Do you support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Presidential nominee for

[saracat]

Gallup says 70% of Democrats support Hillary Clinton as Nominee in 2008. Do you agree? Or do you prefer someone else?

[cobaindrain]

1. not my first choice

really I'd prefer either Bayh or Edwards, then Kerry perhaps. Then Hillary.

[quinnox]

2. I like Hillary

And I still think Kerry or Edwards would be good presidents too. I have a feeling if she runs then maybe Kerry won't run again, but I think Edwards will run again no matter what. If any of them were the nominee, I would be happy.

[Placebo]

3. Absolutely love her.

:loveya: Hillary '08 :yourock:

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Hillary in '08 means 8 years of President Frist.

No thanks!

[LiberalVoice]

59. Wouldn't it be easier(and alot cheaper)...

to just let Bush have the presidency another 4 years? I mean why go through all the hassle of having a presidential race and fund raisers and rallys. I mean I'm sure if we just offered it to him he would take it.

That scenario has a better chance of playing out then Hillary winning in '08.

[LiberalVoice]

4. Who here actually thinks Hillary has a chance in hell of winning in '08?

Please provide a simple and logical explanation as to how you came up with this idea. :eyes:

[cobaindrain]

5. if she runs against Condi, then yes

[LiberalVoice]

7. Condi isn't running in '08 for christs sakes. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Same thing if she runs against

Barney the purple dinosaur. That's the matchup I'm counting on. We're sure to win that contest.

[ABaker]

53. See

my post (#52)further down on the page

[pippin]

6. I prefer Barbara Boxer

The Clintons have been responsible for the rightward shift of the Democratic Party to the point where it stands for nothing that democrats feel strongly about. Personally, I want the Democratic party to start espousing the things the party has stood for historically and to stop pandering to the so called centrists.

[Demeter]

11. I Agree 100%. Barbara Boxer is the Only Democrat with Balls

and Goddess knows that what's needed. The time for making gestures is after you grind the Right Wing nutjobs into the dust and throw their little conspiracy into the International Criminal Court. Not Before then!

[ZootSuitGringo]

17. Sorry, but General Clark is a Democrats with rather large set of

balls too.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Wouldn't it be better if the General Clark ran as Republican

in 2008?

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Well, considering his positions on the issues

as well as the fact that he's a registered Democrat, and given all the terrible things that he's said about the Republican party in general and the Bush regime in particular, and given all the hard work that he did on behalf of the Democratic ticket and various Democratic congressional candidates this last election cycle, I somehow don't think it is all that likely that the Republicans would nominate him.

Maybe Hillary could run as a Republican though. She was a Goldwater girl after all, and her positions on the issues are more conservative than Clark's.

Or maybe we could pass the Schwartzenegger amendment and then get Ahnold (that would be you right) to run as a Democrat. He is a Kennedy by marriage, with positions on social issues that don't really fit the Republican mold. The Republicans wouldn't know what had hit them.:)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

32. Howzabout Clark-Schwarzenegger?

If I recall, Arnold can run as Veep, then if the Prez passed,
Arnold would pick the new Prez. Not sure about that. But if
General Clark temporarlily withdrew from the Dem Party, then
waited until the last second to re-declare as a Dem in 2008,
then a lot of Repubes would vote for him because they would
have thought, Well if it took him that long then he doesn't
hate us and he must be OK, which was the plan in 2004, if I
recall correctly. I don't think issues matter as much as image,
perception, and joie de vive.

[Crunchy Frog]

39. Actually, I think Hillary/Schwarzenegger

would probably be better. I can't really figure out what you're saying in terms of your rationale for the other ticket, but Hillary/Schwarzenegger would make alot of sense I think. Schwarzenegger would take away from any percieved liabilities that Hillary might have due to prejudices about her being a woman. The testosterone would balance that out pretty well. Plus it would sort of be a unifying ticket, signifying a willingness on the part of the President to work closely with the Republicans and heal the national divisions.

I would love to persue this line of speculation further with you, but I can't right now as I have an exam to study for.:hi:

[leesa]

99. You do know that ahnode's a neocon whore, don't you? He works for

BushCo.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Yes I do.

That was why I thought he might be a good running mate for Hillary. Better for her than for Clark at any rate.

I was not the one to originally bring up the idea on this thread.

[BootinUp]

45. A lot of people less intelligent than you

latch onto this Clark became a democrat at the last minute story and throw it in our faces all the time. But the fact is, if you look at his record he was fighting the good fight on issues like gays in the military, affirmative action, and of course the Iraq war long before he announced his candidacy. But whatever spins your beanie propeller. :eyes:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

50. I have been an admirer of General Clark ever since

he hung out at the motor pool. I think his wait till last minute
tactic was brilliant and would of worked if he had won the
primaries.

[ultraist]

126. I think that Clark rumor started because Clark voted for Reagan

[Pastiche423]

137. It was no rumor

Clark entered the 2004 race for the presidency on September 17, 2003. At that time he was NOT a registered Democrat.

www.washingtontimes.com/ national/20031002-122243-1914r.htm

www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/ dnflash/oct2003/nf2003101_0874_db038.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/24/wwes24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/24/ixnewstop.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-10-01-clark-usat_x.htm

[BootinUp]

144. whoooo!

you really slammed Clark good there. :eyes:

Most Arkansans are registered as undeclared, same as Clark was at the time. BFD.


(edited changed unaffiliated to undeclared)

[ICantBelieve]

160. No Shit Sherlock

He was an independent. So were MANY people in Arkansas. So were MANY people in the military. Active military people are supposed to remain non-partisan. That's not to say they CAN'T join a party, but they often don't.

You know, I have an idea. Why don't the Democrats pick a candidate who is qualified to do the job, likely to win a general election, AND is a liberal? Oh, no, that would be too easy! We might actually win. No, no, we couldn't do that. We couldn't go with someone who could actual win, be competent in the the job, and work to get all of our ideas implemented. No, we couldn't do that. No, he voted for Reagan!!!

[Massacure]

145. Can't do that.

12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

[FreedomAngel82]

136. The republicans don't like Hillary

I don't think. Your die hard ones I don't think. My Mom is a registered republican but voted Kerry this year and I told her of the rumors of Hillary and she said if Hillary ran and was the nominee she'd vote for her. But your really far right freepers don't like her at all. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

142. My post was intended to be tongue in cheek

in response to another poster who suggested that Clark run as a Republican. I know that they demonize Hillary. She just got caught in the crossfire so to speak.:)

[Adelante]

106. You wanna lose in 2008, do you? nt

[Hippo_Tron]

147. If Clark were a Republican he would've licked Bush ass in 2004

In anticipation of getting the Repub nomination in 2008 or the VEEP slot. Wes is a Dem and proud of it.

[cestpaspossible]

23. He should run for Governor of Arkansas

[A-Schwarzenegger]

25. That would be a step down from General of Europe.

[cestpaspossible]

28. Wouldn't it be a step up from what he's doing now?

Which is what, exactly? I remember him saying he was going to work in the 'private sector'.... does he have a job? What is it?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

33. "General of Europe."

Once a person has an office, they are known for that
until they die or until they get a higher office. In
this case it would be President. I don't believe there
is a "General of the World."

