All of the other candidates have given vague scenarios about how they would improve the economy. I hope you are not singling out this candidate because of his powerful resume. If you are going to be fair and balance,you should compare the programs offered by the other candidates to General Wesley Clark

Sincerely,
Shirley Mathis

Shirley,

Thanks for commenting. First, though, I make no claim of being utterly fair and balanced. I've declared myself for President Bush, am a registered Republican, and lean to the right on most political issues.

Beyond that, though, I'm singling Clark out in this instance for the same reason that I singled Lieberman out a few days ago: if a candidate says something that catches my eye, I will write about it. I have spent time on this Web site talking about various candidates as they catch my attention and will continue to do so. You're more than welcome to drop by and add criticism any time you wish.

As for Clark himself, a powerful resume is no guaranty of success. I find what he said to be both a bit more vague than usual for a candidate and a bit foolish on whole. I'm not pleased with the level of spending by the federal government under Bush's watch, so the things that Wesley seems to be proposing are even more unacceptable.

If you want to examine Clark as seen by a more friendly pen, then you may want to check out The New Republic's Primary page where the candidates are ranked in an ongoing look at their policies and their statements in the media. Actually, this is a good resource for anyone interested in the election, although it is most certainly leaning left in its views.

Again, thanks for commenting.

How he intends to achieve those goals is the focus of a week long series of major speeches. The first one was given today and is available at clark04.com What you are referencing was the preview. Furthermore, Clark laid out specific goals with numbers and a breakdown of what he expects to accompish in each state. If this is your idea of vague I'd like to see your idea of specific. Part of good leadership is setting clear, specific goals that everyone can agree on and that can serve as benchmarks for progress. That is what Clark is doing.

I will certainly look for the speech from today. The speech yesterday was, though, vague. As for goals that everyone can agree on, well he's failing that part miserably with me.

I don't agree with his agenda--especially when considering the new spending that will have to be part of the equation--and he has not done a good job of communicating how he is going to achieve his goals to people like me.

"Goals with numbers on what he expects to accomplish" are all well and good. I want to know exactly how he intends to accomplish those goals and what the costs will be.

In the interest of fairness, though, after I'm through here at work, I will go home and look for the speech that you're referencing from today.

One Democratic campaign promise that strikes me as bizarre is that they're talking about tax increases as though they were the greatest thing since the invention of money. Reality check: a tax cut rescinded will be interpreted as a tax increase. This will be a true test of salesmanship - if a candidate can sell the public on higher taxes, he can sell them on anything!

I'm telling ya: Clark's only function was to prepare the way for Hillary!
I expect her to declare her candidacy this Friday or next.

I know the you statement of the General's "plan" is the typical format and dept of a Republican plan - can you say "Cut Taxes". However what you have quoted are the results of his plan to fund the unfunded mandates that Shrub has dictated to the states.
By repealing the tax cuts for those making $200,000 we can pay down 1+ Trillion on the deficit as well as other things - one of which is send $20 Billion back to the states to help them pay for these federal mandates.

If this is a key issue for you, it's hard to understand why you've declared for Bush, given that the administration has just achieved the largest expansion in entitlement programs since the Great Society (due in no small part to unprecedented lobbying by Bush's cabinet members and tight party discipline).

At least Clark acknowledges the importance of a balanced budget and is talking about paying down the debt. And he has experience working under fixed budgets, having successfully managed large, multi-million-dollar military programs.

Bush isn't even discussing those concepts -- or if he is, maybe you could point me to his latest policy statement on the subject.

Thank you for pointing out the appauling vaugeness of political discussion in America. Funny thought that you pick on Wes Clark and not the other Dem candidates or Bush.

As a moderate (fiscal & economic conservative and social "enforce civil-rights and leave poeple alone"), I urge you to look carefully at Bush and the right wing (not real Republicans or conservatives who have some good points). They managed to even avoid the real detailed discussion when arguing to invade another country!

I would love to hear discussion of details. They are almost always nuanced hard choices that can't be reduced to sound bytes or even 20 minute speaches. Why don't you ask some candidates for this information and publish the monographs you get in reply? A couple of people might acutally read them.

Travis, as I noted, I talk about whomever attracts my attention precisely when the attract my attention. This site is littered with references specifically to Dean, Clark, and Lieberman--and, obviously, Bush.

The conversation about invading Iraq was exhaustive. We discussed just that issue, actually, since before we invaded Afghanistan. And while I want more detail on an economic agenda, I don't necessarily want too detailed a plan for an invasion. I doubt that it would be such a good idea, don't you?

The idea of asking candidates for more detailed plans and information appeals to me, though. Especially when the televised debates are nothing but PR plays with no depth to speak of. I don't entirely blame the candidates for that--the format and the fact that there are so many candidates invited to the debates ensures that no topic will be discussed in depth. For that matter, very few voters really demand depth.

Laurencetown, I would urge you to take a spin around this site to see what I think of Bush's spending habits and trade habits. Then go round again to see what I've said about Clark in posts other than this one. I think you'll get an idea of where I stand on the issues and on what are the key points for me in the upcoming elections.

General Clark, like most political wanna-be's seem to say things that most Americans WANT to hear. This holds true to all the parties, including the GOP. I feel that the most dangerous man in America from a political standpoint is Howard Dean. He is downright SCARY! I feel that the efforts of the current President, George W. Bush are sincere and direct. He strives to promote good feelings between the parties, bring into the arena several good ideas and policies to strengthen this country's economy and standing in the global environment; unfortunately, the Democrats can seem to only find time to try and pick apart the efforts of this President and to find fault with the Bush administration. Politics as usual? No, just an attempt by the Democrats to further the division in this country and create a failing image of the current administration.

Thanks, Allen

I find myself liking Allen...