Former 4 star general Clark

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I notice he has a lot of support on DU and DailyKos. Would he be a good candidate?

[Moooooo]

Depends who you ask...  I think he would make an "ok" candidate.  Ask someone like Auh20, and you'll get, "Clarks a horrible candidate.  Its very possible that he could lose every state in the nation." 

Realistically, I could see Clark holding all of the Kerry states, but after that, things get iffy.

[Defarge]

I supported him in 2004.  He probably could have held the Kerry states, along with Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio and maybe West Virginia. 

Clark's problem is that he's gaffe-prone.  He conducted a horrible campaign during the primaries.  He started out ahead of Dean by 5% and then barely won Oklahoma.  While he looks good on paper, as a candidate he's no politician, which sounds good but would have resulted in gaffe after gaffe during the general.  Thus, I would not support him in 2008 should he run.

[skybridge]

He'd be just the kind of candidate that would be difficult to attack, since he knows how to stand up for himself. Besides that, Clinton made a good case for him, so with some executive experience under his belt he would make a pretty good candidate.

[Joe Republic]

I've said this before so I may as well say this again: Wes Clark was my favorite candidate in last year's primaries by far.  It's a shame he didn't have an organized campaign, and yes, he was a tad gaffe prone.  But the last part never stopped George W. Bush.

Although I think he'd make the best candidate, convincing others is not so easy.  He needs some political experience first, so I would recommend he runs for AR governor, and consider a run in 2012 (provided the Dems lose in 2008).

Jfern, The reason he seems so popular on DU I would imagine is because for some reason Michael Moore and a large part of Hollywood supported Clark too.  I always find that surprising, seeing as how Clark is hardly a far leftist.

[MODU]

If Clark had come into the arena last election and maintained his position on the issues, he might have a chance in 2008.  However, he suffered a lot of the Kerry-isms, and makes it difficult to understand exactly where he stood on the issues.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think he'll be one of the favorites for the VP nomination in 2008.

I agree with others that he should run for AK governor, but he doesn't seem to be interested.

[ATFFL]

The tape of him trying to get the British to start World War III might come back to hurt him.

[ian]

He's a pretty bad candidate.
On paper, he looks perfect, but did you see the primary debates?  He did pretty badly.
And being a former Republican would hurt him in the primaries.

[Joe Republic]

He's a pretty bad candidate.
On paper, he looks perfect, but did you see the primary debates?  He did pretty badly.
And being a former Republican would hurt him in the primaries.

For the record, Clark was never a Republican - but he supported Nixon and Reagan.  But then so did lots of people who were Democrats then and now.  That's why those presidents did so well.

[Moooooo]

The tape of him trying to get the British to start World War III might come back to hurt him.

I've never heard the actual tapes, but I have seen a rough transcript of the Pristina airport incident.  Actually, I wasnt aware that the tapes were available.  Still,  I doubt "Wacko Jacko's" idiotic World War III comments would hurt Clark that much.  Clark's lack of domestic experience is his biggest flaw.

[AuH2O]

Depends who you ask...  I think he would make an "ok" candidate.  Ask someone like Auh20, and you'll get, "Clarks a horrible candidate.  Its very possible that he could lose every state in the nation." 

Realistically, I could see Clark holding all of the Kerry states, but after that, things get iffy.

"Someone like AuH2O"? Perhaps you should have been more broad and simply said "people who are good at predicting election outcomes."

The assumption I'm biased against Democrats in general holds no water because I've said some Democrats would be good candidates. Why I would personally like some Democrats over others, which also would be a possible explanation if bias was a major factor, is fairly hard to figure out... actually I like Clark more than a number of potential Democrat nominees.

But the reality is that he is not campaign material. I guess he would be favored in 5-8 states against a good Republican, but that's about it. Ultimately, no one like Clark has ever been elected, or actually even gotten close. Thinking he is electable thus requires higher reasoning than "he could hold the Kerry states," which is fairly laughable particularly because his opponent cannot be George W Bush.

[Joe Republic]

But the reality is that he is not campaign material. I guess he would be favored in 5-8 states against a good Republican, but that's about it. Ultimately, no one like Clark has ever been elected, or actually even gotten close. Thinking he is electable thus requires higher reasoning than "he could hold the Kerry states," which is fairly laughable particularly because his opponent cannot be George W Bush.

