What, no puppy-blending for you, Dean? How disappointing.

I like that about you Dean. Baldilocks did have some hyperlinks to backup some of what she had to say. Towards the end, well I am just like you. I must see or hear things for myself. Take time to think it over and then form my opinion.
A good journalist, reporter, and of course now , one who has a respectful blog with a good amount of people reading it, should be accountable.
You said it,- you can find negative stories about anyone, and some of it may be true. And you weren't just talking about politics.
You see there Dean, that is why I keep flying by your blog. It is intersting, informative, and I noticed you got a lot of comments on just a few real nice stories you wrote. Keep those up as well. Oh, I did post that I will be sure to listen to you & Rosemary on public radio! You will get more than ten minutes, they are pros at editing. I've done a few radio spots in my earlier years. Congradulations on that radio spot, I'll check in again, keep up the good journalism.

The bashing and pundit behavior of our media and both major political parties has gotten to be quite disgraceful.

We should quit expecting perfection out of our politicians, since perfection is not something one is likely to ever experience in this life. Our political leaders are the ones after all that are moving events forward, and paying the price for that in their personal lives as well as their political lives. The rest of us are just sitting on the sidelines pontificating and arm-chair quarter-backing, and hopefully voting too, since that is our role in this Federal Republic Democracy.

If our political leaders are mostly right-minded in what they are doing, and mostly headed in the right direction, then I think we will just have to accept that and be happy with it alone. From where I'm sitting former President WJC and current President GWB measure up to that standard.

WJC had some tough nuts to crack in his two terms in office (India and Pakistan being on the verge of nuclear war comes to mind), and moved the country forward in important ways (family leave act comes to mind). But WJC made some mistakes and proved to us all he has foibles. That does not mean he was a bad President. The same can be said about GWB to date.

My bet with Dean is based on the following historical fact: the candidate that raises the most money in the year before the primaries will win his party's nomination.

Clark's problem will not be primarily what dirt can be dug up on him (probably pretty thin, at any rate - he seems a very honest man) but the fact that in order to overcome Dean he has to overcome first Gephardt/Kerry/Lieberman and then go about getting the Deaniacs to jump ship. This is a tall order - he has to run right and left at the same time. Neat trick, if you can do it - it can be done: we know this because Nixon and Clinton both managed the trick, but it takes consummate political skills wedded to an absolute amorality...

While I can see how Clark, backed by the Clinton's, can overcome Gephardt/Kerry/Lieberman, I cannot see how Clark gets at the Deaniacs - these are people who have taken the Queen's shilling and signed on for the cruise; ie, the have an emotional investment in Dean now...they've met up, donated, demonstrated...these are not fly by night supporters who will jump ship from one candidate to another as the exingencies of politics demands. The Deaniacs will stick by Dean until Dean quits...and if Dean never quits?

As a soon-to-be military retiree, I have a tendency to be more critical of other's members military bearing (how a member acts in public, behavior under pressure, etc.), especially that of high-ranking officers. This is a manner in which we're all taught to comport ourselves from basic training on. I would imagine that West Point cadets have this way of behaving hammered even harder into their heads than is true of the rest of us.

General Clark may be an honest man--I've neither read nor heard about any evidence to the contrary. However, for a military man--a general to boot--to behave in such a manner as is alleged in the links provided in my post is, well, "curious."

The WW3 meme has been shredded by Antidotal.

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#106364517252030920

The other two incidents that Badlilocks offers are just interpretive. I saw the Wesley Clark interview where he mentioned the rumors about the White House calling to have him replaced. He didn't sound whiny to me; he sounded like there was no love lost between he and the Bushistas.

And the "would've been a Republican" remark? People use humor to deflect their real anger all the time. Clark wanted to use his skills to help his country post 9/11, and was denied the opportunity for partisan political reasons.

The Republicans are unfit to govern.

The General has reported for duty.

Well, I'm glad that blanket statement can do the thinking for me. Now that I don't have to actually learn what their positions are, I can just vote for whatever Democrat criticizes Bush enough to get the nomination.

It appears that the WWIII statement may indeed have been taken out of context. Unfortunately, the rest of his behavior stands.

I saw the Wesley Clark interview where he mentioned the rumors about the White House calling to have him replaced. He didn't sound whiny to me;

IMO, merely mentioning such an unconfirmed, malicious rumor is whiny.