[cestpaspossible]

35. Why will no one answer this question? Does Clark have a job?

What is it? I don't understand why this question is so impossible to answer, considering how committed his followers are, you would think one of them could answer this simple question.

How does Clark earn his living?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

37. How many people have you asked? If you care that much,

you should call him up and ask him.
Do you want his phone number? Home, office or cell?

[cestpaspossible]

38. You for one. Do you know the answer? Is it really irrelevant?

I mean, people are saying he should be President of the United States. Is it really some off-the-wall question to ask how a potential Presidential candidate earns his living?

I'm starting to suspect the answer is embarassing in some way, otherwise, why would I receive evasive answers like yours?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

42. I have this feeling you don't like General Clark very much.

Perhaps that's why they won't let you get close enough
to him to talk to him. If you want to meet him so much,
you should try to act calmer when you talk about him, and
then maybe his followers will introduce you to him. You can't
just pop up out of nowhere and get overbaring about getting a
audience with the General of Europe. Count to ten, breathe
from your chi, and then start over a little more composed.

[cestpaspossible]

43. It's not about me. It's about Clark. Does he have a job? What is it?

And is it really a better job than being Governor of Arkansas?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

47. It's ALL about you. General Clark doesn't care what your job is.

But if he did he would find out in about a minute.
He wouldn't be stamping his foot and pouting about
it like ***. Cestpaspossible for you to do a little research
and find out instead of demanding other people bring you the
data like a bowl of porridge for itsy? Cestpaspossible google?

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

54. High-level US group to monitor UN work

High-level US group to monitor UN work
2 hours, 36 minutes ago Politics - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two influential former congressional leaders were named to lead a new Washington group to study the UN's effectiveness and reform efforts.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives, and George Mitchell, former Democrat Senate leader, will lead the task force on UN reform created by the US Institute of Peace, a government organization dedicated to studying international conflict.

The task force will also include a number of business executives, retired diplomats and former military leaders, including General Wesley Clark (news - web sites), the former NATO (news - web sites) commander who ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2004...."

The new WesPAC be sailin soon! ...and Wes be'sure to "Secure America's Future"
www.WesPAC2004.com

[cestpaspossible]

61. Interesting story, but it doesn't answer the question.

How does Clark earn his living? Surely you aren't trying to claim that this is how? Will he be paid for this? I was under the impression that Clark is not a wealthy man... am I wrong? Is he actually independently wealthy and doesn't need a source of income?

WHY IS THE QUESTION OF WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING SO HARD TO ANSWER? I don't get it.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

70. You could write WesPAC...

Contact info is on their website. Overall, WesPAC supports his mission to provide a means for Clark to address security issues through media or to support Democratic events across the country, like the details I provided you last week, regarding his fundraising efforts in Texas.

From my understanding he is also on several boards on "think-tank" issues, as well as Science and Technology. You'er presuming most people must make a living with a 9-5 job. But if you got unique skills and credentials and the brains, like Clark does, you work outside the box of a 9-5 job. In the past, I've read articles that palce him on several board in various companies, such as sports and hunting club. For example, he was director for wavecrest tech. http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark_electric.htm. not sure how much he's still involved, but these are not necessarily full-time jobs. These days his experience and credentials invites other consulting or technology-driven firms to contract his "expertise" on security, defense, and areas of science and technology, such as telecommunications.

It's unclear at this time whether all his appearances on cable news (www.u-wes-a.com) offers special speakers fees, as most experts charge these days; but certainly the DU is the LAST place you'll find the specific information that you're looking for. Heck, I'm not even sure or care what Gephardt, Edwards, and Sharpton are doing, unless you know these details...from DU. Up to this point, how was Dean obtaining his funds,...it's really a nonissue, imo, unless there's ulterior motive.....?

One thing for sure,...he's the only credible spokeman on National Security issues for the Democratic Party.

Issue closed. Contact WesPAC.

[saracat]

83. Jaysus. He is an economist with his own consulting firm in Little Rock.

[ArkySue]

108. Here's a couple of jobs

He is a partner in James Lee Witt Associates (google it). Also chairman of City Year Little Rock (google it).

[KathyBee]

141. General Clark's work

Just yesterday (2/9), for instance, General Clark, in his capacity as partner in James Lee Witt Associates, was a presenter at a conference hosted by in Charlotte devoted to improving communications between various emergency responders and to improving emergency preparedness.

The focus was North Carolina Emergency Preparedness Communications.

[ICantBelieve]

156. Have you lost your mind???

1) He's retired after 34 years of military service.
2) He's been on numerous boards. He made over $1 million in the private sector in 2003. His tax returns are posted on his 2004 campaign website.
3) He worked for CNN.
4) I believe the going rate for a retired SACEUR to speak at a function is $30,000.
5) He lives in a relatively modest house.

[ArkySue]

120. Yeah

The pay for Governor of Arkansas sucks. $40K I think. And a free house to live in.

[ultraist]

121. Welcome ArkySue!

:hi:

40k? Wow! That really sucks, that's worse than NC. Most governors don't' take the job for the money though, they take it to be public servants. I believe a Senator's pay is only around 70k.

Public servants don't earn much, they make their money elsewhere. Public service is not about the money.

[in_cog_ni_to]

170. GOOGLE is your friend. Use it.

Why should we help you with info? Find it yourself.

[Quixote1818]

74. He does all kinds of things

Take a look at this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html

He is probably doing many of the same kinds of things including working for CNN.

[julialnyc]

155. here's yesterday's news talking about what Clark was doing

and that is just one days worth of news
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1300350.htm

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=News&storyid=107483

http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/local_news/?AC=&ArID=86297&SecID=2


(and these aren't the only things he does)

[ChiciB1]

40. Now There's The Ticket!

Maybe this is why I've been reticent about Clark. He needs more political exposure and there were those funny rumors that he had been a Republican for some time. I think the end result was that he was an Independent. Even so, as a Dem... I want someone who has been solidly Democratic for a given length of time. I suppose that sounds trite, but I think that's what has held me back from giving him my support.

He has sounded pretty Democratic of late... but I was a military "brat" and always swore I wouldn't marry a man in uniform. Chalk it up to that MILITARY thing. I saw many military families who seemed "perfect" on the outside, but given a closer look you may find abuse and neglect. My upbringing wasn't abusive, but it sure was MILITARY!

[Clark2008]

51. Why?

Seriously, why does it matter if he had been "solidly" a Dem for awhile.

I wasn't "solidly" a Dem until Shrub. I still voted for some Republicans, locally, as a matter of fact (traditional Republicans, not those weird neo-con-Nazi-fire-breathing-hypocritical-religious type).

But, Clark brings into the party what a lot of you are missing - honesty. He honestly was an Independent and he honestly saw where the parties were going and he honestly picked one. Period.

That's what I did. That's what A TON of NEW voters do, dearies.

Clark would give them confidence and acceptance. Get it?

Oh, and stop alleging that Clark beat his kid, OK (which it sounds to me like you're doing.) Wes Jr. is on this blog. HE and only HE ALONE can comment on their family life.

[ChiciB1]

148. Oh My Heavens....

I wasn't saying CLARK beat his kids!!! I have NO evidence of that. I was simply reflecting on MY experiences regarding the military and the obvious misconceptions that some may have about it's pristine imagine being touted TODAY!