I know it's not exactly a perfect comparison, but I think Eisenhower did quite well twice in a row.

[Moooooo]

"Someone like AuH2O"? Perhaps you should have been more broad and simply said "people who are good at predicting election outcomes."

I refered to you because, in a previous thread you said, Clark could quite possibly lose every state in the nation.  I think it was a Giuliani vs Clark thread.

[AuH2O]

But the reality is that he is not campaign material. I guess he would be favored in 5-8 states against a good Republican, but that's about it. Ultimately, no one like Clark has ever been elected, or actually even gotten close. Thinking he is electable thus requires higher reasoning than "he could hold the Kerry states," which is fairly laughable particularly because his opponent cannot be George W Bush.

I know it's not exactly a perfect comparison, but I think Eisenhower did quite well twice in a row.

Trust me, I know Eisenhower was elected twice. However, comparing them is sort of like saying a 7 year old girl in rec basketball is similar to Lebron James... sure, semantically there is a minor truth there, but the scale is so different as to render it meaningless.

[AuH2O]

"Someone like AuH2O"? Perhaps you should have been more broad and simply said "people who are good at predicting election outcomes."

I refered to you because, in a previous thread you said, Clark could quite possibly lose every state in the nation.  I think it was a Giuliani vs Clark thread.

And I was right.

[Joe Republic]

But the reality is that he is not campaign material. I guess he would be favored in 5-8 states against a good Republican, but that's about it. Ultimately, no one like Clark has ever been elected, or actually even gotten close. Thinking he is electable thus requires higher reasoning than "he could hold the Kerry states," which is fairly laughable particularly because his opponent cannot be George W Bush.

I know it's not exactly a perfect comparison, but I think Eisenhower did quite well twice in a row.

Trust me, I know Eisenhower was elected twice. However, comparing them is sort of like saying a 7 year old girl in rec basketball is similar to Lebron James... sure, semantically there is a minor truth there, but the scale is so different as to render it meaningless.

I actually agree.  But in the absence of any recent wars on such a scale as massive as WW2 to define them, somebody like Clark (or Powell for the Reps I guess) is the closest we'll get to having another Former General turned President.

[Moooooo]

And I was right.

Right...

[AuH2O]

And I was right.

Right...

It was a hypothetical matchup, not one that will actually occur, but honestly I think it's fairly obvious Clark would lose to Guiliani by landslide margins. If Guiliani could win NY City where could he not win against a weak opponent?

[12th Doctor]

Clark is not Eisenhower.  Clark does not have nearly the level of leadership expirience that Ike did.  He lacks the name recongnition.  Even with everything in Ike's favor, Stevenson still nabbed 45% of the vote.  I find it hard to believe that Clark has the stature to match Eisenhower.

That said, Clark would over perform in the peripheral south, but under perform in the upper midwest, esspecially Minnesota and Michigan, where his lack of expirience would hurt him.  Could lose in PA too.  Probably under perform in Washington and Oregon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And I was right.

Right...

It was a hypothetical matchup, not one that will actually occur, but honestly I think it's fairly obvious Clark would lose to Guiliani by landslide margins. If Guiliani could win NY City where could he not win against a weak opponent?

NYC isn't going to vote for a Republican in a Presidential race. Local politics is different, yes NYC has Republican mayors, and NYS, RI, MA, VT have Republican governors.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Clark is unlikely to expand on the states that Kerry won, and would be likely to lose a couple of them.  He's not a very good campaigner.

[Moooooo]

Clark is becomming a better public speaker.  He recently gave the Memorial Day DNC radio address, and I was impressed.  Still, I think there are much better options for 2008.

WesPAC

[TomC]

I really wanted Kerry to pick Clark as his running mate to reinforce Kerry's own  military background and truly compete on the issue of National Security. I think Clark could do the same for Hillary Clinton. I don't think he's got it enough to be the nominee himself though.

[jokerman]

I really wanted Kerry to pick Clark as his running mate to reinforce Kerry's own  military background and truly compete on the issue of National Security. I think Clark could do the same for Hillary Clinton. I don't think he's got it enough to be the nominee himself though.

Looking at some of the research done that showed the importance of foreign policy/iraq in the campaign I think Clark could have swinged the election to Kerry.