Clark set to enter 2004 presidential race!
Wesley Clark may announce for presidency next week (CNN)
Clark set to enter 2004 presidential race (AP)
90% chance in favor of running. He's going to do it. Hillary won't be far behind.
Effectively,
Lieberman is out
Edwards is out.
Graham is out.
Kerry and Gephardt are pretty much out--
It's going to be a three way contest between Dean, Clark, and Clinton (with Gephardt as the wild-card VP candidate).
Clark set to enter 2004 presidential race (AP)
90% chance in favor of running. He's going to do it. Hillary won't be far behind.
Effectively,
Lieberman is out
Edwards is out.
Graham is out.
Kerry and Gephardt are pretty much out--
It's going to be a three way contest between Dean, Clark, and Clinton (with Gephardt as the wild-card VP candidate).
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Wesley Clark may announce for presidency next week (CNN)
Clark set to enter 2004 presidential race (AP)
90% chance in favor of running. He's going to do it. Hillary won't be far behind.
Effectively,
Lieberman is out
Edwards is out.
Graham is out.
Kerry and Gephardt are pretty much out--
It's going to be a three way contest between Dean, Clark, and Clinton (with Gephardt as the wild-card VP candidate).
I'd love to see a Dean/Clark ticket.
After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?
The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.
A Dean Clarke ticket would be a bold move.
I don't think Hillary is going to get in. Half of the field will drop out by the end of the year.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The problem with a Clarke campaign is that he's already waaay behind in the fundraising... if he gets in he'd basically have to fight his way up from the back of the pack... and 65% of the population isn't even following the presidential race. The public doesn't perk up until right before the primaries and or just after the conventions.
A Dean Clarke ticket would be a bold move.
I don't think Hillary is going to get in. Half of the field will drop out by the end of the year.
Agreed. I'm a Dean fan foremost. But, I have to admit that Clarke really intrigues me too. It will be interesting to see what he brings to table/debate.
EDIT: I really hope Hillary doesn't run.
and I bet he would win
A higly respected military man and a Democrat that would get the sewing vote covered and dissolve the utterly stupid myth that all Dems are whimps
Originally posted by chu_bakka
A Dean Clarke ticket would be a bold move.
The rumor is that the talk of Clark being a veep for Dean was a dirty tricks campaign against Clark by Dean.
Forget Dean/Clark, how about Clark/Dean? OWNAGE. George you're going to get trounced next Fall unless you perform economic miracles in the next 12 months (not bloody likely).
Strategery only worked the first time against Mr. Lock Box. Wait until you have to debate someone who not only has brains, but common sense and charisma. Enjoy your final year.
Regardless, I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate.
Party Line? Hell yeah. Libertarianism is the future. History has follwed a trend of shrinking governemnt. It will happen.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Kerry and Gephardt are pretty much out--
It's going to be a three way contest between Dean, Clark, and Clinton (with Gephardt as the wild-card VP candidate).
You are mad. Kerry and Gephardt out? Dean and Clinton part of the three-way contest? WTF!!
Man, I finally perused Dean's official website. It has a frickin' blog. That's 523674572 minus points right there. And wow, his economic strategy's four fundamentals basically amount to repealing everything Bush did. ...Just as the economy was beginning to inch its way back up, Dean wants to shake it up again. Sheesh. Siphon even MORE money into SS and Medicare. Man...
And if Clinton picks up the nomination come 2004, Bush could blow up England and still win the election. This country isn't ready for a woman or minority vice-president, let alone president.
Originally posted by pfflam
... A higly respected military man and a Democrat that would ... dissolve the utterly stupid myth that all Dems are whimps
I don't know... I seem to recall Bush 41 getting tagged as a wimp too. That was before Desert Storm.
I never thought all Dems were wimps. Nothing wimpy about FDR, Truman, JFK or LBJ. Carter did come across as more than a little wimpy. Mondale and Dukakis reinforced that image. Clinton, however, was pretty good with push-button warfare but I'm not sure he always had a clear strategic purpose in mind.
