Clark dodges NAFTA, destroys "trickle-down", scores BIG on education

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

Clark completely and utterly dodges talking about NAFTA, corporate "free trade" agreements, and outsourcing, instead giving us platitudes about his middle class upbringing. He names a bunch of pro-corporate types from the Democratic party and Clinton's administration to make sure the Wall Street Journal knows he's going to toe the neo-liberal line on economics. Too bad, if he said he was against NAFTA he would immediately pick up 20% of the Republican vote, most Greens and anyone who voted for Perot. Dean had more courage than that, at least he mouthed the "labor and environmental protections" line.

He redeems himself by completely rejecting trickle-down economics and "privatization" of public schools. He dismisses Reaganomics and Bushenomics, trickle-down supply-side mumbo jumbo with a quick soundbite:

No reputable economist stands up and says, "Trickle down economics really works."

Clark actually said the word "socialist" and the entire section is much more substantial than what you usually get from a candidate.

The American people want government to fix the things they can't fix themselves. The American people are basically individualists. They like each other; they're very charitable and generous; they're bound together in a hundred different ways -- they're not a big-government country. They're not socialists. But they recognize there are things they can't fix, like healthcare, or public education.

And this administration comes in with an ideology that blocks its ability to see, articulate, and resolve those problems. It's an ideology that's a sharpened sort of right-wing Republican party ideology. It has no real intellectual base to it.


He does a really great job on education, and gives us another soundbite - "Schools aren't businesses". Clark doesn't say "vouchers are bad" instead he breaks apart the propaganda that business is pushing to profit from schools:


For example, take the idea of competition in schools. OK now, what is competition in schools? What does it really mean? Well, competition in business means you have somebody who's in a business that has a profit motive in it. It's measured every quarter. If the business doesn't keep up, the business is going to lose revenue, therefore it has an incentive to restructure, reorganize, re-plan, re-compete and stay in business.

Schools aren't businesses. Schools are institutions of public service. Their job--their product--is not measured in terms of revenues gained. It's measured in terms of young lives whose potential can be realized. And you don't measure that either in terms of popularity of the school, or in terms of the standardized test scores in the school.


All Clark needs now is some labor credibility and a nod from the African-American community. He needs to talk to the AFL-CIO and the NAACP and do what they say. Then he can win and be free to beat Bush over the head on foreign policy and national security, and give us the opportunity to rebuild the Democratic party into a progressive majority party and start some populist initiatives.

[quaker bill]

1. Excellent stuff

I knew I liked Clark for a reason. I like Dean as well. Here's to hoping that they each profit from the other's good ideas. All ten candidates have made an important contributions to the debate.

It is nice to see the a positive and realistic understanding of government under discussion.

Having worked in government for the last 10 years, I can assure you that people actually want service when it comes to problems they cannot fix themselves. Republican or Democrat, when the flooding or other large problem starts they turn to government first. I have seen the dynamic.

I have also had the opportunity to tell folks "well we used to have a program to help people with your problem, but the program closed and those people got laid off after the last tax cut".

Sometimes it get's them thinking, other times it just makes them mad. If they are angry enough and ask, I have the numbers of their elected representatives handy.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. I think Clark is smarter than average

I guess that's obvious, but it comes across in these interviews. I also like the fact it's not all "bringing people together" kind of jargon. His debating skills are excellent, I'd almost be embarassed for Bush to debate him. Who am I kidding, I'd pay to see it!

[Dr Fate]

3. Yet some DUers claim he is a GOP "mole"...

...that does not compute...

[w4rma]

5. DLC mole, maybe. But, I still think he's running an amateur campaign.

And I don't think his amateur campaign can beat Bush's well oiled corporate-financed machine.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Maybe it doesn't "compute" to you, but more than a few Democrats...

...are suspicious of a guy that comes out of nowhere to attempt to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. Only after I look under all of the rocks and behind all of the closed doors will I be satisfied with the candidate that I personally choose to support.

Thinly veiled attempts to discredit fellow Democrats because they want more information about ALL of the candidates is not a good thing. Just out of curiousity, what are you going to do if your particular candidate is not the one chosen to lead the party in 2004? Will you support that candidate that becomes the Democratic Party's nominee?

IMHO, it's our duty as Democrats to question everything and trust nothing until all of the candidates have successfully answered all possible questions or failed in the attempt. Part of that process also involves discussing various scenarios to see if they fit one or more of the candidates.

The 2004 election is not going to be a beauty contest. What happens between now and 2004 will shape the future of not only the Democratic Party but also the future of our country.

[sleipnir]

13. Aye, Aye

I agree, Clark still might get my support, but he's got to prove himself some more. Too many years in the shadows, not much info, DOES and HAS been commonly associated with known Republican criminals, but I'm willing to let someone change. He's just got to prove it, and I still have a lingering doubt that Clark is really the DLC plant to take away Dean's power. But, he's the only other guy with a chance in the race I would consider voting for.

[NashVegas]

4. He Says a Lot of Good Things

But when it comes down to it, this statement is an example of why I lean more towards Dean:

The American people want government to fix the things they can't fix themselves.

I want the American people to wake up and realize we are the government and we can fix it if we're willing to work for it, compromise where we should compromise, and keep the spine when we need to.

[KittyWampus]

6. He Also Dissected PNAC In DETAIL!

And unfortunately, some DU'ers won't bother to read what he said in this interview...

