Gen. Wesley Clark vs George W. Bush

[A18]

Incumbent versus failed general? Sounds like 1964 to me.

[Moooooo]

Incumbent versus failed general? Sounds like 1964 to me.

Failed? Most decorated office since Dwight Eisenhower.

Last time I checked we won in Kosovo and did not loose one Coalition sodlier.  To bad I cant say the same about Iraq.

[A18]

You need to do a little more research on Wesley Clark.

A failed general running on how bad a war is going sounds even more like 1964.

[Moooooo]

You need to do a little more research on Wesley Clark.

A failed general running on how bad a war is going sounds even more like 1964.

Your not posting anything about how he failed.

Failed General vs Failed Drunk? uhhhh

[MAS117]

probably bush, but id def vote for clark

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Have you liberals ever heard Clark make a speech?

he reads THE ENTIRE THING off of a paper

besides havent we had enough Arkansas rhodes scholars as president???

[Moooooo]

Besides havent we had enough Arkansas rhodes scholars as president???

If I remember correctly this country was in ALOT better shape when that Arkansas Rhodes scholar you are reffering to was in office.

[Reaganfan]

Clark would lose to Bush about 200 to 338 IMO

[they don't love you like i love you]

Clark has "judgment" problems from his Balkans experience; he tried to get British troops to attack Russians holding the Pristina Airport.  He was retired soon after.

Much more of the would have come out.

false. He ordered them to block the runway, not to fire.

Clark was my pick in the primaries, and he I think he would've won. He would've won all the Kerry states + at least Iowa and New Mexico, probably got Nevada and Arkansas too. Would've had a better shot at Ohio too.

[Akno21]

Clark would lose to Bush about 200 to 338 IMO

So Clark loses WI, MN, PA, NH and OR?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Besides havent we had enough Arkansas rhodes scholars as president???

If I remember correctly this country was in ALOT better shape when that Arkansas Rhodes scholar you are reffering to was in office.

you mean it was in some sort of ignorant helpless daze right?

[Moooooo]

Ya, keep telling yourself that.  If I was dazed.  Someone please daze me again.  If you think the country is in better shape now than it was 5 years ago something is wrong.

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, my family is in worse shape than it was five years ago, I'd vote for Clark.

Welcome Nick....

Sorry I've been gone so long, holidays and I had no phone for awhile.

[Defarge]

Clark was my pick for the primaries.  I think he might have pulled it off.  He would have won Iowa and Arkansas, resulting in a tie.  But Maine's second CD might have gone Bush resulting in a Bush win.  Too many variables to consider, but I think Clark could have pulled it off, with or without "Bosnia Veterans for Truth" bringing up Pristina.

[J. J.]

Clark has "judgment" problems from his Balkans experience; he tried to get British troops to attack Russians holding the Pristina Airport.  He was retired soon after.

Much more of the would have come out.

false. He ordered them to block the runway, not to fire.

Here is the article from the BBC:
'Third World War'

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.''

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm

He wanted the British to "confront" them; what did he expect them to do say "pretty please with sugar on it?"

[Moooooo]

Clark was my pick for the primaries.  I think he might have pulled it off.  He would have won Iowa and Arkansas, resulting in a tie.  But Maine's second CD might have gone Bush resulting in a Bush win.  Too many variables to consider, but I think Clark could have pulled it off, with or without "Bosnia Veterans for Truth" bringing up Pristina.

If I was Clark I would have used the WW III MYTHS as a springboard.  It would show the American people he is not willing to back down.  Most Americans like that.


"Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them."

"More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers, Clark was rightly outraged. Russians did not win the war, and he did not want them to win the peace."

"Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order."

"The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1&notFound=true

[YRABNNRM]

I hate to bring threads back from the dead but I hate even more to make new threads when others already exist, no matter how old they are.

I've been thinking about the 2004 race recently and how it could have been different. I'm becoming more and more convinced that despite being nominated due to "electability" that Kerry was actually the least electable candidate. I believe that Dean, Gephardt, Clark, or Edwards would have all faired better in the general election and perhaps beaten Bush.

I've always found Clark to be an interesting character. He seems like someone who could have ran for either party's nomination should he wanted to (which I suppose can go back to the Eisenhower comparisons...). I remember there was a time when he was leading in the polls and I believed that he would win the nomination and defeat Bush.

So what went wrong? Was this another case of the media building up a candidate and then tearing him down upon his entry into the race? How would he have faired as the Democratic nominee? Who would he have picked for his running mate?

I wonder if Clark ran in Iowa if he would have done any better.

Also, I wish nickshepdem would return.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think Clark would have won.  It would've been harder to Swift Boat him, given that most voters remember the war, and would likely not believe that bulls**t.

[Smid]

Clark could potentially won the military vote. That may not have been enough to flip some states like South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, but may have allowed him to pick up Virginia and Florida.

The Democrats always do better in general elections when they have a southern blue-dog candidate for President.  That's how the Democrats can swing voters and win elections. Indeed, the only Democrat presidents in the past 30 years have both been from the south. As stated by Sal Paradise:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that despite being nominated due to "electability" that Kerry was actually the least electable candidate.

I think that Kerry was one of the least electable potential candidates. I felt he lacked the common touch and had a feel of intellectual elitism - not in the sense that he necessarily *was* smarter, but that he thought he was smarter... He was sort of the stereotype of a New England liberal, and I think the Dems need someone more populist if they are to win an election - that's why Clark or Edwards would have been a better pick for them, in my opinion.

[auburntiger]

Clark could potentially won the military vote. That may not have been enough to flip some states like South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, but may have allowed him to pick up Virginia and Florida.

The Democrats always do better in general elections when they have a southern blue-dog candidate for President.  That's how the Democrats can swing voters and win elections. Indeed, the only Democrat presidents in the past 30 years have both been from the south. As stated by Sal Paradise:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that despite being nominated due to "electability" that Kerry was actually the least electable candidate.

I think that Kerry was one of the least electable potential candidates. I felt he lacked the common touch and had a feel of intellectual elitism - not in the sense that he necessarily *was* smarter, but that he thought he was smarter... He was sort of the stereotype of a New England liberal, and I think the Dems need someone more populist if they are to win an election - that's why Clark or Edwards would have been a better pick for them, in my opinion.

No, not Virginia. No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

Mark Warner.

[Хahar 🤔]

No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

Mark Warner.

Not a candidate.

[CPT MikeyMike]

No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

Mark Warner.

Not a candidate.

No no...Ben thinks (incorrectly though) that Mark Warner would win Virginia against Bush in '04.

[auburntiger]

No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

Mark Warner.

Not a candidate.

No no...Ben thinks (incorrectly though) that Mark Warner would win Virginia against Bush in '04.

Well, Warner could have, but he wouldn't have run because he was still in his first term as governor. And, Virginia wasn't a swing state, and Bush was still popular

[War on Want]

No Democrat could have carried VA in 2004.

Mark Warner.

Not a candidate.

No no...Ben thinks (incorrectly though) that Mark Warner would win Virginia against Bush in '04.

No he would. He would win it pretty narrowily though.