FELLOW CLARKIES, PLEASE STOP FOR A MOMENT AND READ THIS

[tameszu]

The following is a recent post from someone who's playing a significant role leading the Draft Clark movement, reprinted in full with the author's permission.

If you haven't read it yet, I would respectfully request that you please read the whole damn thing before you post again about Clark at DU.

If you have already read it, then please read it again. And please try to remember what it says before you start writing about Clark again. Remember--we are trying to WIN ALLIES and to MAKE CLARK LOOK GOOD. Everything you do as a Clark supporter should be with those thoughts in mind.

-------------------------------------------

6 MANTRAS FOR DRAFT CLARK LEADERSHIP



1. Clark, remember him?

2. We are in a growth industry.

3. They are called "customers", silly.

4. It's only a movement as long as it is moving.

5. You can't get ahead, if you are busy getting even.

6. They will come, have you built it yet?


1. Clark, remember him?

Wesley Clark is our leader. This is about getting Clark, and the ideas he represents and embodies, into office. This is about building an organization which takes his ideas and puts them into action. Whenever you, or someone else, starts acting out of their own selfish interest, rather than for the good of what we are gathered to do: these are the word to get back on track with.

2. We are in a growth industry.

The job of this movement is to bring people in, and to turn them into effective advocates for Clark. When people get bogged down into petty turf squabbles, this is what to remind them of. All the turf we've got right now wouldn't carry Boise, Idaho.

3. They are called "customers", silly.

Anyone who has any leadership in the Clark movement, has it because they have done something for others. People came up, and they got service. Look at them as customers, people who are relying on you - not as "followers" or subordinates. Leadership is "the center", not "the top".

4. It's only a movement as long as it is moving.

Getting bogged down is dangerous. There are plenty of people who are waiting to strike at the movement, and at Clark, as soon as this happens. If you are blocking someone else on an issue, ask yourself "what is the minimum I need to get moving again? What is it the other person needs from me to get moving?"

5. You can't get ahead, if you are busy getting even.

This one should be self-explanatory.

6. They will come, have you built it yet?

Very soon there is going to be another wave of people. Each one is bigger than the last. If the pieces aren't in place - message, material, meetings - to absorb these people, then we won't do well. If you are spending time on something that doesn't get us ready for the next wave, then ask whether it is really necessary.

by Stirling Newberry
Originally posted http://www.theclarksphere.com/archives/000035.html">here.


-------------------------------------------

Edit: If it isn't completely clear, then I should explicitly say that I think a number of the posts by Clark supporters recently would not be in the spirit of the above principles. In general, bashing other candidates or dogmatically shouting about Clark's superiority over all of the other candidates is NOT helpful to laying the groundwork that we need to promote Clark's candidacy in the strongest and most legitimate way possible.

I apologize if this comes across too self-righteously. I know that I'm just bursting with enthusiasm and I don't want to disrespect your motivation to promote the amazing potential that is our candidate. However, Clark's run, no matter how good it looks on paper, is not going to be an easy campaign, and I'd rather not see anyone making it even tougher.

OK, I have to go hang out with Sistah Souljah now...

[alfredo]

1. Very good.

Something the whole party should be reading.

[witchbitch]

2. As much as I support Clark...

When it comes time for elections I'll be voting straight Dem once again, no matter if it's for Kerry, Kucinich (spelling?), Dean, or the little green man from Planet X. Anyone but Bush.

[VermontDem2004]

5. Does that include Hitler?

Don't say "he's dead", I know that, but how far are you willing to go to support someone over Bush?

[DS1]

11. oops, thread's over, Hitler bomb's been dropped damn quick

apparently this isn't open for debate.

Hitler Hitler Hitler, what a completely moronic argument.

Hell, I'd elect a Catholic Priest over Bush! So there!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. LOL I always thought the first person to bring up Hitler in

a political discussion automatically loses.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. Sometimes:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

[LTR]

25. I think anyone that brings up Catholics ...

...always loses.

Please, enough of the Catholic bashing. I was born Catholic, my bloodline is near 100% Catholic, and while I don't agree with all the tenets of the Church, it is ingrained in me and part of my culture and heritage.