Second, almost all campaigns have blogs now of some sort... generally just a staffer giving details of what's been going on... on the road. It's just a publicity tool.
Hillary is NOT going to run for president.... this time.
The economy may be digging itself out... but that's despite what the Bush administration has done... plus so far it's jobless. Anything Dean does to help business to create jobs is ok by me.
Bush isn't as dumb as you think. He likes to pretend dumb in order to lower expectations.
I think you are not correct, but let's ponder this assertion anyway, for just a moment or two. What are the implications of electing a man who is allegedly intelligent, but who likes to appear outwardly unintelligent to the public and world leaders he has to deal with?
Common, Wesley... make me a believer in the system again. I dare you!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/12/opinion/12KRUG.html
"The result, clearly, will be an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history. Four months ago it seemed that the 2004 campaign would be all slow-mo films of Mr. Bush in his flight suit. But at this point, it's likely to be pictures of Howard Dean or Wesley Clark that morph into Saddam Hussein. And Donald Rumsfeld has already rolled out the stab-in-the-back argument: if you criticize the administration, you're lending aid and comfort to the enemy.
This political ugliness will take its toll on policy, too. The administration's infallibility complex - its inability to admit ever making a mistake - will get even worse. And I disagree with those who think the administration can claim infallibility even while practicing policy flexibility: on major issues, such as taxes or Iraq, any sensible policy would too obviously be an implicit admission that previous policies had failed.
In other words, if you thought the last two years were bad, just wait: it's about to get worse. A lot worse."
I stand by my decision a few months ago in favor of Lieberman. He seems to me to have taken the most rational positions of the bunch. I think John Edwards has done well too. Of course, neither of these two is going anywhere in the polls right now.
Dean doesn't impress me much, and at this point I don't see him being an effective candidate in the general election. He shoots from the hip too much and doesn't seem to think through his positions.
Originally posted by Moogs
Common, Wesley... make me a believer in the system again. I dare you!
I wanna know when he got promoted from lieutenant to general.
The reason anti-war people support Clark is that he thought Iraq was a bad idea from the start... and predicted that there was no sufficient post-war plan, he also felt that the forces were stretched too thin and that we would need international support.
His bio on the Nato site.
http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm
I am excited about Wesley's canidacy based on having heard the man speak intelligently about military and foreign affairs on CNN and elsewhere. He's a very level-headed guy AFAICT, but of course we need the good debate (i.e. non-mud-slinging debate) to get a true read on the matter. Hence my earlier comment.
Also, I think your implication that he unfairly rose to the rank he did is itself unfair, unless you have solid evidence to back it up. His service record is pretty much exemplary based on what I've seen. You don't become the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO if you're a military hack / nepotism case / etc. You might become the Supreme Commander of NATO Parts Depot #8 (a military base IOW) that way, but not the head man for NATO -- remember the member nations have some say in that.
Finally, a guy from Little Rock we can respect.
Originally posted by Moogs
B: Not sure if you were referring to me, but I am not "anti-war" so much as I am against the way our leaders went about it. Same old argument so I won't start it here. Let's keep the thread on track.
Also, I think your implication that he unfairly rose to the rank he did is itself unfair, unless you have solid evidence to back it up.
I wasn't referring to you; it does seem to be true though that the anti-war people (or whatever you want to call them) are Clark's biggest backers. I suppose it's because a serious military guy gives them some cover.
The thing about lieutenant was referring to Wesley Crusher, not Wesley Clark.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
His bio on the Nato site.
http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm
That is some bio. Compare it to George W.'s.
I think Clark's candidacy is bad for Kerry for this reason. Sure, Kerry is a war hero and all, but this guy had the term "Supreme" in his title.
Seriously though, forget about the current democrats. Look at this guy in comparison to our other man from Little Rock. We could go from draft dodging, pot-smoking (not that I hold this against him entirely), smooth-talkin shyster... to a no-nonsense, straight-talking Rhodes scholar who also happened to command NATO for a few years among other acts worth decorating a man's uniform for. All without leaving the Democratic party.
Strange country we live in....