It's Just Not So! Or at least... it wasn't when my father was a Sgt/Maj. in the Army. Granted he was NO Officer, however I CAN recall tales told to me and my 5 sisters about how he had to discipline his men because of ABUSE! And this was back when ABUSE was on the "back-burner!"

Having said that, I'm so glad to hear you had the good sense to see The Boy King Idiot for what he is and... WELCOME, WELCOME, I'm so glad you're here.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I was out of town and unable to be at D.U. which I always miss.

[Adelante]

110. He was an Independent

while in military service and because he grew up in Arkansas, where 96% of voters were independent of a political party. He decided to choose a party after retirement and he chose to be a Democrat. He voted Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry.

Presidents Carter and Clinton both encouraged his run for the Democratic nomination, along with several Democrats in Congress. He promoted Dem principles such as affirmative action in the military and even joined an amicus brief, while still in the military, for affirmative action in Michigan. He ran a winning war for a Dem president. His father was a Dem leader in Chicago ward politics, just saying.

Those funny rumors are nothing but politics as usual.

There has been much testimony from people who served under Wes Clark that he and Gert both were devoted to rooting out domestic abuse in the military. He only has one child, and according to him, his upbringing was not abusive, not neglected. We can only take his word for it, but Wes Jr. seems devoted to his parents.

[ChiciB1]

149. Please Read My Reply...

It was not Wes Clark that I was accusing. I was just ruminating on my reticence. I personally pretty LIBERAL (some don't like name tags) and have been a Democrat for many many years. I think I said I was a "Boomer" AND a Hippie (oh, My), but John Edwards gets my vote.

Maybe it could be Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards! I rule nothing out! I just want my Party back, and I want America to know what we REALLY stand for. Not the wishy-washy crap of The Idiot's & the Rovians!

Hey, I remain a Democrat when others here are ready to JUMP SHIP!!

And I really happy to see HOWARD DEAN front & center again. I think many will be surprised by what he will accomplish!!

[ZootSuitGringo]

89. Well that's sound like your opinion, man.

I don't see why Clark "has to do" anything. It's really up to the voters. You've got this pre-requisite, and that's you. I have read some stuff about the General that let's me know that he's got the the right stuff. More than the others I have seen so far. Being a professional politician is not very reassuring to me.

[ultraist]

122. Welcome zootsuitgringo!

You are correct in saying, that Clark's jobs in the private sector don't really mean anything as far as political experience. I've read he has been very successful in the private sector. But most voters are interested in hearing about a candidate's work in the private sector, I mean, what if Clark had worked for Enron or Haliburton? (Which we know he didn't). What companies does he work for?

[leesa]

100. Don't need any more military people around. Put him in the DOD.

Clark is more Republican than Dem, why do we want to go there?

[ultraist]

119. I'm not a Clarkie, but he's not a Repuke

I will say that it's interesting that every time a Clark poll comes up, LOTS of low # posters show up to defend him, but I wont go into Clarking polls because I've seen the flame wars here over that subject.

I will say however, Clark is NOT a Repuke. He is a populist and leans liberal. He does work for several private corps though. Not sure what these companies are, but it does seem odd that the Clarkies wont mention what companies that he is or has been involved in, in the private sector.

Clark is a war expert and is extraordinarily intelligent in such matters.

[ICantBelieve]

157. Why don't you do some research??

You really should look into matters before you mouth off about them and demonstrate your complete ignorance. Of the 10 Dems in the primary last year, only Kucinich and Sharpton were more liberal than Clark. Learn something or shut your f'ing mouth.

[Demeter]

109. Chutzpah, Maybe. Balls, NO

While the General's arrogance will rank first among his peers, his balls are sadly lacking. He took no risks; drew no lines in the sand, defended no position that the DDemocrat party holds as a matter of principle.

[ICantBelieve]

158. Again, mouthing off with no data...

What are you talking about? Show something he didn't stand up for!!

Why do you think he was so unpopular with Shelton? What do you think he was DOING in Kosovo?

Who the HELL do you think was running around during the primaries while Kerry was mealy mouthing "what war???" yelling about how Iraq was wrong and "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

Who the HELL do you think testified that we DIDN'T need to go to Iraq in 2002?

Who the HELL announced and was then criticized for saying that Bush didn't do all that could have been done to prevent 9/11 (before Richard Clarke came out)???

You people don't like him because he's a general. Make up stupid lies all you want, twist the facts all you want, the truth comes through loud and clear.

[leesa]

98. Agreed. She is clear and brave.

[4_Legs_Good]

8. I would vote for her, but I'd prefer just about anyone on the list

[cobaindrain]

9. Bayh/Corzine or Edwards/Corzine in 2008

[ginnyinWI]

10. first I want to see

President Kerry take his rightful place in the White House.

[dmkinsey]

12. Senators not good presidential choice

and Hillary would motivate Republicans more than she would motivate Dems.
Republicans have a white hot hatred of Hillary and would come out in droves to vote against her

[LittleClarkie]

16. Name one of our people they don't have a hot hatred for

I tried the other day, but it seems they've cartoonized most of them that are already in the limelight, and they're starting in on Boxer and Reid even as we speak.

It's either hate, or dirision, or both.

[ChiciB1]

153. Just Signed Up With You

at the Kerry Site. The picture you have presented really caught my eye and made me a little sad. I have been a Kerry supporter for many years and it has broken my heart that he isn't at the WH today!

I'm one of those who happens to STILL feel the election was rigged and I suppose I will until someone can show me differently. I was privileged to shake his hank the Sunday before the election and look into his eyes. No matter the vitriol posted here at DU, he DOES have HEART and it beats for America!!

Unfortunately, I fear much damage has been done, and I also have reservations as to whether the damage can be overcome! I won't count him out though, but don't feel he'll ever be our Presidential nominee again.

Also, since I live on the East Coast... where do YOU live that you are 1 hour later than I????

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Agree. Need someone with no record for them to pick at.

That sounds horrible, but it's true.

[Zhade]

133. She'd motivate me!

Motivate me to vote third-party, that is.

[benddem]

13. I love Hillary but

the wingnuts would have a field day. I don't think I could stand it.

[ZootSuitGringo]

14. I say Gen. Wes Clark

If he wants Hillary as his VP, and she's ok with that, then OK.

[borg5575]

130. No way

General Clark is not for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

[borg5575]

131. More thoughts

Boxer is much more liberal than Hillary is and I would rather support Boxer. And I don't trust Clark since he voted for Reagan.

How in the name of God could we support anyone who voted for Reagan? That's like voting for the Antichrist for Christ's sake.

[ICantBelieve]

159. And who is?

[independentchristian]

15. If the Democrats and the media coronate her

screw '08.

[LiberalVoice]

60. I'm leaving the fucking country if they nominate her.

I won't stick around to watch us lose...

[jen4clark]

18. I will endlessly work for fair elections and

hopefully be able to vote for Clark. I believe Hillary is smart enough to know she couldn't win, and I believe she loves what she's doing now.

[ultraist]

123. Welcome jen4clark!

:hi:

[jen4clark]

163. You're a sweethert. Thank you! n/t

[robbedvoter]

20. Clark. Hillary endorsed fraud on January 6.

People like that, you can count on one thing: win or lose, they'll concede.

[ultraist]

21. Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Boxer or Edwards/Obama

Hillary's voting record is TOO MODERATE. NO MORE REPUKE LITE!