So I get offended when somebody goes on a Catholic-bashing rant, which happens all too often here.

Catholicism is one of the most widespread and durable religions in the world. it is not Scientology or the Moonies or some obscure cult. For millions, it is a part of their life. And mocking it is no different than mocking somebody for their nationality or skin color. It is wrong, and everyone on this board should be above this.

We should all know that no one religion (or 'non-religion') is suprerior to another. Maybe in your mind, but not overall.

Let's continue with the good above-ground debating, and leave the Catholic bashing to lesser minds like Freak Republic.

I'm Irish-Catholic and proud of it!

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Forget a Catholic Priest!

I'd vote for a used car saleman from Texas.

Wait, that sounds too much like the Chimp.

OK, what you said is better. GO CATHOLIC PRIEST!

[flyingfish]

29. You probably would want to elect a Catholic priest based on social and

economic stances of the Catholic Church.
Many people on here are just too freaking ignorant to actually research the position of the Catholic Church on many issues.

The Catholic Church is VERY liberal on these issues
Gun control, environment, workers/union rights, taxes, economic equality, death penalty, criminal justice system, etc....

Sounds like a good candidate to me!!!

[chaska]

8. I never do that.

I don't always have a dem to vote for in every race in my state. Sometimes it's between the pug and a libertarian. I vote for the libertarian ... as a protest.

[FubarFly]

3. Kick

:kick:

[Iluvleiberman]

4. Good post tameszu ! n/t

[Nashyra]

7. Great post

great way to bring people to the Dem party

[w13rd0]

6. Thank you...

...it's gotten rather tiresome expanding my ig list by leaps and bounds lately. For so long, there were only two lonely folk in there...

[chaska]

9. Stirling Newberry is a freakin' genius.

Everything I read by him is simply amazing. I'm glad he's on our side.

[TacticalPeek]

10. All available bashing urgently needed for deserter aWol raping country. n

[11cents]

12. Thanks, tameszu

I hope others take heed.

If we want to know what works in convincing other people and what doesn't work, we need only ask what works and what doesn't work when others try to convince us.

Since a lot of this brouhaha is coming down to Clarkites versus Deanies, let me say as a Clark supporter that if *any* Democrat wins the WH in 2004, Dean and his campaigners will deserve a good piece of the credit. They started the ball rolling, at the beginning when it's hardest.

The fact is that Clark and Dean seem to be pretty similar politically. Either camp can be happy if the other wins. My view is simply that when General Clark talks about (say) constitutional legitimacy and preserving an America where everyone feels free to speak out without fear of intimidation, it has more weight and punch than when Governor Dean does. In some ways this may seem irrational and even unfair, in other ways it makes sense. In any case, to my mind it's just a fact, and so I think (for this and other reasons) that Clark will be a stronger candidate in the general election. But fergawdsake, supporters of Dean and the other candidates are Democrats. There's no reason for anyone to engage in taunting, or to respond in kind when others are infantile.

[dfong63]

13. you're right, it's irrational

My view is simply that when General Clark talks about (say) constitutional legitimacy and preserving an America where everyone feels free to speak out without fear of intimidation, it has more weight and punch than when Governor Dean does. In some ways this may seem irrational and even unfair, in other ways it makes sense.

irrational is a good description of that attitude. sure, when a man who fought using cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and napalm; a man who never held elected office; but he wears a uniform; yeah when that man speaks that makes his words carry a LOT more weight than a guy who merely became a doctor and also worked his way up thru the political ranks to become governor of a state.

In any case, to my mind it's just a fact, and so I think (for this and other reasons) that Clark will be a stronger candidate in the general election.

but in a lot of other minds, Clark is just an arrogant primadonna with stars, no more qualified to be president than Al Sharpton.

[chaska]

15. Jesus, man.

The guy tries to play nice and you attack him. What's up with this shit?

[Eloriel]

16. Amen

I'm not the only one truly sick of the rancor around here, including my own place in it. I'm about to swear off candidates' threads all together, and maybe even DU itself if things don't improve.

Get with the program. Bashing the other guy doesn't help yours.

Eloriel

[tameszu]

17. That (dfong's post)

is an object lesson of exactly what we Clarkies don't want to be like.

