"This all proves that it really matters who the president is. It matters a lot. "

And then Digby said this, yes he did:

"...I blame the media for this. After 9/11 they lost their minds and became unthinking hagiographers and adminstration cheerleaders to an absurd extent. The man's halting, incoherent first press conference after 9/11 scared me more than the attacks and yet the press corps behaved as if they were in the presence of a God whose stuttering, meandering gibberish were words uttered from on high. He was called a genius and compared to Winston Churchill. Paeans to his greatness were turned into best sellers. His "gut" was infallible..."

 ...and it so it was...it was? Yegods!

This is Clark Country! Now more than ever...

(or want) another Dick Cheney. There is such a thing as being over-qualified for a position and I think Wes Clark would fall into that category when it comes to the VP position.

There are plenty of potential candidates for prez who could use the experience that a VP spot would offer. Wes Clark isn't one of them. It's all or nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He wasn't running for second place in 2004 and I sincerely doubt he would be (if he decides to run) this time, either.

Just my 2¢..... 

but far less eloquently. What it came down to for me was this: It's time for America to grow up.

We don't need leaders who give us nothing more than parables or platitudes, we don't need father or mother figures who talk down to tell us what's best for us and the world; these people aren't leaders. They're photogenic figure-heads.

I'm tired of being patted on the head and told, "There, there. The big, important men in charge are going to take care of this. Why don't you run off to the shoe store."

I feel like just maybe, this is the last twinges of America's adolescent crisis. And I hope that we are able to move forward and begin to behave like adults. Adults who recognize their that we, every last one of us, are responsible for what's to come. The big party is over, and no one can clean up the mess but us. And the leaders we choose in the future need to lead us. Not just wander into the halls of DC and scurry about with their own agendas, but to actually lead us - we should not be 'protected' from the bad news, or the uglier parts of what we may have caused, but instead, we all need to find a way to be part of accepting the responsibility and part of the solutions. As we should hold our leaders accountable, we, on some level, need to be held accountable as well.

After all, the generations that follow certainly will.

Part of an announcement I've drafted for Clark's announcement:

ONLY THE PRESIDENT can set the tone of our foreign policy.  Since 2001, our foreign policy has been tragically flawed and marred by blunder after blunder.

ONLY THE PRESIDENT can set the priorities of our domestic policies.  Our priorities have been backwards since 2001.

ONLY THE PRESIDENT can set the tone of the national political discourse and debate – a tone that has been deteriorating for almost two decades.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

Run Wes Run!

I understand that it is difficult to know in advance what constitutes a real leader. A resume isn't enough to make one (although it's certainly better than not having one at all) and depending on personality or symbols isn't enough either. I don't know what the magic formula is. I do know that when someone speaks like a fool and acts like a spoiled child and appears to be "intellectually uncurious" and has never done anything in life that would give you a clue that he knows how to govern or lead -- well, it's not a good idea to make that person the most powerful person on the planet. If we've learned nothing else, I hope we have learned that.

I don't much care for Covey's views & was required to deal with them in a job, some years ago. One of his books has an anecdote about an explorer trying to find the way around Detroit with a map of Chicago.

Explorers don't use maps; they make them.

Much of Covey's material reads like expanded bumperstickers or the the reader boards at fundagelical churches. The "jungle" analogy is classic: governance has nothing to do with finding & hacking through jungles. A leader may possibly choose to take people through a jungle; although Wes Clark would probably find a way around it or arrange transportation to fly over it.

Governance is making several extended series of reasonable, useful decisions about managing the assets of political entities for the best outcomes to the citizens. People can govern without being leaders. A leader may choose to identify new or different "stuff" for a government to manage (NASA in the 1960s) or alternative methods to attain similar or better results (EPA in the 1970s), but good governance can result from effective administration by itself.

Leadership is not a mysterious quality. It can be & is taught. That could be the major effect of Wes Clark as President of the USA: he will select incredible people for his cabinet & staff, AND he will both lead them & show them how to lead in order to accomplish the objectives & goals that will be defined by the circumstances, whether it is skilled administrative governance or bold new "stuff."

Again, to contradict Covey: governance is deciding which ladder to buy, where to put it, who climbs it, etc. Leadership is causing people to really want to be on the other side of the wall. Wes Clark is a politician who can handle both jobs because he knows the importance of competent administration & the magnificence of inspired leadership.

Finally, an odd thing: the USA may not need innovative leadership right now. Wes Clark, more clearly than the other potential candidates, can see some 5 or 6 or 7 package deals on the to-do list that need only be implemented in workable fashion. Health care, check; balance budget(s), check; social security mid-course correction(s), check; re-organize a 21st century Dept. of Defense, check; counter-terrorism & counter-intelligence, check; restore civil rights, check; indict, convict & imprison war criminals, check . . . (OK, sorry for that last item).

Couldn't agree more. Also think the longer he waits the more difficult it will be to win the campaign.

I can't imagine an America without Clark at the helm to lead us out of this colossal mess Bush Jr. has created.

I know it sounds dramatic but if Clark doesn't win (and BR won't), will America still be a superpower in 8 years?
Will America's armed forces still be volunteer?
Will America ever address ... with resources serious enough to address the problem, our oil addiction.

Clark gets it right on all the major issues. All this ridiculous pining for Hilliary, or Obama, or Edwards is done without serious contemplation, without acknowledging the grievous wound our country must heal after 8 years of complete and utter incompetence.