Not to mention, a woman at the top of the ticket is sure to lose. Even Democrats in many areas of the country are sexist. I just don't see Hillary being capable of winning the votes of Rural Ohio farmers or union plumbers in Iowa.

[lojasmo]

46. Edwards' voting record is THE SAME as Clinton's record. EOM

[ultraist]

58. No, Edwards has a much more liberal rating than does Hillary.

In fact, Edwards' record is closer to Kerry's than it is Hillary's. It was even mentioned again today on the CNN show where they lined up Kerry, Edwards and Hillary for possible presidential runs.

Edwards was rated fourth most liberal Senator.

[lojasmo]

114. Give it a rest.

Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards ALL voted Yes in IWR, Patriot act, and NCLB. I'll never vote for ANY of them.

Clinton:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
# Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Edwards:
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 15% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 40% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

Kerry:

Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 20% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)

[elsiesummers]

81. Edwards is Liberal - that's why Repubs hate him.

I'm a huge Edwards fan but I'm not ready to commit to supporting him in 2008.

I worry that he is the sort that Republicans hate like they hated Bill Clinton - and I wonder about the consequences of that choice.

It's too early and is the time to inspect all the choices carefully.

[ultraist]

118. That's right, Edwards is a liberal leaning populist

So is Clark, although most rating groups show Clark as ever so slightly less liberal. Probably because Clark does not have a voting record to go by.

Edwards was ranked as the fourth most liberal Senator last term. It was ALL OVER THE NEWS and the Repukes used it against him.

Hillary has become a centrist like Lieberman.

[robbedvoter]

117. Actually, Hillary didn't CO-SPONSOR IWR

http://www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq...
I'm here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored.

[ultraist]

127. Clark did, he had the same position as Kerry

Hillary voted against the Iraq war?

[Crunchy Frog]

167. And what position did Clark have

oh wise one? For that matter, what position did Kerry have? I never quite managed to figure that one out. I do know that Edwards was completely in favor of the unprovoked invasion, even in the proven absence of WMDs.

[ICantBelieve]

168. :) Yes, Clark's position was a wise one

Any one with any doubts can check out his testimony.

[MrSlayer]

22. An emphatic Hell No!

It would be a disaster for the party. She would be crushed.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

26. Gallop will say anything in USA Today,..and their beloved NeoContry

With the blunt end of a sword, smack your head,.... gently,
....then ask if 7 out of your 10 friends, ...who I'll presume are DEMS, ....would support HC in '08.

Respect and support on issues is another issue, ...but presidential support? Even I'd have to duck their SMaCk.

[NoPasaran]

31. I do not have a candidate for 2008 at this point

But Senator Clinton is unlikely to be my choice.

[elsiesummers]

80. I agree - way too early to pick a candidate.

I'm not ready to rule any candidate in or out.

All of these polls should list undecided or too early to decide as a choice.

I'm hoping that one of the more pragmatic candidates may also prove a surprise in stumping ability. I'm waiting to be impressed.

I don't know how anyone can pick a horse at this point. It's too early to know how the candidates are going to do on the trail - to know who is going to put together the most cohesive campaign and message.

My favorite candidates, Edwards and Biden, are unlikely to bring as many electoral votes as a more pragmatic (on paper) choice like Bayh or Richardson. So I have to wonder if the choice should be about electoral math or about the unmeasurable charisma, which worked so well for Bill Clinton - really pushed him over the top.

So I'm really at a loss.

As for Hillary - I can't figure out if her notoriety is a bonus or a negative. I didn't like the recent abortion speech in Albany - her saying every abortion is "a tragedy" really bugged me. I thought she crossed the line.

I think Hillary is far and away the most likely nominee (placing a bet) - so with that in mind - I will avoid saying anything too negative about her since I will likely end up supporting her in the GE.

[ChiciB1]

34. I Don't Understand The Support

for Hillary. IMO we are just asking for it if she gets nominated. I can certainly respect her accomplishments, however lets just let her be a Senator!

I'm for EDWARDS! I see Clark is leading in this poll, but I've never warmed to him. No specific reason, but I just get a funny feeling about him. And it's nothing I can really explain. Call it women's intuition maybe?????

[Crunchy Frog]

69. I know what you mean,

I'm kind of the same way about Edwards.

[DemGirl7]

36. I like Hillary...but I don't really support her as presidential candidate

I would probably vote for if she was the candidate, like I support her as my Senator, even though I'm somewhat disappointed in her...but I would prefer it to be someone else, plus I really don't think Senators make the best candidates, and those who represent Northern states where there is more of a liberal vibe to them than other areas of the country.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Gallup has Clinton at 40%, Kerry at 25% and Edwards at 17%.

Where do you get the 70% figure?

[saracat]

85. CNN said it. Probably a lie.

[flpoljunkie]

96. You did not answer. Where did you get the 70% figure.

These numbers from CNN/Gallup are correct.

[saracat]

138. Cnn announcer.

[housewolf]

44. Too soon to decide...

Basically, I am hoping someone who is not from the Senate comes forward as a strong leader.

It's real tough for senators to get elected to the presidency - in our entire history, only 2 senators have ever been elected directly into the presidency from the senate. A few others moved from the senate to other positions (like VP) and then elected president, but few. It's real tough for senators to even win their party's nomination...

Soooo.... the odds are against a Dem senator being elected to the presidency. Not impossible, but not good odds.

I'm on the look-out for someone from another venue to come forward.

[Liberal_Andy]

48. Edwards, a southern moderate, like it or not, is our best chance

too many people would NEVER vote for Hillary, just like they didn't for Kerry.

[lojasmo]

49. I won't vote for Clinton. EOM

[zann725]

91. Neither would I! EOM

n/t

[ABaker]

52. I say

I rather she be the vice presidential candidate. Her advantages:

She is an excellent fund raiser

She knows how the "system" works

Putting her on the ticket would show the rest of the world we're serious and sincere about working with them to solve the world problems because they respect her

[LiberalVoice]

56. And how many people in the woirld get to vote in our elections?

The bottom line is the repugs will tear her to pieces. They hate her too much and their base hates her enough not to vote for her no matter who she is running with. Give it up. She doesn't have a chance of winning.

[stevebreeze]

55. Hillery is not very progressive though she would be treated as so

If we are going to take heat for nominating a liberal anyway, we might as well have a liberal nominee.

[sellitman]

57. I want Boxer

I wonder why she wasn't included? :wtf:

[bling bling]

62. I can't think of a single candidate that would piss off the Repubs more

That would make me very, very happy. And having a woman president would be a dream come true for me.

My personal choices would be Boxer or Obama. But I would support Hillary 100% if she ran.

[fujiyama]

63. The question I have for anyone

is what red state would she turn blue?

I can see plenty of blue states that would turn red. I seriously doubt she'd win PA, WI, NH, and MI. She'd be lucky to win NJ.

Nominating Hillary would be suicidal.

[Synnical]

64. Al Gore?

[BigMatto]

79. Sure... if...

he can choose whether he wants to be a centrist who agrees with GWB (2000 debates, he agreed with Bush more than he disagreed) or challenge Howard Dean to a screaming match at Wrestlemania (HE BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!! HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!! vs YYYYYYYYYYEEEAAARGHHHHHHH!!!)...

