Clark is the most qualified

[Axver]

Care to explain why being a military commander is a positive rather than a negative?

You're going to have to be very persuasive on this one, as I'm a pacifist. The argument that being a commander provides governing experience doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, as basically every Presidential candidate has some sort of experience at governance, and commanding a military can't really be equated to governing a country, while many other candidates have experience in state or federal governments, which is much closer to the sort of governance required from a president.

 

[cjboog]

Care to explain why being a military commander is a positive rather than a negative?

You're going to have to be very persuasive on this one, as I'm a pacifist. The argument that being a commander provides governing experience doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, as basically every Presidential candidate has some sort of experience at governance, and commanding a military can't really be equated to governing a country, while many other candidates have experience in state or federal governments, which is much closer to the sort of governance required from a president.

Yes, sure. I've been talking to one of Clark's staff people and he says that General Clark is working around the clock right now to stop a war with Iran. He is like an anti-war general. Bush did not understand the military and used it recklessly. Clark has been in combat, feels the pain when every soldier dies, and understands the consequences of such actions. He has learned through the military that it should ALWAYS be a last resort and he says this every time he gives a speech on the middle east.

As far as social issues go, Clark is actually quite liberal. And as far as governing experience, I consider to positions he held in the military very similar to the role of a governor. Here is an excerpt from answers.com --

"Clark headed the European US Command, responsible for over 100,000 US troops, their families, healthcare, education, social services, and all related infrastructure, and all American military activities in 89 countries and territories in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. He simultaneously held the sparate NATO position of Supreme Allied Commander, which granted him Head of State status and overall command of NATO military focers in Europe and leadership of approximately 60,000 troops from 37 NATO and other nations."

That is real governing experience.

 

[Dreadsox]

I was one of the people who initially thought he would be good during the last election.

I no longer feel this way. I would not vote for him. Then again, it depends on who he would be facing.

Clark VS McCain.....I would go McCain would cause me to think.
Clark vs Rudy .... I would go Rudy, no question..
Clark vs Romney .... I would go Clark

 

[Ormus]

i'm still holding out for bloomberg's self financed independent run

That might be the only GOP run that could remotely pique my interest, but even then, one trip to the FOTF cult compound, and he'd be finished in my book.

Giuliani pissed me off when he ran a series of commercials in Ohio endorsing the GOP candidate for governor--a far-right wing nut well outside of the mainstream. It makes me think that Giuliani would change his colors in an instant if it meant he could win.

 

[Ormus]

On another note, I wish Democrats would get off of this image fixation. They seem to be idolizing glossy feel-good candidates who, thus far, have no substance whatsoever. And Clark was the epitome of that fixation. He "looked" presidential, but when it came time to actually running? He didn't even have his fucking platform straight.

That's kind of how I feel about Obama right now. He makes people feel good in an Oprah Winfrey kind of made-for-TV movie (and please note that I referred to Oprah for the fact that, as the "queen" of daytime talk shows, she's the first person that comes to mind when I think about inspiring, "feel-good" stories--and not because they're both black), but I have serious questions about his qualifications for leadership.

As for Hillary, I certainly think that she's qualified, but I'm pissed off at her tendency to take on certain right-wing stances just to look "moderate." Supporting flag burning amendments, criticizing video games in a way that only the most uninformed politician can whine about them...what's next: gay bashing so she can look even more "bipartisan"? And that's why I have my reservations about her.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think conservatives will be hard pressed to win an election in 2008.

I thought this was the feeling last election, too.

 

[BonosSaint]

On another note, I wish Democrats would get off of this image fixation. They seem to be idolizing glossy feel-good candidates who, thus far, have no substance whatsoever. And Clark was the epitome of that fixation. He "looked" presidential, but when it came time to actually running? He didn't even have his fucking platform straight.

That's kind of how I feel about Obama right now. He makes people feel good in an Oprah Winfrey kind of made-for-TV movie (and please note that I referred to Oprah for the fact that, as the "queen" of daytime talk shows, she's the first person that comes to mind when I think about inspiring, "feel-good" stories--and not because they're both black), but I have serious questions about his qualifications for leadership.

As for Hillary, I certainly think that she's qualified, but I'm pissed off at her tendency to take on certain right-wing stances just to look "moderate." Supporting flag burning amendments, criticizing video games in a way that only the most uninformed politician can whine about them...what's next: gay bashing so she can look even more "bipartisan"? And that's why I have my reservations about her.

Bingo.

 

[BVS]

I thought this was the feeling last election, too.

Last election the "moral" voters slowed down but they were still surviving off the war vote.

 

[U2Man]

come on, clark just needs michael moore to root for him again

 

[U2Man]

Care to explain why being a military commander is a positive rather than a negative?

You're going to have to be very persuasive on this one, as I'm a pacifist. The argument that being a commander provides governing experience doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, as basically every Presidential candidate has some sort of experience at governance, and commanding a military can't really be equated to governing a country, while many other candidates have experience in state or federal governments, which is much closer to the sort of governance required from a president.

there's a good chance that a military commander has been through war himself - and as such he's not just a daddy's boy declaring war after war without knowing what's he's doing.

 

[verte76]

I used to be a pacifist. Bosnia changed that. How in hell were they going to deal with Milosevic?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Last election the "moral" voters slowed down but they were still surviving off the war vote.

I hope you're right. I really do. I dont think even the rest of the world is ready for the US to have another Rep. President.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

On another note, I wish Democrats would get off of this image fixation. They seem to be idolizing glossy feel-good candidates who, thus far, have no substance whatsoever.

It's exactly the opposite of what they need. They need someone who has a good, clean record and past. Someone with a fantastic resume and nothing in their past that the Republican suggestive slander machine can seize hold of and scare the poor little Midwest mothers with. But that person also needs to come out fighting, box the Republican into the corner, then take the gloves off and beat them into a bloody pulp. None of this PC lets all play nice and meet in the middle rubbish. The Republicans have destroyed that all on their own. They deserve to get punched square in the nose, and donen so over and over and over again, and I have absolutely no idea why no-one does.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I hope you're right. I really do. I dont think even the rest of the world is ready for the US to have another Rep. President.

 

[verte76]

I hope you're right. I really do. I dont think even the rest of the world is ready for the US to have another Rep. President.

You won't have to put up with this scenario if the Dems don't blow it. They didn't blow it in 2006, they just need to repeat, this time nationally.

 

[financeguy]

That might be the only GOP run that could remotely pique my interest, but even then, one trip to the FOTF cult compound, and he'd be finished in my book.

Yes, because killing Iraqis for oil is an insigificant issue.

 

[Ormus]

Yes, because killing Iraqis for oil is an insigificant issue.

Except this statement ignores that Bloomberg is further to the left than most Democrats (and, as they say, Democrats are further to the right than most European countries' right-wing parties).

The problem comes in that these few leftist Republicans feel like they have to convince the far-right that they're "really Republicans," and then start sucking up to extremely unsavory theocrats in the GOP. Giuliani sold himself out a long time ago in that regard, and that's why he disgusts me. Now I tend to have a more favorable view of Bloomberg right now, but if he followed Giuliani's pattern of behavior, I'd hate him too.

But all of this is a moot point anyway. Bloomberg isn't running for president, and, as it stands, there's no GOP candidate that I'd vote for right now. The sad thing too is that there's no Democratic candidate that I'd want to vote for right now either. They all seem like a bunch of narcissistic dumb asses that should be nowhere near the White House. Of course, I guess anyone would be better than the idiot we currently have in there, right?