Thanks very much dfong for the vivid illustration.

And thanks to the much more civil Deanies out there (the vast majority) who have been very patient with our upstart movement--ours owes a lot to yours.

[Ellen Forradalom]

28. Why, you're welcome.

I'm puzzled about the fuss over a fellow who isn't running, but should he declare I'll certainly consider him.

If nothing else, he might make a first-rate Secretary of Defense in a Dean Administration :-)

[TreasonousBastard]

18. OK, I'll take this one...

Washington was a plantation owner and general with no political experience when he was elected.

Jefferson was also a plantation owner and didn't bother to join in the Revolutionary War or spend much time with the Constitutional Convention.

Let's pass over some others until we get to Eisenhower.

Would Clark be less qualified than they were?

(Would he be less qualified than the current one?)

[IranianDemocrat]

20. That rhetoric is why we lose elections.

arrogant primadonna with stars? That's so disrespectful it's unbelievable. That type of reference to the military is the reason we lose elections pal.

Are you sure this guy "is just an arrogant primadonna with stars, no more qualified to be president than Al Sharpton":

Wesley Clark is one of the nation’s most distinguished retired military officers. During his thirty-four years of service in the United States Army, he held numerous staff and command positions, rising to the rank of 4-star general. From 1997 through 2000, General Clark was NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander in Chief of the United States European Command. In this role, General Clark commanded Operation Allied Force, NATO’s first major combat action, which saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point where he ranked first in his class. He holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar. Clark is a recipient of numerous U.S. and foreign military awards, including the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart, dating back to his experience fighting in Vietnam. He has received honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments and was made a commander of the French Legion of Honor. In 2000, Clark was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Now in the private sector, Clark is chairman and CEO of Wesley K. Clark & Associates, a strategic advisory and consulting firm, serves on the boards of several private corporations and non-profit organizations, and comments regularly on politics, diplomacy and public affairs. An acclaimed public speaker and commentator for CNN, he is the author of the best-selling "Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat." Clark is also the Chairman of the Board for "Leadership for America," a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America's future.

[PATRICK]

39. The main military factor

is not his qualifications or record or his potential as a president and and upholding D(d)emocratic issues.

It is that G. Washington, US Grant, D. Eisenhower factor of widespread popularity at having been perceived as the chief father figure who won a critically major war. As much as the media pimped for Powell they couldn't make such an image out of nothing. Though he HAD built up a lot of common popularity the overwhelming force to overcome the political civilians was not earned with a major national victory under his belt. He fell far short and the ruthlessly unpopulist party he hoped to lead held him down rather easily.

But because it is the Democratic party, anyone has a fair chance. Clark does too, but expecting his military career to overwhelm the political pros is a stretch. He might be ten times worthier than any of our general presidents, but making the case to the people will be daunting, much less sweeping aside his competitors.

Strategically he might then be awaiting an opening under the barrage of media mantras about "no Democrat is standing out". That would be smart considering. If he was more serious(or have such incredible electoral clout) about running no matter what he would already be in the fray. I wish he would consider running for higher office in the beleaguered Senate or State Houses. I don't think that he, like Powell, would consider that too demeaning?

Clark supporters: I don't think the enthusiasm has been that negative, just normal and well-intentioned as are most candidates' supporters here. On one issue I feel unease that applies not just to Clark. Just the fact that someone is appointed with military and war expertise may be leaning into the PNAC wind carrying our nation along. I would rather see a sudden check to the absurd militarism and expansionism of the extremists who hijacked America- not just a more competent management of corporate imperialism.

[ibegurpard]

19. Nice

Thanks for posting
:toast:

[tameszu]

31. You're very welcome

And cheers backatcha--thanks everyone else for reading this too!

I just want keep the enthusiasm channelled properly, whomever you support!

:toast:

[Clark Can WIN]

22. Eyes on the prize

Cracking on other candidates just comes off as childish and and dense. It's fine to debate strengths and weaknesses, quite another to get stupid about it.

[Ellen Forradalom]

40. Because we all need each other

going into the general (no pun intended) election. We will have to put all this aside when it's time to win the White House.