I'd never vote for Gore. As a musician and a fan of heavy metal I will never forgive him for allowing his wife to give governmental credibility to the PMRC.

[Synnical]

146. Allowing his wife?

I just cannot allow this to pass without comment.

I totally agree that Tipper was out of line and that was one of the reasons I didn't initially support Gore - and I didn't vote for him - but your comment is just wrong. (I traded my vote with someone else and essentially voted for Nader in 2000.)

She has a mind, and Al doesn't control her.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

65. BBV means we can't vote. Half the country HATES any Clinton.

Just the fact that eight years of Clinton-hating would mean ugliness is a good reason to let her stay a senator.

[frankly_fedup2]

66. Until somebody sets up a unified voting system that can be trusted and ...

tested and have a backup, there will never be another Democratic President. Remember, "It's not the one who votes, it's who counts the vote." (Thomas Jefferson or somebody???)

[Silverhair]

71. That quote belongs to Stalin.

It was actually, closer to: Who votes decides nothing. Who counts the votes decides everything.

[BlueInRed]

67. If we're going for electable

JIMO, I think she'd be the least electable on the list.

[elsiesummers]

82. Electable - I wonder

Disclaimer: Personally she is not my sort of candidate. She acts overly hawkish in order to accomdate (1) that she's woman and (2) Bill's (not true) reputation of gutting the military. I also dislike her recent centrist moves on choice.

Electability:

I think there will be Hillary haters turning out in droves to support the Republican - so Hillary will need huge support - enormous turnout in her favor, as well.

I think there will be Democratic mysogynists that won't vote Hillary.
(A male friend who is a strong Democrat told me he would never vote for a woman including Hillary - so go figure). Many men may be less vocal about this but still chose not to vote for a woman.

But there will be non-voters who will vote for Hillary because of her notoriety. A girl friend of mine, back in maybe 2003 asked me when Hillary was going to run because that was when she was going to vote. You can't discount the power of fame that a candidate such as Hillary, or Schwartzeneger, or Oprah, would bring to the table.

Also had a nonpolitical male Repubican voter (friend) tell my husband and I that he would vote for Hillary if she ran because she's smart and he thinks she would be a good president.

You just never know. I think Hillary would produce interesting and unusual turnout.

[BlueInRed]

115. I know a lot of people who wouldn't vote for her

but would vote for other democrats. I tried not to say much beyond that, but the other posters hit all the points. IMO she could not be elected and if we choose her, we are just throwing the election away. I don't want to do that.

[stackhouse]

68. wes clark rocks...

SCREW HILLARY!!!!

[Silverhair]

72. Hillary will be a disaster if she get the nomination in 08.

All I see in her is pure personal ambition, and a willingness to say and do anything to get in. Look how she is trying so hard to move to the right, and the right will NEVER trust her.

[no name no slogan]

73. WTF with all the Clark envy lately?!?!?!?

Cripes, it's like there's a fscking time machine back to last year here in GD:P.

The 2008 candidate, like it or not, will NOT be Gen. Clark, or Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton, and DEFINATELY not John Edwards or John Kerry. These people all have the stink of failure about them (even Hillary), and will be easy targets for the Republican whoremongering machine.

Our next presidential candidate will be a moderately liberal midwesterner who is probably an ex-Governor, or a 2+ term Senator. In order to win in red states, s/he will have an impeccable record on both farm/rural policy as well as social issues.

S/He will not be overly indepted to Big Wall Street Money, yet will have a message that appeals directly to people. This person will have no problem relating to both the populist Main Street voter and the latte-sipping liberals of the big cities and the beltway.

And this candidate will win, big-time, too.

[ZootSuitGringo]

90. Don't let any of this upset you.

Others just seem to have a different opinion from your own. Are you cool with that, or is going to be a real problem for you?

[BigMatto]

75. Clark is utterly unelectable.

Wes Clark, though a decent man and a great soldier, would simply be torn to shreds by the GOP. Actually, what is left of him would be torn to even tinier shreds if he gets through the primaries. And trust me, if Hillary is running against him for the nod, he stands no chance.

Hillary has the best chance of winning, so if winning is what matters, then Hillary is the ticket. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with broken pencil shafts than listen to another Kerry campaign, though.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

76. Aiye,... thens I won't trust ya...

en' I'd trust me'bad eye on this one too...

[BigMatto]

77. Er... OK... I guess.

Pirate speak is hard to translate.

[ICantBelieve]

169. What evidence do you have for that?

For any of that? That Clark is unelectable? That Hillary has the best chance of winning? I hate to break this to you, but the electorate is not dominated by AAR fans.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

78. Hillary has become dangerous for the Democratic Party--- has to be stopped

My attitude toward her has shifted from unabashed admiration just a few years ago, to concern, to suspicion, to outright contempt. I simply cannot believe the contortions she's undertaken to make herself appear more "centrist", betraying almost everything the party has worked for over decades and selling us out. She doesn't care about the Dems or about the US. She just wants to use the resources of the party to fuel her own ambition-- values and fair policies don't matter-- that's become abundantly evident.

Hillary Clinton is in large part responsible for this current awful mess in Iraq. She, and she alone, had the power in Congress over 2 years ago to speak up and put the brakes on our blundering course into Iraq, and what did she do? Betrayed her (and our) principles to slavishly kiss up to Bush and the neocons, and get us into this disaster. All the fiascos into which our country has since been drawn, are partly on her hands. I could've (maybe eventually) forgiven her for that transgression alone, but then came all her ridiculous bloviation about being a Christian conservative. (Does anyone on this side of the Milky Way believe her on that? What constituency is she pandering to? She looks like a damn fool.) Then came her fulsome support for that atrocious bankruptcy bill that kisses the ass of major corporations while screwing over poor individual Americans with the misfortune of catching a bad break. Then her pandering support not only of Condi Rice but Tomas Torquemada Gonzales. I can't stand the sight of Hillary anymore-- I've never felt so betrayed by a public figure before.

The media as usual royally fouls up the story. So-called "professional journalists" have now gotten it wrong yet again-- they've done it umpteen times on Iraq (all the usual suspects-- NYT, WaPo, CNN, USAToday, CBS and ABC), now they're doing it in the political arena. About the only thing they're good for anymore is investigative reporting and getting primary sources; as far as critical analysis goes, it's obvious they've OD'd on the Kool-Aid. This flatulent Gallup poll is little more than a name-recognition contest-- in previous years Joe Lieberman and Jesse Jackson were at these lofty heights prior to primary season. Were Hillary nominated, she'd not only get trounced and force our party into the political wilderness for decades-- she'd contort out party's philosophy so much that we won't even know what in the world we stand for anymore.

Don't let anyone in the media or in the blogs say that this has anything to do with "being progressive"-- Hillary is a reactionary in a progressive's clothing, and we'd be the dupes of the century to nominate her or even consider her as a running mate. This has nothing to do with the gender issue either-- there are plenty of solid, tough Democratic women these days who'd stay true to our principles and could actually kick some GOP ass in '08. I'm a massive Barbara Boxer fan now for obvious reasons; we should also keep in mind Blanche Lincoln (Southern, good crossover support), Patty Murray and Janet Napolitano, either to headline the ticket or work as a running mate. We'd be marching into yet another fiasco of unprecedented proportions by throwing our support to Hillary, who seems to sell us out more with every passing day and bill on the Senate floor.

