Clark to announce in two weeks?

Scrum · 01-27-2007, 03:41 AM

Wither Wes Clark? Wait Two More Weeks...

Over the Christmas holidays, Ret. Gen. Wes Clark told a close friend that, without a doubt, he would establish a presidential exploratory committee after the first of the year. And now?

A Clark adviser says the '04 candidate is "leaning towards setting up an exploratory then taking some time to explore." Clark accepted an invitation to speak at next weekend's DNC winter meeting in DC, along with the rest of the Democratic field. In addition, a major Democratic donor said that Clark has begun to make telephone calls to party donors."

Clark has popped up on television to discuss the Iraq surge and John Kerry's departure from the race. There were some awkwardly-phrased comments about Jewish political donors in New York.

Clark recognizes that he got in too late in 2003. And he's arguably the most qualified to confront issues of war and peace in these turbulent times. Is February of 2007 equivalent to September of 2003? What an absurd question -- of course not.

But then again, when you think about it, it's hard to divine a compelling justification for Clark to take his time in a field that includes foreign policy heavyweights (Biden), a Clinton (remember how Clark was encouraged to run by Pres. Bill Clinton's friends and donors?) a Southerner (Edwards) and a breath of fresh air (Obama?)

Here's what Clark told Neil Cavuto a few days ago: "Well, I haven't made a decision on that yet. I haven't said I won't run, but for me it's about the message. I'm very concerned about where this country's heading."

Going to be an interesting race. I wish he would have announced sooner instead of later, but oh well.

I wonder if netroots can get him going so he has a chance against Clinton and Obama?

Thorgrim · 01-27-2007, 04:17 AM

Problem is people gave up on Clark when it became apparent obama and hillary were going to get all the money and Edwards staked out Iowa...a lot of the anti-hillary vote went to Obama and Edwards when it could have went to Clark if he would have announced before Obamania or Edwards getting a 20+ lead in Iowa (early, but still its his make or break state)

What people thought the top three were meh, like me, flipped to Richardson when he announced, Richardson has connections, current governor and hispanic...he has ways of making money

I have no idea who Clark is going to turn to, and the netroots is divided so he can't rely on them as his savior, unless he works a minor miracle

motivez · 01-30-2007, 03:52 PM

He should have announced way, WAY earlier. He has massive appeal on both sides of the isle I think, and his experience sets him ahead of the rest of the crowd, even someone like McCain.

But, waiting this long has really hurt him. He was going to be playing catch up in the money race regardless of when he announced, but the longer the delay, the harder it's going to be for him.

ballz2wallz · 01-30-2007, 04:06 PM

Very Clintonesque (Bill); a hollywood entry.

DosEquis · 01-31-2007, 02:31 PM

This is where money in politics concerns me..again. He has a huge uphill battle to climb. Either way i hope he can pull it out of his ass.

JaJae · 01-31-2007, 08:22 PM

Aside from the fact that he has no experience and he's only popular because he has a (G) and is anti-Iraq, this is one quote that really gives me a hard time supporting him:

But President Figueres and I ... when you were the President of Costa Rica and I was the Commander in Chief for the Southern Command, we had a conference down in Bariloche, Argentina. And I flew down on an aircraft one afternoon with Senator Bob Graham and his wife. And we flew down the ... we landed in Peru, we refueled and we flew down the coast. And we looked at the Andes Mountains from the west as the sun was setting. It was absolutely spectacular.

And you know, the Andes are very, very high. Much higher than the Rockies. They're 18, 19, 22,000 foot peaks. And then, we noticed that most of these peaks had no snowfall. None. And we were just coming out of the southern hemisphere's winter. And that's when I first began to take very seriously the discussions of global warming. Because before you see it, it looks academic.

And when you see these things, you realize that man made conditions do impact the environment and how we live. So I take global warming very seriously. And if you look at all the scientific projections on where it's headed, you have to view the consequences of it as potentially so severe, it has to be considered a national security problem. There's just no other way to deal with it.