For the love of God and Country, Run Wes Run! Please?

I am not convinced on that one-- yes of course leadership is taught -- as is music, art, writing, and countless other abstract skills that rely disproportionately on some chemical gifting to really flourish.

Some people could have spent their lifetime diligently studying acting with Lee Strasberg and never have moved an audience in the theatre the way a truly gifted actor can.

I think there are a majority of people you could shove through the finest leadership courses and seminars who would perhaps only marginally be able to lead upon completion...despite following the course instructions to the letter... (some of the current crop of '08 candidates come to mind in fact).

Because beyond "knowing" the check list, even if there is experiential "knowledge" in the mix somewhere, there is a factor in that old helix that puts it over the top that one simply cannot manufacture. <-- my belief.

In order for a mass of humans to automatically buy-in to your leadership ability, instinctively-- you need to have and emanate the soul of a leader. It's not confused with the imitation. You may be able to adopt the facsimile of gesture, skills, and command to get them initially huddled behind you... but if you "lead" them poorly, or not as advertised, and don't live up to the role-- they're going to abandon you eventually for the real thing.

Wes is blessed with this "charisma" factor (sorry, hate to resort to that word--) in spades. You see the moment he enters a crowded room and it's without any efforting. I'm sure he has always had it. It's not only the level of his energy -- which is astounding-- but a certain something that instantly, instinctively assures you... you can feel confident that he will NOT steer you down the wrong path. He simply emits it ... You sense his level of vision, intellect, judgment, caution and boldness in the proper mix, and a host of other leadership qualities after listening to him only for a few minutes. The rest falls into place. There's the force of nature at work. People sense that.

So, I don't think it is possible to truly teach impactful world class leadership --UNLESS you have the goods there genetically to begin with. And that is only my opinion. : )

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/presidential_straw_poll_democrats

Hi all,

If there is only one qualified candidate for President, what do we do if he chooses not to run?  The "there is only one qualified candidate" part of the question presumes that, if Wes doesn't run, our next President must be unqualified for the position.

Given that our current (quite obviously!) unqualified President has made such a horrific mess of things, if the (only?) qualified candidate doesn't run, or doesn't win the nomination, or doesn't win the election ... what then?  Do we leave the country?  Have a Massada-esque mass suicide?

Wes is the best qualified candidate for President, without a doubt.  But I worry when we substitute "only" for "best," because that leaves us with "No Plan B."  And we've had six long years of "No Plan B."

Edit:  Wes offers the most relevant strengths and the fewest relevant weaknesses.  I sincerely, deeply hope he'll run, and if he does, I'll do everything I can to support his candidacy.  If he chooses not to run, or doesn't win the nomination, then I'll need to be ready to look at who's left and decide which among them offers the best hope.

What I can't do -- for myself, personally -- is conclude that if Wes chooses not to run, there's no hope at all.  That would be to pin the whole of my hope for the future on a single man.  I can't bring myself to do that for anyone.  Human life is too frail to invest so much in one man.

Another Edit:  I guess what I'm saying is, I don't want to put myself in a position where if (God forbid!) something were to happen to Wes -- illness, family emergency, or something else -- so that he felt he couldn't run ... I'd be left with a sense of "Oh hell, I may as well just leave the country then."

To me personally, that would be placing too great a burden on Wes: "Run and win or we're doomed!"  This needs to be a decision Wes can make freely, in the light of everything that's going on in his life, and a reasoned assessment of what he thinks he can do and what it will cost him and his family.

Crissie

Amazing that we even need to point out to these people that the fact that Kerry didn't have the sense to pick Wes merely proves that there's no reason to expect Edwards or Obama to. Obviously Edwards didn't have the prescience or "teamplayership" to say, "No, pick Wes instead of me for VP."

Incidentally, I think those who are averse to Wes on the silly grounds that he isn't charismatic don't know humility when they see it cuz they've never seen it before.

with my 83 year old neighbor. We just moved in this summer and we have gotten involved with the local democratic club. I had a brainstorming session (about 11 of us) at my house yesterday as to how our group can move forward(there are about 800 members) and he had asked me if all the cars were at our house. I replied yes, and explained my interest in politics. (Didn't know his up until that point) He proceeded to tell me he was conservative but that his wife and I would get along really good. He also said he thought Bush was a disgrace and didn't vote for him, but didn't think much of Kerry. Even in the state governor's race he voted democratic as a protest against Bush. Now the good part! I said I was a Wesley Clark fan and he lit up and said he really liked Clark and would have voted for him! He also said he thought the democrats would win the presidency in 2008. He didn't see any republican candidate that he liked. I asked him about Huckabee(since he is our gov.) and mentioned that he is a darkhorse for the republicans. He thought he has done a good job as governor. He is a really great neighbor, first to welcome us. He is sharp as a tack and walks about 5 miles a day. Doesn't act his age at all. I really think Clark is the only one that can pull in republican votes and keep the 60% of independents that voted democratic this time.

And yes, I am working on support for Clark in our group at large. There is already support for him but people are still looking. We have tried to get Clark to come speak twice now but he wasn't available on those dates. We are thinking about just asking him to come speak whenever he has a break in his calendar, since we are only an hour from Little Rock.

Every chance I get I bring up Wesley Clark's name. I loaned my Clark biography book to one of the brainstorming group.