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. Great post and welcome to DU

However, Hillary did vote against Torture Boy. I do agree that she's nothing but an opportunist, however. Something about her I just don't trust.

[googly]

84. Comparing Hillary to Clark is like comparing a diamond with charcoal

One is polished, and a finished product, which is Hillary.
Clark is like a piece of charcoal, the same chemistry as
diamonds, both Carbons, and both democrats, but Clark has
never been elected to anything. And he has a temper which
will not serve him well in the grind of presidential
campaign. Do I need to remind you of "I am a general he is
just a lieutenant" remark Clark made in reference to Kerry?

[FrenchieCat]

88. Yes, I remember the remark Clark made about Kerry,

It was made on Larry King, the night of the Iowa Primaries, in which Clark did not compete.

The other guest was Bob Dole. Yes, your reliable BOB Shit Starter Dole.

The conversation went like this....
posted a CNN transcript of a live exchange between Clark and Bob Dole. The New York Times followed up on this remark and added a clarification from Clark.

DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.

CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.

DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...

CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.

So tell me. Just where is the "dissing" of Kerry in Clark's comment?
Clark is making the point that his military experience is much more extensive than Kerry's. He's commanded men; he's commanded whole armies; he's negotiated with heads of state. Whatever the value of Kerry's military experience -- and nobody's denying it -- it is not on par with Clark's.

Kerry has chosen to mention his military experience at every possible opportunity. It seems perfectly legit to me for Clark to point out that he's done military things Kerry never dreamed of. Clark is just saying "we're both decorated veterans, but I stayed in the military, and have experience with commands of higher responsibility."

Which is true. Kerry did heroic things, but his leadership experience was at a fairly low level, ie, small groups under his command.

Clark did that level of command too, but also larger and more complicated (and varied) commands, which might be better preparation for the presidency than just commanding a river patrol boat in Vietnam.

Clark wasvastly more experienced, when it comes to the military and running large organizations.

Or was mentioning that off limits during the Primaries? And if so, why?

In reference to this "temper"...please show me some of that....

And yes, I want a kick ass President, who doesn't suffer fools easily.....don't you?

[googly]

132. I will enthusiastically support Clark only after he runs for

governor or senate or even house and gets elected.

[ICantBelieve]

161. Did you even see it??

I saw that remark. There was nothing to it. You are allowing Bob Dole to decide who should be your presidential nominee. Go ahead, fall right into the Republicans hands.

Clark does not have an out of control temper. Do you really think he could have kept 19 nations together during Kosovo if he couldn't handle his temper?

Did you SEE what Kerry did to Clark in New Hampshire--sending out lying filthy fliers? And what did Clark do? He turned right around and supported Kerry. He turned his life upside-down to support Kerry. He was doing 3 or 4 events a day for Kerry. I think he knows what the grind of a campaign is like.

[Guaranteed]

87. I'd really, really rather she wasn't. nt

[Romberry]

92. If Hillary is the nominee, we lose. Again.

No Hillary. I expect she will come to the same conclusion herself.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

93. She cannot win and will split the party because of personal ambition.

Personally I am impressed by some of her qualities but I could never support an unelectable candidate. 2008 is too important for the Democratic Party and America to trust to someone who is hated by a large segment of our country.

[CWebster]

94. No

as opposed to yes.

[DistressedAmerican]

95. She Is My Senator And Will Never Get My Vote Again For ANYTHING!

Her appeasement of the right is sickening.

Her dance to the middle is sickening.

She is not the candidate I voted for. Now that I have seen her in action, she never will be again.

I will be voting against ALL members of the appeasement wing of the party. Hey, Chuckie? Listening?
DA

[infusionman]

97. The Repukes

Wold be licking their chops at the opportunity to defeat Hiliary. She just has too much baggage to win.

[Mizmoon]

104. really? What can they do to her

that they haven't already done.

PS Rick Lazio looked like quite an asswipe when he went after her Republican style - it doesn't work as well on women as it does on men.

[CWebster]

113. Actually, it works better on women

Think about the corporate corruption across the board, and who was offered up to take the fall? Hillary's friend, Martha Stewart. Imprisoned for a pittance compared to what Bush himself is guilty of, and much much less than what his pals get away with on a daily basis, while destroying the pensions of the employees to boot.

[blondeatlast]

101. I don't support anyone right now. Period. My sights are on '06. nt

[Jacobin]

102. She's too friendly with the PNACers

She Just Loves all this middle east meddling. Not my candidate.

[IrateCitizen]

105. I'd vote 3rd party if she ran -- and she's my Senator

I've become utterly disgusted with her over her 4 years in the Senate. I had admiration for her as First Lady -- for her toughness in the face of the vast RW conspiracy, for her standing up on some important issues. But her record as Senator has been one largely of capitulation to the right and financial interests.

I would either vote 3rd party or not vote at all for President if she were the nominee in 2008. Flame away if you must.

[jen4clark]

164. I'm surprised

I was under the impression that NY'ers LOVED Hillary as their senator?

:shrug:

[hippiechick]

107. I admire Hillary but ... NEVER as a Presidential Candidate.

The wingers, phobes, knuckledraggers and just about everyone else will eat her alive.

[WI_DEM]

111. How about undecided on all counts?

[Deep13]

112. She's great, can't win

So where do Sn. Clinton's supporters think she is going to improve over 2004? You you think she will carry Ohio, FL or Iowa? I can't see it.

[LiberalVoice]

116. Well if DU is any indication...

more desm would vote a third party candidate rather then vote for Hillary. I can't say I blame them.

[Deep13]

125. I'd support her as nominee...

...and vote for her on election day. I would just be the only one doing so in my town. I would rather she did not end up as the nominee.

[Generator]

124. opposed-she won't win in any version of reality

I'm torn between not voting at all and third party. At least 3rd party has consistent principals and didn't marry their way into politics. Also, I don't want legacy by marriage or by birth. No more Clintons, Bush's or anybody directly connected to former President's. I think it should be a law. We need new blood, new ideas. That's what America should be-give more people a chance, but instead it's like every other country,blood trumps all next to MONEY.

Take the money and blood away. How about a new name? What makes some people feel "safe" name recognition makes me cringe. But then I think we should have a lottery for President with a few credentials as a pre-req, we could do as well as what we have now-no much better. God forbid anybody ever has an original thought in this country.

[HughBeaumont]

128. We would get our asses stomped THOUROUGHLY . . .

and everyone except the most idealistic of Dems get that. Only dickhead mouthpieces like Faux parade "Hilary '08" as if we're mentally disabled and can't see through their game.

PLEASE stop foisting hope for this DLC, pro-offshoring-jobs, pro-corporation, pro-Condosleeza, package-laden anchor. She would win not ONE red state, would convert Wisconsin and would never turn Ah-HIGH-ah or Fla-duh. It's not going to happen in a million years. Karl Goebbels, Roger Ailes and the rest of those fat queen's pit vipers have a War & Peace-sized BOOK of dirty tricks just waiting to be unsealed . . . it would make what they did to Kerry seem like a hand-smack.

[Ladyhawk]

129. I don't want Hillary, but I would vote for her if she were the only...

...viable choice in the general election. I wish California had a say in who wins the primaries. It's usually pretty much over by the time Super Tuesday rolls around...grrrrrr.

