Dem Canidates

[PennSkinsFan]

Please vote

[Spence]

The latest polls show Kerry and Clark actually ahead of Bush in a head-to-head matchup right now. Gephardt, Lieberman, Dean, and Edwards are all within five points of Bush. I voted Kerry, but I wanted to vote Kerry and Clark, since I support both of them.

I would love a ticket that included both Kerry and Clark. Wouldn't a ticket with two Democratic candidates who are decorated veterans of the Vietnam War be a blast against a Republican ticket of two chickenhawks who slithered their way out of Vietnam?

[PennSkinsFan]

Clark for me.

[jsarno]

Ivoted other, because NONE will be able to beat Bush, because NONE are good candidates.

PS- Spence, early polls are useless, and how can 4 or 5 dem candidates be so close to only 1 republican? Think maybe the dems are the ones polled?

[Spence]

No, JSARNO, the poll pitted each Dem one-on-one against Bush. In other words, Bush v. Gephart, then Bush v. Kerry, then Bush v. Edwards, etc.

The poll was done by Gallup, which is among the most respected polling institutions in the world. They wouldn't just poll Democrats. Besides, if they just polled Democrats the poll would have been a rout.

[jsarno]

oooh, thanks for being more specific.

PS- don't rely on polls. They are never right.

[Seebs]

I don't have a clue.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Seebs
I don't have a clue. Alain Juppe! :D

[Seebs]

:funpost: but he has been the worst or at least the more hated prime minister of the 5th republic.

[Spence]

I know. Edith Cresson didn't leave well either, I suppose. I'm not sure what to think of French politicians right now. I don't really have a high opinion of any of them, but when I consider who is running my own country, I realize I have no right to condemn others. :(

[NamVet4]

Other =

Alfred E. Newman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :):smash:

[jsarno]

Oddly enough, I know the least about Clark. And he's leading this poll. I was kind of figuring that dean would win the nomination.
So what is this Clark guy all about?

[Spence]

General Wesley Clark [retired]. Born in Arkansas. Graduated first in his class from West Point. He holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar in the late 1960s. He is a Vietnam War veteran who has won the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards).

General Clark was an Armor Officer who commanded at virtually every level from Company to Division. He was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command in Panama in the mid-to-late 1990s and was then promoted to Supreme Allied Commander Europe [the post held by General Dwight Eisenhower during WW2] from 1997-2000. He directed NATO forces during the Kosovo War. He was also lead military negotiator for the United States for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton, Ohio in 1995.

He is the author of two books, "Waging Modern Wars" and "Winning Modern Wars." [The latter was just released. I've read the first. About to start the latter.] From 2001-2003 General Clark was the lead military analyst for CNN.

Last month he formally became a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. If he does not win the nomination it is a virtual certainty that he will be offered a place on the ticket by the eventual nominee.

He is regarded by many as the greatest Democratic threat to Mr Bush, though most of the top Dem candidates are running even with Mr Bush right now. Democrats believe Clark's record of Vietnam War heroism will contrast nicely with Mr Bush's stint in the Texas Air National Guard, which was a notorious haven for the sons of the wealthy and influential during the late 1960s.

His official campaign website is here: http://www.clark04.com/

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Spence
General Wesley Clark [retired]. Born in Arkansas. Graduated first in his class from West Point. He holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar in the late 1960s. He is a Vietnam War veteran who has won the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (three awards), Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards), Bronze Star Medal (two awards), Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Army Commendation Medal (two awards).

General Clark was an Armor Officer who commanded at virtually every level from Company to Division. He was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command in Panama in the mid-to-late 1990s and was then promoted to Supreme Allied Commander Europe [the post held by General Dwight Eisenhower during WW2] from 1997-2000. He directed NATO forces during the Kosovo War. He was also lead military negotiator for the United States for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton, Ohio in 1995.

He is the author of two books, "Waging Modern Wars" and "Winning Modern Wars." [The latter was just released. I've read the first. About to start the latter.] From 2001-2003 General Clark was the lead military analyst for CNN.

Last month he formally became a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. If he does not win the nomination it is a virtual certainty that he will be offered a place on the ticket by the eventual nominee.

He is regarded by many as the greatest Democratic threat to Mr Bush, though most of the top Dem candidates are running even with Mr Bush right now. Democrats believe Clark's record of Vietnam War heroism will contrast nicely with Mr Bush's stint in the Texas Air National Guard, which was a notorious haven for the sons of the wealthy and influential during the late 1960s.

