Draftdated Dec 1 '03 - Wesley Clark
[This is from December 1st, 2003 - in entirety! I'm not changing anything - see if it makes sense]
Is Gen. Clark a viable candidate for President? According to the New York Times analysis, there are 10 democratic challengers to the Presidential incumbent:
Wesley Clark, Retired 4-Star General, Arkansas
Howard Dean, Former Governor, Vermont
John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina
Richard Gephardt, Representative, Missouri
Bob Graham, Senator, Florida
John Kerry, Senator, Massachusetts
Dennis Kucinich, Representative, Ohio
Joe Lieberman, Senator, Connecticut
Carol Moseley Braun, Former Senator, Illinois
Al Sharpton, ?, New York
I have heard about all 10 except for Kucinich (the bio says he is the former mayor of Cleveland, but why would anybody claim that? Obviously he doesn't actually exist).
Clark has never held elected office (neither has Sharpton, whom I mention only to say that according to the website he doesn't actually have a job right now; also, for you trivia buffs, the site states: "he began preaching at the age of four and was an ordained minister at the age of nine." )
Clark, despite not being a politician, has spent oodles of years in government work and has a tested record of leadership, administration, and shooting people.
This does feel like we're in the 1840s or so. Back then, and now, the leadership of the nation has old ideas of the new Age; and the best electoral hope comes from untested war 'heroes.' Tippecanoe and Clark Too!
I like leaders with capability and vision. People like Reagan and Clinton stood for distinct visions; Bush I & II stood and stand for bubkis; just whitebread, inbred, Old Money backward ignorance. It's sad. The slogan of Bush should be "Meet the Face of Backward!"
Clark is kinda the "Anti-Bush":
Clark: Rhodes scholar & general
Bush: AWOL dim-bulb.
Clark finished first in his class in West Point. Bush's family got him into Yale (remember, none of his siblings could get in after him, why? because the Ivies stated to open the doors to un-bush-types, like Women, minorities, Jews). Clark rose the top of a grueling, demanding profession. Bush's family got him every single job he's ever held (and lost).
Clark's views on Israel and the peace process need work. So far, he sounds like a mushy Clintonoid. Considering that he is the Klinton Kandidate, this makes sense. I'm glad to see that the Clintons have held off on foisting Hillary in '04. We shouldn't be surprised when she does become a candidate in the next few years - if Bush wins again then she's a lock for '08 (if the country still has elections by then).
My favorite candidate has been and still is Lieberman. He's about as electable as Adalai Stevenson, which worries me, but it's rare for me to actually like a candidate.
Is Gen. Clark a viable candidate for President? According to the New York Times analysis, there are 10 democratic challengers to the Presidential incumbent:
Wesley Clark, Retired 4-Star General, Arkansas
Howard Dean, Former Governor, Vermont
John Edwards, Senator, North Carolina
Richard Gephardt, Representative, Missouri
Bob Graham, Senator, Florida
John Kerry, Senator, Massachusetts
Dennis Kucinich, Representative, Ohio
Joe Lieberman, Senator, Connecticut
Carol Moseley Braun, Former Senator, Illinois
Al Sharpton, ?, New York
I have heard about all 10 except for Kucinich (the bio says he is the former mayor of Cleveland, but why would anybody claim that? Obviously he doesn't actually exist).
Clark has never held elected office (neither has Sharpton, whom I mention only to say that according to the website he doesn't actually have a job right now; also, for you trivia buffs, the site states: "he began preaching at the age of four and was an ordained minister at the age of nine." )
Clark, despite not being a politician, has spent oodles of years in government work and has a tested record of leadership, administration, and shooting people.
This does feel like we're in the 1840s or so. Back then, and now, the leadership of the nation has old ideas of the new Age; and the best electoral hope comes from untested war 'heroes.' Tippecanoe and Clark Too!
I like leaders with capability and vision. People like Reagan and Clinton stood for distinct visions; Bush I & II stood and stand for bubkis; just whitebread, inbred, Old Money backward ignorance. It's sad. The slogan of Bush should be "Meet the Face of Backward!"
Clark is kinda the "Anti-Bush":
Clark: Rhodes scholar & general
Bush: AWOL dim-bulb.
Clark finished first in his class in West Point. Bush's family got him into Yale (remember, none of his siblings could get in after him, why? because the Ivies stated to open the doors to un-bush-types, like Women, minorities, Jews). Clark rose the top of a grueling, demanding profession. Bush's family got him every single job he's ever held (and lost).
Clark's views on Israel and the peace process need work. So far, he sounds like a mushy Clintonoid. Considering that he is the Klinton Kandidate, this makes sense. I'm glad to see that the Clintons have held off on foisting Hillary in '04. We shouldn't be surprised when she does become a candidate in the next few years - if Bush wins again then she's a lock for '08 (if the country still has elections by then).
My favorite candidate has been and still is Lieberman. He's about as electable as Adalai Stevenson, which worries me, but it's rare for me to actually like a candidate.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 2/16/2005 11:52:00 AM.