Even though I finally embraced Kerry, I realize now I only voted for him because he wasn't *Bush*. I suppose I'd do the same damn thing to get rid of a neocon.

[FreedomAngel82]

134. I do like Hillary but

I think she needs more senate experience before running. She has been there since 2000 right? If she does run and she makes it through the primaries I'd be happy to vote for her though.

[In Truth We Trust]

135. No too DLC for me. BTW, How democratic of you to not allow for a choice

which indicates someone other than who you list. A simple "other" would suffice.

[moggie12]

139. Five reasons she would get 30% of the vote in the general election

1) You think the GOP base was mobilized this past year??? Just run Hillary. They'll break all fund-raising records and the evangelicals and RW'ers will be crawling from their hospital beds to vote against her. Why, oh why, would we run someone with a 40% negative rating??!!!

2) Hillary set the universal health care effort back 30 years with that incredibly bureaucratic plan she and her policy wonks divised. All we'll see on TV throughout the campaign is shots of that Rube Goldberg-like chart they came up with.

3) She's not a Governor!! What has she ever managed or accomplished??? Other than #2, above, which was a disaster.

4) Remember Hillary's slap at stay-at-home moms? I foresee many GOP commercials with a cookie-baking mom who talks about how Hillary is too liberal for America.

5) The left doesn't like her because she's been tacking as hard as can to the right. The centrists don't like her because they know we're going to get creamed down South and in the Midwest with her. Who the heck wants her to run??


Didn't we learn with poor Kerry? Running Senators is murder. They can't point to concrete things they've done or a record of managing something. I like Hillary, but we will be committing electoral suicide if we choose her as our Presidential candidate.

[Padraig18]

140. Actually, Gallup said 40% did, not 70%. n/t

[seahawky]

143. Edwards 2008

[SpaceBuddy008]

150. photo of W. Clark in PNAC manual!

+ good dossier on the trained perception management agent

Clark and the Project for the New American Century
Friday, January 02 2004 03:55 PM PST

SEE PICTURE RIGHT OUT OF THE MANUAL
http://www.denniskucinich.us/article.php?story=20040102155547526




*****
The Awful Truth About General Wesley Clark
A Dissident Voice News Service Compilation
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Cla...

September 18, 2003
Updated: October 14, 2003 HIGHLIGHTS!

Clark Worked for Personal Data Firm: Acxiom Role Part of Airline Passenger Privacy Debate (posted 9/27) The Washington Post, September 27, 2003



Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government. Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents. Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom’s board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000. Clark’s consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security. . . . (read more)

*****
Wesley Clark Endorses Bush As 'Needed'
MichNews.com, September 26, 2003 (Full Text)
http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1153.shtml


Matt Drudge has done his homework. He's come up with Republican Wesley Clark. True.
Read it here from DRUDGE REPORT: http://drudgereport.com/clark.htm



"During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: 'And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.'"

Photo: (August 27, 1994) Lt. General Wesley Clark meets and exchanges hats with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic. Clark accepted as gifts from Mladic a hat, bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed in Cyrrilic. A US official complained of Clark’s unauthorized visit: “It's like cavorting with Hermann Goering.”



Confrontation over Pristina airport (From 2000, about how Clark almost ignited a war between the US and Russia during the Kosovo War), BBC, March 9, 2000



But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander. "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange…. (read more)



The Fire Last Time: Wesley Clark and Waco

by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, CounterPunch, June 1999



On February 28, 1993 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms launched its disastrous and lethal raid on the Branch Dividian compound outside Waco, Texas. Even before the raid, members of the US Armed Forces, many of them in civilian dress, were around the compound. In the wake of the Feb 28 debacle Texas governor Anne Richards asked to consult with knowledgeable military personnel. Her request went to the US Army base at Fort Hood, where the commanding officer of the US Army's III corps referred her to the Cavalry Division of the III Corps, whose commander at the time was Wesley Clark. Subsequent congressional enquiry records that Richards met with Wesley Clark's number two, the assistant division commander, who advised her on military equipment that might be used in a subsequent raid. Clark's man, at Richard's request, also met with the head of the Texas National Guard. . . . Ultimately tanks from Fort Hood were used in the final catastrophic assault on the Branch Davidian compound on April 19. Certainly the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark: the eagerness to take out the leader (viz., the Clark-ordered bombing of Milosevich's private residence); the utter disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children; the arrogant miscalculations about the effects of force; disregard for law, whether of the Posse Comitatus Act governing military actions within the United States or, abroad, the purview of the Nuremberg laws on war crimes and attacks on civilians…. (read more)




Other Resources: The Progressive Review’s Wesley Clark Archive search www.prorev.com +

see= http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm
*****
Clark's True Colors
by Matt Taibbi





Not Wesley Clark. His eyes are blank. Like a turtle resting on a rock in the middle of a pond, he simply seems never to move, no matter how long you stare. But then, just as you're about to pack up your picnic basket and go home, you catch him: His head pops out, and he slides off into the water...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=taibbi

I went the extra mile to cover Clark, even parting with a significant amount of my valuable time on this earth to volunteer, under an assumed name, for his campaign. Desperate measures were required, because solving the Clark puzzle is a desperate problem. It is not easy to explain how a man who voted for Reagan and Nixon, was a speechwriter for Al Haig, worked in the Ford White House alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam War could become a darling of the liberal antiwar crowd. Thirty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of people took angrily to the streets, universities were taken over and a sitting President was hounded from the White House because of people like Wesley Clark.

He nodded. "Well, uh, we're glad to have you."

For this second meet-up, I'd upped the ante, showing up with a friend: She and I were both wearing cervical collars and walking with the stiff posture of personal-injury plaintiffs. I explained to Rubin that I'd been kicked by a donkey, while "Anne" had been thrown off by one. "Wow, that's tough," he said. "But thanks for coming, in that condition."

Dave Yoken, Rubin's former classmate at Brandeis and another Draft Clark veteran, took it more in stride. "Hey, at least it wasn't an elephant," he cracked.

Yoken is quite a character. Brash, loud and energetic, he looks like he came from the same gene pool as Matt Damon, only with some nutrition supplements and a few motivational seminars thrown in. When I asked him how the campaign was going, he gave me a great answer.

"Well, I'll tell you," he said. "We've got the 23-28 white male vote sewn up. I mean, we have that absolutely whipped." He cast a hand around the room: a sea of fleshy males. "But we've got to branch out."

I suggested, sarcastically, that he play up the general's sex appeal. Yoken jumped on the theme, telling me a story about meeting Clark in Knoxville early in the Draft Clark period. "He showed me a picture of himself in a T-shirt," he said. "He's really a ripped guy; his arms were showing. He called that his 'drool shirt.' So I think there's something there."

He laughed and almost slapped my back for emphasis, but remembered my neck injury and held up just in time.

Shortly afterward, Rubin came over again. Thirty-five minutes later, he'd thought of something to say. "Hey, at least it wasn't an elephant," he cracked.

The meeting wore on. It was an amazing experience. Here, ostensibly, were two porn-industry professionals, dressed in identically preposterous cervical collars, attending an organizational meeting for a straitlaced four-star general--and no one so much as blinked.