His official campaign website is here: http://www.clark04.com/

Turns out, GEN Clark was/is a crappy leader! Very nice list of medals but according to his peers, he has had and probably continues to have an "agenda" all his own. That's the only problem I have with him. When I vote, I think of three things... (in order)

1. How does it affect the people that work for me?
2. How does it affect my family?
3. How does it affect me?

From what I have read and heard, GEN Clark seemed to do things for himself or things that would get HIM recognized(vice his troops).

"Rhodes scholar" same as Clinton, convenient! Southern Command? NATO? all positions approved by or recommended by Clinton. Higher qualified Flag/General Officers were passed over in favoe of Clark. I suggest one(who has the time) ask a retired or active duty Army officer O-6 or above who has worked for or with GEN Clark for their honest opinion of him and I'm willing to bet you don't get the response you might expect. The guy pushed the right buttons throughout his career, period! Not once have I read or heard of GEN Clark "taking care of his troops" this is my basis for the popular opinion (in the military) that GEN Clark is/was a poor "leader". Please dont be clouded be the names of his medals. We don't know who recommended these awards or the circumstances from which they came.

[Chief Seeway]

BTW, Clark's campaign manager recently quite. Don't get me wrong. Clark has some interesting ideas. I just don't want people to be clouded by his military "accomplishments" that are actually questioned by the military.

[Spence]

The man who quit is named Fowler. He was one of the leaders of the Draft Clark movement. He was offered a role in the campaign that was somewhat less than he wanted and resigned in protest.

I must say, that's the first time I've ever seen anyone question Clark's fitness for the presidency by noting that he's a Rhodes Scholar. Most people consider that an impressive achievement. You, Seeway, seem to consider it suspicious. Why is that?

You're certainly correct that Clark has got some enemies in the military. I know one or two close to the Bush campaign have already spoken out against him. It's also correct that Clark rose very rapidly through the ranks. Perhaps that explains some of the animosity--professional jealousy. I'm interested in your criticism of Clark, however. What do you mean, Seeway? "Crappy leader" and "looks out for himself instead of his men" is rather general. I'm still trying to learn about Clark before I make a decision about him so I'm eager to know what you know. Can you give me some specifics so I can make an educated judgment about Clark?

[Spence]

Here's a recent article written by Colonel David Hackworth about General Clark. He takes a somewhat different view than Seeway.

Reporting for Duty: Wesley Clark
By David H. Hackworth

With Wesley Clark joining the Democratic presidential candidates, there are enough eager bodies pointed toward the White House to make up a rifle squad. This bunch of wannabes could make things increasingly hot for Dubya – as long as they don’t blow each other away with friendly fire.

Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, “Hack, what do you think of the general?”

For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim’s November issue, I’m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”

It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn’t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post – a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.

I asked Clark why he didn’t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.

His response: “I wanted to serve my country.”

He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.

For sure, he’ll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game’s played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.

No doubt he’s made his share of enemies. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he’s ripped into during the past three decades.

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a “Perfumed Prince.” Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time.

At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel’s owner. An appealing common touch.

But if he wins the election, don’t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark’s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike’s – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.

[Spence]

Here is a website called Veterans for Wesley Clark (http://www.veteransforclark2004.us/index.htm). It appears to be an organization of U.S. military veterans who support General Clark's campaign for the presidency. It is maintained by Richard Burton, CPO USN, Ret.

[NamVet4]

Spence,
Be careful! Veterans are a strange group; put one of us, alone in a room and you can get a good argument going. :):smash:

Seriously though, I know in the past there have been groups claiming to be veterans that have supported a multitude of candidates: Republican, Democrat, Independent, Socialist, etc. Veteran’s issues are what is important to me, and how any candidate will address those issues and work to solve them. It is not primarily whether or not the candidate is a veteran. Reality check - no one man can affect the solutions to the complexity of veterans issues. Whoever is elected will have to commit to and must demand that the best people be assigned to resolving the issue. In addition, the members of the legislature must be fully prepared to negotiate and compromise to insure the issues are addressed!

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled sports entertainment!

I’m off my soapbox!
:banghead:

[Spence]

That seems pretty sensible to me, NamVet. When I make up my mind about General Clark, the views of veterans will only be part of my decison. But I think anyone who rises up in the ranks as quickly as General Clark did is bound to make some enemies.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Spence
Can you give me some specifics so I can make an educated judgment about Clark?

Sorry, I cannot. Or better yet will not. Check PM.

[Ford]

John Edwards, hands down. I can't stand Dean, I'm not a big Kerry fan, Wesley Clark has really rubbed me the wrong way, and other than Joe Lieberman, whom I like a lot, and Dick Gephardt, who I would be willing to vote for if I had to but he doesn't particlarly move me, the rest of the candidates are more or less recognized as jokes.