Will look at the link.

As I said, Juliette, it's interpretive. If somebody with a pattern of intimidating my colleagues tried the same thing with me, you bet I'd contribute to the airing out process. I see it as calling the White House's bluff.

Boloboffin,

On the other hand, perhaps Clark was just making it up, or imagining something that wasn't there...its a common occurance....

The Republicans are unfit to govern.

The General has reported for duty.

Sucker.

...Clark's coming out of nowhere and pulling neck-and-neck with Dean...

What are you smoking? Clark hasn't pulled neck-and-neck with anyone. The Democratic Party Powers That Be (Bill, Hilary, and Terry "crooked as a dogs hind leg" McAulliffe have decreed that Clark is The Man. The press is lapping it up, but that doesn't make it so.

Clark got no money, no organization, no policy, no plan. He's toast. His only purpose in this race is to distract attention from Dean (and perhaps to throw his support to Hilary if she comes out).

Clark pulled up even with Dean in the polls the day after he announced.

Like you, I don't consider him a credible candidate. I see the huge interest in him among registered Democrats as evidence of the weakness of the other candidates, not his own strength.

I still consider Clark to be the likely Democratic VP nominee, based on several factors, but his odds of getting the nomination are long.

I still consider Clark to be the likely Democratic VP nominee, based on several factors, but his odds of getting the nomination are long.

Agreed.

Clark IS going to get the nomination (barring a major meltdown). One reason being, IMO, is that the media would love to see a showdown between the General and the man who plays dress up. The media is fickle and it looks like Clark is the mocha-smoothy flavor of the election year. I also think that the media will give him as much leeway as it has given the Clintons and Ronald Reagan. It's his to lose. Still, the Clintons wield perhaps the most political power in the nation (even greater than Bush's).

Personally, as a soldier, I'd like to see one of my own in the highest office.

Is there any doubt that a top graduate from West Point, former commander of Nato, is better than a man who lost the popular vote to figgin Al Gore? Dubya's interview on Fox drew less viewers than UPN's comedy "The Parkers" monday night.

Dean, I've been thinking. William Jefferson Clinton, Secretary General of the United Nations or President of Israel....not wanting to open the can of worms...

Tim the Soldier

Yes, there is plenty of doubt because there are reasons to doubt Clark's judgment based on his past performance regardless of his standing at West Point. Tim cites Clark's role as SACEUR but omits that he was ignominously removed early from that post.

The difficult part in judging Clark in his more senior posts will be separating out the incompetence of the Clinton administration from Clark's own weaknesses.

Clark pulled up even with Dean in the polls the day after he announced.

That poll turns out to have had some interesting features.

It was not a poll of registered voters. It was a poll merely of Americans. 48% of those polled identified themselves as Democrats.

Only 52% of those polled had any opinion at all of Clark, and 13% of those had an UNfavorable opinion.

James Taranto suggest that this poll is equivalent to a poll of Bush vs "unamed Democrat".

Unlike soon-to-retire Juliette, I have already retired.

I have also worked with General Clark, three times. He's smart. He's sharp. He has most of the attributes you pretty much have to have to get where he got.

But, unlike GEN Tommy Franks, for example (who I also served with), I would only follow where General Clark led because I was legally and morally bound to do so. Because I know he would abandon me professionally as soon as it became convenient to do so. No, I don't think he would abandon me in combat - I mean professionally. In other words, I don't trust him. He never did anything to me personally - but I watched him ruin others for simply disagreeing, or refusing a favor. He has one, overriding principle - Wes. And that is evident as he flops aroud trying to find a position that resonates. That really doesn't make him much different from any career politician - but Clark's appeal is his 'Generalness' which seemingly makes him different. But he's not. In most respects, he's as amoral as Bill Clinton - which actually makes him harder to predict, much less trust.

As for what General Shelton had to say about integrity and such, I can only say that I believe I know what he was referring to, and unfortunately the issues involved are still lurking under classified data restrictions. So I don't dwell on those in my griping about Clark.

Simply put, General Clark is the POD, the Prince of Darkness, a title earned while commanding BCTP. And if you are going to be around him, you better be a POD person, and prepared to sacrifice yourself, should he deem it needful for his aggrandizement.

The General wishes to rule, not govern.

Think OUTSIDE the BOX!

Dean and Clark

2004 Dream Team!!