This is not so surprising, however, because paying close attention is not really what the Clark campaign is about. In fact, it's very much about the opposite: squinting your eyes, blurring out the margins and focusing on the one main goal on the horizon--beating George Bush. In my time around the campaign I got the sense that this "blurring out" is central to the thinking of the Clark supporter--a desire to dispense with the moral nitpicking of the post-1960s era and get behind the man for the Big Win.

information is free and the public owns it , a trust fund

renegade authorities and those who conceal, distort and poison it are not freedom producers & LibertyLovers

this was easily found

lets get real, the essence calls

Wesley Clark Vigorously Defends the US Army's 'School of Assassins ...
... CONCORD, NH -- Retired General Wesley K. Clark sometimes downplays ... he vigorously
defends: the controversial academy once known as the US Army School of the ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

School of the Americas Watch
... 234 3440. General Wesley Clark on Defensive on School of the Americas
(SOA/WHISC), Once Under His Command. WASHINGTON - January 20 ...
www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-03.htm

Wesley Clark on the Issues
... (Jul 2001). Wesley Clark on Homeland Security. ... (Jul 2004); Threat of terrorism has
been recognized since 1996. (Jan 2004); Supports School of the Americas. ...
www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

Wesley Clark on Homeland Security
... Wesley Clark is a big booster of the controversial "School of the Americas"-which
critics charge has history of graduating Latin American soldiers accused of ...
www.issues2000.org/2004/ Wesley_Clark_Homeland_Security.htm

*****
extREME FundamentaLIST reGIME guilty of false advertising

never touch a gun!





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

I believe the people will do more to promote Peace than governments,
and one of these days better get OUT OF THE WAY and let them have IT- many days AGO by Ike Eisenhower

There is one thing more powerful than all the armies in the world...,
and that is An Idea whose Time has Come-annie mouse

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. Unbelievable.

A photo yanked and highlighted devoid of any context, no explanation of where, what, when, or why Clark was standing there, or why certain parties thought that photo placement was appropriate or useful to their ends. For all we know it is a photo shop job though most likely it isn't. It is simply a photo printed completely without context, except for a scary name.

Here is some material I compiled about Clark and PNAC during the primaries:

"This is taken from a September 23rd 2003 article

"Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, “even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever”.

Ousting Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action, the general writes, dismissing it as a “Cold War approach”.

Clark criticises the plan to attack the seven states, saying it targeted the wrong countries, ignored the “real sources of terrorists”, and failed to achieve “the greater force of international law” that would bring wider global support.

He also condemns George Bush’s notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. “There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,” says Clark."

Found on Independent Media TV: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2654...


This is taken form a long thoughtful review of Clark's book "Winning Modern Wars". The review is on a Pro Clark Web site, but he reason they are Pro Clark includes his position vis a vis PNAC:

"Clark describes the decision by the Executive branch to escalate the war and concludes:

"And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns; it would attempt to make the strongest case possible in favor of its course, regardless of the nuances of the intelligence; and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations...."

"Clark spends time to detail some of the inside apparatus of policy making - taking the time to explain the importance of the quadrennial National Security Strategy of 2002 - before getting to his main thrust. Because Iraq was not organically connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 - the mission had to be sold as being a short strike to overthrow an imminent threat. This precluded an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of overthrowing Saddam, and therefore, when the invasion ended, and the occupation began - everyone was underprepared, including those who had backed the war policy. In order to convince the American people this was another "in and out" along the lines of Grenada, Panama, Haiti and the first Gulf War - the preparations for the occupation had to be minimal - lest they betray foreknowledge of the real cost. It smacks of Hitler failing to order winter uniforms for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR.

In tomorrow's entry will be on the remainder of Clark's argument, where Clark turns the corner - from accusing Bush of following long standing misguided dream by the far right wing in the form of the Project For A New American Century, and hence producing a failed policy, and an occupation which everyone denied until we were engaged in it - to a larger problem of America as an Empire."

Unfortunately I got that from an archive site and can't find part two of the review. Here is the link:
http://www.draftclark.com/archives/004406.shtml


Some more stuff, this from May 15th 2003 newpaper coverage of a talk by journalist Richard Dreyfuss:

"The image of the United States has changed in the eyes of the world,” Dreyfuss said. “We are no longer viewed as the beacon of democracy, but as the bully on the playground that picked on the weakest kid to beat up in order to intimidate others.

Dreyfuss is an award-winning independent journalist whose cover article in the April issue of American Prospect magazine, “Quicksand: Iraq is Just the Beginning,” was the title for the forum. His articles on national and foreign affairs appear routinely in The Nation, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and other publications...

In his American Prospect article, Dreyfuss wrote: “Six years ago, in its founding statement of principles, PNAC called for a radical change in U.S. foreign and defense policy, with a beefed-up military budget and a more muscular stance abroad, challenging hostile regimes and assuming `American global leadership.’” It was signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Gov. Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, among others. “The PNAC statement foreshadowed the outline of the president’s 2002 national security strategy,” he wrote.

The invasion of Iraq, as a component of this strategy, was not supported by many in the U.S. military, including Gen. Zinni and Gen. Wesley Clark, former head of the Allied Command, Dreyfuss noted, and top levels of the CIA, who knew there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor government ties to al Qaeda. terrorists."

The Link: http://www.fcnp.com/310/story4.htm


Finally I think parts of this article from a right wing Anti-Clark persspective was cited above in the thread somewhere, but here are some very relevent quotes from an article trying to make Clark out as a crack pot for EXPOSING the extent of PNAC influence. This from October 2, 2003:

"Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory"

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War...

... Relatively few American voters have even heard of the Project for a New American Century or remember the Committee on the Present Danger, so the flap is unlikely to sway many votes immediately. But if the interview contributes to a sense of General Clark as something of a loose cannon, that might have an effect on voters seeking a steady leader to guide the nation in the war against terrorism...

...A director of the Project for a New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, called General Clark’s comments “bizarre.”...

... “This is a guy who could barely win a war in Kosovo,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “Now Wesley Clark is running for president by running against a think tank?”

Here's that link: http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...


Oh by the way, here is a link to a great buzzflash interview with the co-author of "Hunting the President", Gene Lyons where he outlines the attack campaign the Republicans will use against Clark, among other things. This from October 22, 2003:

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear."
That link: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html


Shall I repeat the right wing smear against Clark for trying to expose PNAC? Yes, I think so: "General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War."

And what thanks does Clark get for his trouble? A smear thread against him as potentially pro-PNAC here on the Democratic Underground."

[Crunchy Frog]

152. The awful truth about Clark and mind control.

[ICantBelieve]

162. I must confess...

I was there when that photo was taken. He was saying:

You must support Kerry/Edwards... we must beat George W. Bush.. you must support Kerry/Edwards... We must send W back to Crawford... Get out your credit card... Send money to johnkerry.com.... Volunteer for Kerry/Edwards... Tell all your family and friends to contribute...

[Crunchy Frog]

166. How dare he!

The feindishness of it all.

[Adelante]

154. A new one

Welcome to DU, SpaceBuddy008!! :tinfoilhat:

[robbedvoter]

165. Paul Krugman also did consulting for Enron. Then exposed it.

Clark was THE ONE candidate exposing PNAC - so your liks are as irrelevant as Krugman's consultancy.

[last1standing]

171. Locking

This thread has become inflammatory.