[eileen_d]

7. So very true

Just because he's in the military people assume he's complicit with PNAC, when in fact he criticizes PNAC better than any other candidate.

I eagerly await the barrage of "but he said he liked the PNAC guys in this one article I've read and posted 30 times" replies. :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. Clark is the best America has on foreign policy right now

Clark is no Dennis Kucinich, that's for sure. Dennis Kucinich is the heart of the Democratic party, while Clark is an independent. I doubt Clark will stop America's imperialism anytime soon. He could come closer than most Presidents I would think.

I say we should all admit that PNAC is as much Democratic as it is Republican, and remember the "New Democrats" in the DLC and the so-called "Progressive" Policy Instutite signed on to PNAC.

Clark may be a foreign-policy activist, but he isn't a unilateralist like Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[LWolf]

15. "people" is misleading.

I don't trust Clark, and his military connection is a big reason. But that doesn't mean I think he's a PNACer.

My reasons are purely personal. My head knows that military leaders know better than anyone that lives shouldn't be spent unnecessarily.

My heart says it doesn't trust men in power, when their experience with power comes from "might." Might doesn't make right. That's a natural reaction to a lifetime's experience. Which I won't share on a public board. I will say that a part of my reaction is to be creeped out by supporters who seem to think he'll keep us safe because of those stars. Or people who think we ought to be impressed by those stars and fall in line behind him. Again, purely personal. If you've never had a protector, you don't relate to people's trust in that appearance.

Other issues which leave me untrusting:

Late entry without a complete plan. No legislative record to measure him by. Past relationship with conservatives.

All of my reservations on the table, I will say that I love what he says about education. I've been waiting for someone to say this publicly for a decade, and I applaud him for it.

That alone will cause me to keep a closer eye on him, and consider him a possibility in my short list of runners up.

A real question for all: When considering a candidate for the presidency who has no record in congress, or as governor of a state, how do you assess what they say? How do you decide if it's a talk that they will walk?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. that's silly, how do you feel about business executives or politicians?

"My heart says it doesn't trust men in power, when their experience with power comes from "might." "

So you'll trust professional politicians, lawyers, business executives, and rich people who can buy their way into office, but someone with lifelong service in the US military you can't trust?

I don't get it.

[LWolf]

19. I know.

I told you it was a personal issue. You don't have to get it; it's my issue. Personal, not political. Except that it bleeds into the political arena for me.

[retyred]

8. I just read the article

and fail to see just where Clark "completely and utterly dodges talking about NAFTA".....because "He" didn't bring it up? Because the interviewer asking "Him" questions didn't bring it up, he should have?

The article was great but your header was misleading as hell with the starter "Clark dodges NAFTA" I didn't see any mention of NAFTA in the entire piece.

On Edit: Good flame bait though!


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. Clark dodged talking about NAFTA

Clark was asked: "But those differences are still there in the Democratic party, and they would certainly come to the fore with another Democratic president. You have -- just the most obvious one -- in the '90s, Clinton who had a more New Democrat, pro-free trade, fiscal discipline message; the people in congress were more traditional Democrats, more leaning to the left. So, especially since your experience is more on the foreign policy side, which advisors are you listening to? Who are you gravitating towards in the context of the Democratic party?"

That's a pretty clear invitation to talk about "free trade" and NAFTA and "New Democrat" economics, and he simply didn't. Kucinich and Gephardt have both brought this up recently.

[Code_Name_D]

17. Is Clark just lieing, or dancing the bullets?

I'll admit, his recent comments about PNAC, the cold War, and tricker down did raise an eyebrow. Even had me re-evaluwating my negitive oppinion of him.

That is untill he doged questions on NAFTA/GATT

The thing is you can talk about all the other things you want, but NAFTA/GATT is one of the many corner stones the wall that protects the neo-cons in power. The other things, are not corner stones. Even PNAC isn't. Clarks own words sayed that Clintion repeated Carter's mestakes by carying forwored the foren policy of the preveuse republicans.

I am still waiting for something to show me he will not repeat the same pattern. But hearing him talk about it can only be a good thing.

[retyred]

18. No! Clark was asked

"So, especially since your experience is more on the foreign policy side, which advisors are you listening to? Who are you gravitating towards in the context of the Democratic party?"

Which he answered:I read books and I listen to a lot of different people who talk to me. Laura Tyson's been a friend. She's helped me. On the policy team with me now are guys like Ron Klain. These are people who've got a lot of experience, they've seen a lot of issues go by. Gene Sperling, Bob Rubin have participated. Some of the former speechwriters have helped me.

" You have -- just the most obvious one -- in the '90s, Clinton who had a more New Democrat, pro-free trade, fiscal discipline message; the people in congress were more traditional Democrats, more leaning to the left."

Was a statement about Clinton "who had a more New Democrat, pro-free trade, fiscal discipline message;" by the interviewer not requiring an answer or comment= no dodge.

Nice flame-bait though!


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
Retyred IN FLA.

[Rowdyboy]

11. Never trust headlines....

Read every major story from at least 3 different sources to make sure you're getting a balanced picture. I truely believe that Wes Clark is the answer to bringing down the BFEE and restoring democracy in America. Many agree with me; others disagree. That's their option and, hell, it's the American way.

Wes Clark could be the most threatening candidate to the Republicans since Bill Clinton in 1992.

[Julien Sorel]

12. We've only had one other.

;-)