[newyawker99]

42. Hi Clark Can WIN!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wndycty]

24. Thanks tameszu

I am glad you posted that. I also hope that Clark supporters will not be the only ones held to a higher standard, we will hopefully lead by example.

[Kahuna]

26. You're right as usual, tameszu.. Thanks for the reminders.

I shouldn't tweak the Deanies. I know that they can dish it but can't take it. Most of the time I'm being tongue-in-cheek with my remarks.

[tameszu]

36. No problem!

I do lurve being told I'm right, Kahuna. :loveya:

Kidding! (sort of)

And no tweaking the Deanies from now on--do what the smart Deanies do--everytime you see a nutbar engage in an irrational Clark bash, let 'em know that that's another dollar for Clark instead (and actually sending that dollar would be good too, assuming you can afford it). That tends to make 'em rethink things pretty fast...

Keep up that energy, and cheers!

:toast:

[Ellen Forradalom]

27. Say, that's very helpful.

I think I'll share it with my fellow Deanies.

(on edit) After I run
$text =~ s/Clark/Dean/g;
on it, of course.

[sendero]

30. I try hard.....

..... to build up my candidate, not tear down someone elses. I'm sure I've slipped a couple times, but by and large *all of the Dem candidates are good men who would make good presidents*.

To me, the biggest question revolves around *who can beat Bush*?

The answer to that is not necessarity a single person.

[Le Taz Hot]

32. Excellent post

and applicable to ALL campaigns. Could we PLEASE police ourselves???

[Le Taz Hot]

33. Kick

Because I can and because I think everyone needs to read this.

[StandWatie]

34. I don't have much against Clark

I have a general distaste for the "Clarkies" because I get the impression that they really don't care much about anything accept getting some piece of the Clinton Era back to look at.

[HootieMcBoob]

35. huh?

Why? Because he's a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas?
Or because he would be a fine Democratic President?

[StandWatie]

44. because no one knew a damn thing about him

and the Clintonista loyalists jumped for him immediately. Like I said, I don't know enough about him (and no one else does really, either) to like or dislike him based on issues so that leaves the cult of personality.

[DemExpat]

46. All I care about is a Dem winning.....Clark can win IMO.

That makes me a Clarkie!
(Plus I love his international experience, being an ex-pat and all.....)

:kick:

DemEx

[John_H]

37. Thos post's ain't by clark supporters

they post freeper shit with names like "draft clark." They're stupid. Please dont be more stupid by labeling them clark supporters.

By the way, I'm not a clark supporter....yet. Urge your man to start telling us what he thinks about social issues.

[Doctor_J]

38. I bash NO Dem candidate.

The weakest, stupidest, most conservative one would be MILES better than Bush, and whomever the party chooses I will support with my voice, pen, and checkbook.

That said, I believe that Kucinich, Lieberman, Gephart, Braun, and Sharpton are COMPLETELY unelectable. Smirk would trounce any of them, for different reasons. Given that priority 1 for me is the defeat of *, I cannot in good conscience support any of them during the primary. That also leads me to favor the most electable, which IMHO is General Clark, with Edwards, Kerry, and Graham (in that order) in the side car.

[jfkennedy]

41. Real world politics

Yes I agree with your theory if we live in a true democracy and genuine democracy. These are revolutionary times and thus requires a different formula to win. Gandhi and MLK provide the blueprints we need to win in 2004 by means of a non-violent change to the system.

The people will never have the power if we have no voice and only one voice as of now has the voice of electability and that is General Wesley Clark.

So all the others should drop out. Did the people of India have 8 Gandhi’s to kick the British out? Or 3 JFK's? We need to focus as a party on one personality, not 8 or even 2.

[FlaGranny]

43. I believe that is why we have primaries?

So that we can chose the most "popular" candidate and then just support that one candidate. You're not suggesting we all drop our candidates right now and go with yours are you? I won't bite. I'll vote for MY favorite in the primaries. If your favorite wins, then I'll support him/her, as long as its a Democrat. I believe that's the way it's supposed to work.

Edit: I'm not about to ask any candidate to drop out. That's just not right.

[tameszu]

45. I agree with FlaGranny: the primary process is incredibly important

And I think Clark would too: he's a strong believer in the legitimacy that institutions and reasonable procedures provide.