If you don't know much about John Edwards because he hasn't gotten as much attention in the press, please read up on him.

While Dean flip flops from stance to stance, and Clark gives vague, detail lacking comments chock full of cliches and empty sentences, Edwards has a plan for this country and many specifics targets for what he wants to do. I suggest you go to John Edwards' solutions for America (http://www.johnedwards2004.com/media/real-solutions-for-america.pdf) and read some of his ideas.

Edwards is a moderate, southern democrat with roots in the working class. His economic policies are targeted towards rewarding work and revitalizing the working class. He will repeal Bush's tax cuts for the rich, but keep tax cuts for working americans who could benefit more from them.

Edwards also offers more oppurtunies for people who can't afford to attend college. He will ensure a free year at any public university you are admitted into so long as you work 10 hours a week. Edwards' domestic policies are my favorite part about him, but he's stronger than most democrats on security and the military.

[Spence]

Well, there are some military officers willing to talk about General Clark.

General Shelton does not like him: At a forum last month in California, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and who is retired, spoke of a decision by William S. Cohen, then defense secretary, to end General Clark's command of the NATO alliance early, replacing him in 2000.

"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," General Shelton said, adding that he would not vote for General Clark.

Since he made those comments, General Shelton has repeatedly declined to elaborate on them, and on Wednesday he again declined a request for an interview.

Others appear to take a different opinion of General Clark. The comments of his commander when he oversaw a tank battalion in Germany in 1977 were typical: "The most brilliant and gifted officer I've known." The commander, Col. Charles G. Prather IV, added: "I have never been more impressed with an officer's talent and dedication." He added that he should rank with men like Douglas MacArthur.

A year later, the future General Clark, now 58, had advanced to assistant executive officer to Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr., then Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. In his evaluation, General Haig wrote: "Major Clark is an officer of impeccable character with a rare blend of personal qualities and professional attributes which uniquely qualify him as a soldier-scholar."
...
The records include high praise from Colin L. Powell, now secretary of state and then an assistant division commander at Fort Carson, Colo., who called then-Lieutenant Clark an officer of "the rarest potential." The evaluations end in 1993, when General Clark earned his second star; officers at or above the rank of two-star general do not receive such performance reviews.
...
The years of evaluations released by the campaign show a cadet who rose through the ranks with ease. His superiors consistently described him as confident, imaginative, organized, an inspiration to his troops, a trusted adviser to his commanders and an officer with unlimited potential.

One commander took note of the superlatives frequently used in such reviews but said that then-Lieutenant Colonel Clark deserved them.

"Every once in a while, one is privileged to encounter an officer so uniquely gifted that the overworked superlatives commonly utilized on evaluation reports are inadequate to effectively describe his duty performance," the commander wrote in 1981. "LTC Clark is that officer. A brilliant, dynamic and exceptionally innovative commander, his battalion has been characterized by superb esprit, discipline and professionalism."

The next year, Colin Powell similarly noted the penchant for the "raters" on performance reviews to exaggerate. But in this case, he said, "The rater does not overstate." He added, "Wes Clark has been a superb battalion commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of the rarest potential and will clearly rise to senior general officer rank. He will be one of the Army's leaders in the 1990's."

One recurring trait that appears in the evaluations is that General Clark always spoke his mind. The evaluations are replete with mentions that he "was not a yes-man," and "says what he thinks."
...
Through most of his career, his willingness to question served him well.

"Completely candid," one evaluator wrote in 1977. "Exceptionally stable," he added. "Never careless or irrational in his judgment."

It was the following year that General Haig wrote his evaluation.

"Major Clark's earnestness, sincerity of purpose and absolute dedication convey a moral force in his work which gives him a significant voice in this headquarters."

Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/politics/campaigns/16CLAR.html)

Well, I've made up my mind about General Clark. He's a winner. The fact that the GOP is so scared of him just seals the deal.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Well, I've made up my mind about General Clark. He's a winner. The fact that the GOP is so scared of him just seals the deal. [/B]

There's a surprise.

[Chief Seeway]

Originally posted by Spence
Well, there are some military officers willing to talk about General Clark.

General Shelton does not like him:

Others appear to take a different opinion of General Clark.

Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/politics/campaigns/16CLAR.html)

Well, I've made up my mind about General Clark. He's a winner. The fact that the GOP is so scared of him just seals the deal.

Spence, do you have any comments or opinions from any of General Clark's subordinates?