hmmm ... Clark or Dean?

Looked over the America For Clark site today. (Or, I tried to. The font is too small and almost unreadable--I had to copy and paste the text in Notepad to read it. Tsk tsk to the web designer there.)

What's good about Clark as a candidate? He's smart, a skilled strategist, and a war hero who can't be accused of blowing smoke out his ass on things military.

There are those who doubt he would survive an entire election campaign, but I think anyone who can endure things such as a stint in Vietnam and can successfully wage a campaign in the Balkans can certainly survive the slings and arrows of a presidential campaign. Especially since most journalists in this country are such pansies.

He's also an investment banker, which means he knows a lot about money and how the business world works. An investment banker who's a liberal Democrat--what's not to like?

What's bad about Clark as a candidate? Though I think he's in pretty good shape when it comes to foreign policy, things military, and the business world, and being pro choice and pro equality, there is as of now no clear indication of his position on health care, education, or crime and prevention. But then, it's probably too early. I assume he will have something to say about those issues sooner or later.

Wouldn't be interesting to see a Clark / Dean ticket? Right now I'm leaning toward Dean, but he's weak on the world affairs front and I don't think, in this day and age with all the threats from abroad, he can make Americans feel safe enough to vote for him. But Clark can, and I want a leader who at least knows how to figure out what to do very quickly (a man who can plan).

Dean has the domestic policy chops, and has a handle on the day to day lives of just folks. So I think, at least right now, that Clark as president and leader of the free world with Dean as veep and shaper of domestic policy would make an unbeatable combination and start us on the road to recovering from the filthy messes Bush has created.

Dean could get his foreign policy bona fides under the leadership of Clark and then run for prez after Clark has served his terms. This combination could lead to 16 years of solid leadership. That's a possibility that gives me hope.

Looking the above over, I guess I'm actually leaning more toward Clark: more than anything I want our foreign policy and domestic security handled by a smart person with actual experience; I want to believe that the rest of the world is being dealt with intelligently and for the long term. I don't think Dean can provide that--at least not soon enough.

But I'm just not sure. Yet, I need to see some substantive stuff from Clark on issues on than affairs abroad. Are maybe some stuff from Dean on security and foreign policy that make me feel as though he has a handle on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/18/03 at 12:14 PM --

Share on Facebook
  1. What else is bad about Clark? Well, while it doesn’t mean he had any role, direct or indirect, in deciding to violate lots of people’s privacy, it *is* interesting that Wesley Clark is on the board of directors of Acxiom Corp., which is, along with JetBlue as you note above, the subject of an FCC complaint related to the release of tons of passenger records.

    Acxiom was in on the deal. Clark sits on Acxiom’s board. Not conclusive, but it doesn’t make him look resplendant, either.

    I’ve also noticed the Clintons and their pals trying to pretend there’s no Clark-Clinton mojo being passed back and forth. Again, it doesn’t prove anything, but Mac McLarty sits on that Acxiom board along with Clark. McLarty was White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration.

    Posted by UncleBob  on  09/26  at  12:50 AM
  2. So what’s the matter with Clark then?

    Posted by web design  on  03/16  at  05:32 AM





Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

<< Back to main