Same reason I wouldn't vote for Al Gore. It's one thing to talk about global warming, it's another to be just stupid about it. Visiting South America and not seeing snow on mountains is not an American national security issue. And anyone who so strongly believes that is a moran in my book.

Scrum · 02-01-2007, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Aside from the fact that he has no experience and he's only popular because he has a (G) and is anti-Iraq, this is one quote that really gives me a hard time supporting him:

Same reason I wouldn't vote for Al Gore. It's one thing to talk about global warming, it's another to be just stupid about it. Visiting South America and not seeing snow on mountains is not an American national security issue. And anyone who so strongly believes that is a moran in my book.

Darn, one person who would have never voted for him won't.

I can hear the General crying into a pillow right now.

Global climate change is a national security issue.
I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but don't you also not believe humans play any role in it? That seems pretty ignorant since nearly every climatologist does.

DosEquis · 02-01-2007, 12:10 PM

I know everyone has a right to their opinion but not voting for arguably the most qualified person because he thinks it is wierd there is no snow on a 22,000 foot mountain in the winter, and thinks it is due to global warming, is just retarded. If there is going to be those kind of nit picks I dont think we have ANY presidential candidate coming up in 2008.

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Darn, one person who would have never voted for him won't.

I can hear the General crying into a pillow right now.

Global climate change is a national security issue.
I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but don't you also not believe humans play any role in it? That seems pretty ignorant since nearly every climatologist does.

It's interesting you seem to think I wouldn't vote Democrat when I've voted Democrat far more than I have voted Republican. Foot in mouth much?

And my views of global warming have nothing to do with his incompetence. I believe humans are having a negative impact, what I also believe is that much of the global warming chaos is all hype brought about by people like Clark saying global warming and no snow on some mountains in one part of South America at the particular time he visited is an American national security issue. That's just absurd and it shows he's easily impressionable by morans.

Since he was a general and considered an expert on national security it seems he's going to make every hot button issue a "national security" issue. Because if it were true, then obviously you'd want a general to be president correct?

JaJae · 02-01-2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

but not voting for arguably the most qualified person

He's by far the least qualified person who has announced to run from either camp, aside from Al Franken.

He got fired from NATO command because he tried to start WWIII. Thankfully a British general refused his order, called him asshole and said he wouldn't start WWIII for him. The British government eventually got fed up with Clark's behavior and he was fired. He has no political experience other than being a general who tried to start WWIII and the only General as far as I'm aware who wasn't able to finish out their NATO term.

He comes home after trying to start WWIII with Russia and speaks out against the Iraqi War (after favoring it) and all of a sudden he's qualified to be president? He's wasn't even qualified to do his real job, let alone run America.

Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “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. . . ."

Scrum · 02-01-2007, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's interesting you seem to think I wouldn't vote Democrat when I've voted Democrat far more than I have voted Republican. Foot in mouth much?

Try re-reading what I wrote. I didn't say you would never vote Dem. I said you would never vote for him.

My foot's just fine on the floor thank you.

Thorgrim · 02-03-2007, 04:53 AM

Here comes the slams about Kosovo *sigh*

He didn't want the Russians to make a move to take total control over a NATO operation and turn Kosovo into a new colony it could boss around like it does now with Urkraine, Belarus, etc

He was 100% right, the Russians are extremely aggressive, they'll murder people in England, cut off gas supplies to struggling nations, they're ruthless

As russia looks to rival the US again, those complaints against Clark look more and more short-sighted

Getting a few generals to make off the cuff comments against him isn't very meaningful, at that level all the generals play power-politics to get the top positions, you make a lot of enemies, trust me the current generals being elevated are being mocked by their fellow generals in private for being stooges to Bush, you won't find one network, even Fox, failing to report how widespread the belief amonst generals is on the stupidity of the Bush escalation

Donkey® · 02-07-2007, 12:02 AM

I really can't see how you guys think this guy can be President of the US.