I hope that others will wait to see what Clark has to offer before jumping on his bandwagon.

Good point. Clark hasn't even announced his policies in a coherent fashion, yet he is the Dem frontrunner - proof positive that his support is merely a knee-jerk reaction from the Bush-hating left, who see him as the only viable candidate to defeat Bush. You'll see those same people dumping Clark the moment Hillary announces in the spring.

If by spring you mean March April and May, then it hardly doubt that if she announced then she would have much of a chance of winning considering about half the states will have already had their primaries.

It's more of a knee-jerk reaction for the new guy. He's the only guy that hasn't spent the past several months making himself look like an ass in front of the nation. This too shall pass.

And as far as Hillary goes, there's no way that she'll run in 2004. The majority of voters aren't pissed enough yet to vote Pres. Bush out of office, and frankly we're probably not ready yet to elect a female President.

I'd say that she needs one more term of either 1) a hard-line conservative or 2) an incompetent liberal to cement her entry. It wouldn't hurt her to start standing out in the Senate, either.

And as far as Hillary goes, there's no way that she'll run in 2004.

Yes, her plan is to run in 2008. As long as Bush is reelected, her plan is on track (ironically). If there appears ANY reasonable chance that a Democrat would prevail in 2004 (and thus be up for reelection in 2008, thwarting her plan), you can bet she'll find an excuse to jump in.

Andrew,

Let's put things in perspective. The guy you worked for before Jim McReynolds and Brewster McCracken was none other than Tony Sanchez. And guess what? All of what you accuse Clark of are things that did not prevent you from enthusiastically supporting Sanchez (and being an officer in Longhorns for Sanchez) who:

1. He's raised thousands of dollars for the GOP

- Clark has raised very little money for anyone. Sanchez was a Pioneer for George W. Bush in 2000 and heavily supported him in 1994 and 1998.

2. He's praised George W. Bush and Dick Cheney - So did Tony Sanchez, but Clark voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and for Gore in 2000 (unlike Sanchez).

3. He waffled his position on the war and had to have a handler babysit him with the media. - Sanchez waffled on a lot more than Clark. Clark is a first-time candidate and he'll make some mistakes early on. If they continue, I'll be worried, if he gets into a grove, he'll be a strong candidate.

4. He might be pro-choice and pro-affirmative action - Clark is pro-choice and pro-affirmative action. Period. Sachez's pro-choice credentials were more suspect.

Posted by ByronUT at October 3, 2003 03:03 PM

As for Brewster McCracken and Jim McReynolds.... they supported the Democratic candidate most likely to appeal to their more conservative bases. Both McCracken and McReynolds are good, moderate Democrats, both of whom I'm proud to support. I supported Brewster knowing that he was the more conservative candidate (over Margot Clarke). I supported him becuase he was the best candidate with the best ideas. Sometimes, the issues (especially in city races) matter more than ideology (because idealogically I'm closer to Margot).

Mark,

BOO!

I dont want to get in the internal fight here between you to, was he a Longhorn for Sanchez officer before or after the primary?

The Republicans want Hillary to run the way the Democrats wanted Reagan to get the GOP nomination in 1980.

Dean is the Republicans' second choice for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but for somewhat different reasons.

On the other hand, Karl Rove is pooping in his pants over the possibility of Clark as the 2004 Dem. nominee. Watch for Republicans to step up attacks on Clark in an attempt to keep him from getting the nomination.
As for Clark's old associations, keep in mind that Reagan started out as a Democrat.
A candidate with an independent streak will obviously attract more independent voters than a rigid ideologue would.

I do agree that Clark has not laid out a lot of specifics yet, but the biggest reasons I've endorsed Clark are:

1) He is a Democrat
2) He lends the party credibility on security issues that no one (even Bush) can touch
3) He is enough of a centrist that Republicans are not going to be able to tar him as "just another Liberal."
4) He is a man used to leading.
5) He is not dogmatic.

I expect that Clark will take positions from time to time that I am not pleased with, but my #1 concern is to get a Democrat back into the White House and remove the Republican oligarchy from power. I strongly believe that Wesley Clark is our best chance to do exactly that.

Byron- I supported Tony Sanchez because he was the Democrat. I will work for the Democrat in this race no matter who it is. In the primary I was pretty torn between the crook and the Republican so it was tough. And I went to pains to point out in my post that Brewster and Jim were looking out for their constituencies so I'm not too worried about it.

Jack- all of those 5 reasons for voting for Clark could be fulfilled by Joe Lieberman or Bob Graham or 4 of the 5 by John Edwards (minus the security stuff, but he's even pretty good on that one) and we know where all of these guys stand. You, me, the entire fucking party knows NOTHING about Wes Clark really, so I have to believe that you are just jumping at the first thing you see. You have no idea if he's centrist or not, you have not heard anything from him.

I think that it is stupid to stand up for a guy that has no record to look to in terms of politics (other than raising money for Republicans), who has no policies laid out, who's broad-based rhetoric has been all over the map and has changed with the direction of the wind and who has been campaigning for less than 3 weeks. Give it some time and make sure that he is for real before you waste all your time and effort on a loser.