplomacy and international organizations in general, and NATO (and Europeans) in detail. However I'd like to know more about him before I even consider voting for him. He has been playing things very coyly on the talk shows, evading a lot of questions in his interview with Tim Russert for example. I usually only expect that from sitting officeholders. His criticism of Bush was quite cogent, but that is very easy to do. I'd be impressed if he managed to articulate a coherent policy on the macro level, but he hasn't yet done that. The information provided above is quite indicative of what I have seen from him. While everything sounds good, you can't really connect the dots and figure out what he would actually do. He doesn't stand out from other politicians running for office in this regard, but they have a political track record which I can judge, and he does not.

I am satisfied with this response.

**Sprayber** · July 21, 2003, 01:51

No more Arkansas presidents especially democrat ones.

**Ted Striker** · July 21, 2003, 01:53

Hey, come on, he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

You know, his wife.

**CorpusScorpius** · July 21, 2003, 01:55

Well we will never know unless he runs..........although he appears to be Highly Photogenic compared to some of the other Dem candidates

**cinch** · July 21, 2003, 01:56

But just LOOK at him...

He just looks like a President, no?

*****************

Yes, I think all Presidential elections should now be decided by appearance, not platform or policy. It's just common sense, people!

**Sprayber** · July 21, 2003, 01:56

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Hey, come on, he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

You know, his wife.

I'm afraid to have my state unleash another of its democrats upon the nation. Then again, after Clintion, Clark would have a wide leeway in his office practices.

**Sava** · July 21, 2003, 02:01

No more Arkansas presidents especially democrat ones.

I agree... Texas and Arkansas should be banned from fielding presidential candidates! Maybe New York if Hillary ever gets ideas.

**CorpusScorpius** · July 21, 2003, 02:05

Originally posted by Sava
I agree... Texas and Arkansas should be banned from fielding presidential candidates! Maybe New York if Hillary ever gets ideas.

Sava
do U think she would get elected there seems to be alot of people who dislike her. Who do U think would be her Vp?

**Sava** · July 21, 2003, 02:22

Who do U think would be her Vp?

Satan? I dunno

do U think she would get elected there seems to be alot of people who dislike her

she'd get elected faster than slick Willy drops his pants for an intern...

**The Emperor Fabulous** · July 21, 2003, 08:07

Hillary would make a good VP for Clark

**Paul Hanson** · July 21, 2003, 08:09

Sod all this. Jed Bartlet for President!

Announcement

Would General Wesley Clark make a good president?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment