Why is Wesley Clark so revered on DU, and Senator Clinton not?

[bozeman]

First off, they're friends. The Clintons urged Clark to get into politics. Second, Clark is a miltary man. Third, Clark is a centrist like Clinton. In fact, I think that on many issues like health care, Hillary is actually more in tune with the base. She certainly has a long history fighting for important issues.

[Pepperbelly]

1. i like both of them ...

and kerry and dean and kennedy and kucinich and landreau and ... u get the drift.

[Just Me]

117. Geez,...I thought the OP was tombstoned.

Is that poster still here?

Crazy!!!!

[MissB]

133. He is

tombstoned, that is.

[LSparkle]

2. Humility

I don't doubt his ulterior motives because he's a wise, quiet man. With her, I never know if she's for real because she's such a self-promoter.

[Jacobin]

3. Clark has been a pretty consistent critc of the decision to

illegally invade and occupy IraqNam.

Senator Clinton has been a pretty consistent supporter of IraqNam and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, after a visit there, stated that "the insurgents are losing". In my mind, she does not seem to be very closely connected with reality, but is quite closely connected to the PNAC agenda, and is at least an enabler of PNAC.

That does it for me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. And it breaks my heart to say it, but...

she comes across a bit too willing to compromise, though she has a long way to go to be as bad as Lieberman.

[paineinthearse]

143. Well said....I just wish to add that Hillary is a huge supporter of

India and is oblivious to the hemoraging of US jobs in that direction.

[seventythree]

146. absolutely!!!

"you can't legislate reality" WTF do we legislate,then, fantasy???

[seventythree]

145. me, too

[ZootSuitGringo]

5. I like Senator Clinton ok,

But it's about winning, and I don't like to be pushed by the media as to whom to support.

I feel pushed when it comes to Hillary, and I feel that the media goes out of it's way to ignore Clark. So on balance, I prefer the one that the media is not pushing, cause this push/non push happens for a reason, and the media has never been on my side.

Another factor is that Wes Clark is not a politician in the way that Hillary is. She's the ultimate insider; he's not.

60% say they would vote for a woman; which means 40% won't. That means that at least 85% of the 60% will have to vote for Hillary for her to win. I'm not betting on those odds.

There's a couple of wars going on out there, and war is hell. I'd rather support someone who has experienced war, has planned, led and won one, then a President's wife and Freshman senator.

Wes Clark looks better on Television than Hillary, IMO.

Everyone knows Hillary and many consider her decisive. Few know Wes Clark, but those that do consider him more attractive to moderate and conservative voters. The families of veterans may vote for Wes Clark, but I doubt that they would vote for Hillary. Different connotation.

Hillary brings with her the baggage of the Clinton White House scandals. Clark was not a part of the scandals.

We need a kickass Democrat that will question the Republicans' ability in defense issues and the value discussion. Clark can do this, and he could cut pentagon pork much more easily than Hillary.

Do you want more?

[bozeman]

9. Let me just say a few things

For starters many on here attack Senator Clinton win or lose. For them it's not about her winning or losing. It strikes me as an irrational fear, very similar to the type the freepers hold.

Second, Clark hasn't proven he can win any election. IMHO, he's a mirage. He should run for governor or senator and actually win a race before he runs for president.

[Mandate My Ass]

10. That flamefest you started this morning wasn't enough for you?

:hurts:

[bozeman]

12. Hey I didn't start it

[UdoKier]

26. Uh, yeah, you did.

And now you've deliberately started 2 more.

[HootieMcBoob]

11. The fact that he's not a "politician" is a big part of his appeal

It's not imporant that The President be a politician. He needs to be an experienced leader first and foremost. That's what Wesley Clark is.

[cidliz2004]

14. Mirage??? Do you live in a desert?

Clark has spent over 30+ years serving this country and trading riches for true "service to country". If that is a "Mirage", we'd better off with many many more of them.

[ZootSuitGringo]

16. To answer your reply,

I gave you my reasons for the question you posed. I don't know about others, cause I don't follow things that closely as to what has been posted about Hillary Clinton that much. Lord knows I hear more than enough about her through the Corporate media.

Clark is a proven leader. That's what I think this country needs. Fuck politicians! Look at what they have done (on both sides of the aisles) in the last few years.

General Clark is not a mirage, he is the epitome of the American Dream, and would be very useful in resuscitating that dream of Americans right about now.

Proven Democratic politicians that have won elections in the past have not being winning presidential elections lately, so I don't know how this becomes a pre-requisite to running.

I know that General Clark has proven that he can wage a war and win it, and that is what the 2008 election will be.

[UdoKier]

23. Clark would be formidable opponent if got the nomination and you know it

That really scares you, huh?

[bozeman]

24. take off the tinfoil

it's getting ridiculous...

[UdoKier]

25. Tinfoil?

I don't need tinfoil to see what's hiding under the bridge.

[bozeman]

28. no doubt

I think Clinton would make an effective candidate. You chose to read into that sentiment all kinds of sinister things, like I'm part of some conspiracy. That's called wearing the tinfoil.

[Stand and Fight]

30. Nothing is ridiculous except the content of your messages today.

You have made posts that have turned into flame wars several times, and this thread is yet another example of that. You either need think the content of your posts out or word them better, because it seems to me that you are not applying any amount of fore-thought... If that is the case...

[bozeman]

35. I've said nothing that isn't mainstream Democratic thought

I support Israel (even if I'm not happy with the current government). I think Hillary would make an effective candidate. Those are not ridiculous opinions.

The fact that those simple sentiments caused others to go on a flame fest says a whole hell of a lot.

The Senator pisses of all the right people as far as I'm concerned.

I can understand those who oppose her because they think she can't win. I don't agree with it, but at least I can understand it. The kneejerk hostility some on here exhibit towards her I find puzzling.

[UdoKier]

38. DU is not a mainstream dem site, especially if you consider Joementum

and his ilk to be "mainstream democrats".

DU is expressly a progressive site. Moderates are welcome and there are plenty here, but your tone is distinctly different from theirs.

[Stand and Fight]

39. I don't think these responses are knee jerk at all.

They are commenting on her record, her character... She is not an individual who has just arrived on the scene, and those who do not like her base that opinion on THEIR observations of her behavior. That DOES NOT make them conspiracy theorist. That DOES NOT make them "knee-jerkers." It simply makes them people who have a very strong opinion based upon Hillary Clinton's record in the Senate -- not on rumors, lies, or conspiracy theories as you so wrongly suggest. Might I add that it is you who are having knee-jerk reactions, as those who have laid out their case against Hillary have done so factually and in depth, while you have yet to lay out a clear reason(s) as to exactly why you so ardently support someone who voted for going to war in Iraq and obviously would not change her vote, is known as being a divisive figure who will unite the Republicans with more vitriol than we saw in the last fiasco of an election... I challenge you to make an orderly case for Clinton rather than labeling those who don't agree with you as conspiracy theorist, for in your use of labels you are asking to be called any amount of derogatory terms -- be it FReeper, troll, disruptor, etc. Present your case logically and be respectful of others and you won't have to throw around simple minded labels like "conspiracy theorist," which in reality make no sense. See my post below. 'Nuff said.

[MissB]

41. Search by author. (nt)

[Stand and Fight]

43. What does that mean?

I've been reading the posts all day. THEY ARE NOT KNEEE JERK -- OKAY! I'be monitored and read the site, and if you think those posts are knee jerk than you're in dire need of a wake-up call.

[MissB]

45. Pm's.

As in... check 'em.

[Stand and Fight]

47. What are you talking about?

You are not clear in getting your point across -- whatever that may be.

[MissB]

48. Check your PMs, please

I sent you a message.

[Stand and Fight]

50. Thanks... That I understand.

Sorry, I just was not sure what you were saying by "Pm's".

[MissB]

51. Well, considering I'm a woman, I could've meant

PMS. :crazy:

[Stand and Fight]

52. No problem. I got your drift...

Too much testosterone on my part maybe? :shrug:

[bozeman]

42. I guess you'll have to look through the other threads

There is a contingent of posters who seem to almost revile her. They say she's part of the BFEE, PNAC, and call her a right winger.

"She was first lady to a president who was further to the right than Nixon. She is a right-winger."

[Stand and Fight]

44. I've been reading the other threads all day.

That's not knee-jerk! That is their opinion. It's not conspiracy theory in the connotation that you use the term. That is their opinion. However wrong or right those opinions may be is of no consequence so long as they are based on factual information. You have yet to outline why you think Hillary Clinton is so "right" despite her voting record, her divisiveness, and the way she has consistently been not "moderate," but very much seems to roost in the right wing.

[bozeman]

49. The mention of the Senator

immediately draws responses like that. That's knee jerk. Yes it's an opinion, but offered in a knee jerk fashion.

That being said - the opinion is so wrong it's comical. It's fucking laughable.

[Stand and Fight]

55. DU Rules.

It would do you well to take heed to them. I don't appreciate your failure to respond to presenting a logical argument, and I don't appreciate you calling out other long-time DU members in a veiled quasi-personal attack. You still have not decisively stated why you so ardently support Hillary Clinton. Lastly, I must strongly suggest you read the rules and watch what you post. Your attitude is not at all amusing.

[Career Prole]

59. Those opinions which seem so "immediate" to you were formed

long before you ever showed up. That they can be offered rapidly doesn't make them knee-jerk at all...it makes them studied.
"Knee-jerk fashion"...talk about fucking laughable.

[bozeman]

60. Long held opinions offerd up like a spell to ward off demons

at the mention of someone's name is knee jerk. I suppose not all knee jerk opinions are bad. For instance, knee jerkin' at the name Hitler is probably usually a good thing.

However, knee jerkin' out negative and absurd opinions about one of our leading Democrats, on a Democratic forum, is an example of bad knee jerkin'.

[Career Prole]

66. Sure... I've watched those opinions be born from events

over the year and a half I've been here. They've all been discussed, argued, and examined. You seem to have missed that part. Your "gut feeling" OTOH is knee-jerky as hell.

[UdoKier]

81. one of "our" leading democrats...

Once again, you provoke chuckles.

[sendero]

63. That's your opinion...

.. I feel that Kerry and Clinton were pretty much cut from the same cloth, although Kerry votes a lot better.

They are both too damn worried about their own careers to be any good for the rank and file Dem. Hillary especially rarely sees a compromise she's uncomfortable with.

That is my opinion, and I don't give a shit if you like it or agree with it or not. Senators almost never get promoted to president. God help the party if either of these get nominated.

[Auntie Bush]

70. Pardon while I go

:puke:

[Auntie Bush]

67. Do your math!

I'll give you a hint. He is 60 years old now. How could he run for governor and still be young enough to then run for two terms as president after that? It's run in '08 or never! I think all you people who keep saying he should run for an elective office first...know that!

[stray cat]

6. I like both.

However, I think Clark may have more cross-over appeal to independents and moderates.

[HootieMcBoob]

7. I like them both

I just don't think it would be a good idea for Senator Clinton to run for President. I think she's a very good Senator for the most part. I am a resident of New York and I'm happy to call her my Senator.

With Wes Clark I think we have a candidate who is progressive on the issues and has the very rare ablity of appealing to both Democrats and Republicans. He appeals to both the "strict father" and the "nurturing parent" world-view.

If we want to take back The White House in 2008 then we will choose Wesley Clark as our candidate.

[Clark2008]

125. In short, Wes Clark is the "single parent" we've been looking for!

:)

That should be a meme or a sound bite or something.

For the record, and to the OP, I like Sen. Clinton, but I want the Dems to start winning back some states, such as my own, Tennessee, a once blue, now solidly red, state. I don't think Hillary can accomplish that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Senator Clinton has been inside politics long enough

that she approaches politics like an insider. There is much that I like about her but she spent so many years practicing the art of politics, or witnessing it first hand married to Bill through his Governorship and later Presidency, and now being in the Senate, that she is conditioned to think like an insider. That was part of my problem with Kerry also, though overall he was OK with me too. It blunts break out, break through, thinking. It pulls you toward the center of status quo power.

And to be honest with you I don't see Clark as a centrist, I see him more left than that though the general public tends to assume he is a centrist since he's a General and what all. Since the general public tends to like centrists, that's fine by me if they see him that way.

And a huge question is electability. I like Clark's chances in a General Election much better than hers.

[cally]

13. I was once a huge H. Clinton fan

but I think she votes too much with the corparatists and neocons as a Senator. Whe wants to get along with the other side instead of standing up for all of us. I'll still vote for her and work for her if she gets the nomination but she is not my first, second, or third choice.

I think Clark has integrity and he fights back. I also think he can change the perception of Democrats for the next few decades. I think he will win, be able to pass much liberal legislation because so many see him as a moderate-conservative, and he will uphold true American values. I respect him.

[caledesi]

15. Wes isn't a sellout; Hillary is. nt

[bozeman]

18. I find this bit of DU conventional wisdom very puzzling

This is the woman who took the brunt of the right wing's fury in the nineties. She faced them down with a cold stare and an iron will.

[ZootSuitGringo]

20. And her hubby is going golfing with the Bushes this weekend,

and politics make strange bedfellows.

I'd rather get away from the inbreeding that we have going on with this Bush Dynasty vs. Clinton Dynasty.

I'm ready for a new but experienced scene. I'm ready to straighten out all of the mayhem happening in our foreign policy, and I'm ready to cut some pentagon pork to fund domestic programs.

I'm ready for a leader that doesn't lie on cue.

[UdoKier]

22. Oh, brother, are you trying to out yourself?

"Fury"? More like lies and bile. They never had a damn thing on her, what the hell else was she supposed to do in the face of all the ridiculous claims that she was an embezzling lesbian murderess? Confess?

[elfin]

17. Because he can win

and she cannot. Even though she is wondrously talented - any national poll that shows her ahead is bogus. When they get in the booth, all the anti-hillary smear will pay off at the last minute for the rethugs. It isn't because she is a woman - it's because she is "Hillary" and because of the successful campaign against her - which would be harder against Wes.

[Clark Bar]

40. Hillary

Hillary would arouse Repug passions where Wes would attract those moderate Republicans because of his military service. I don't deny her political skills and intuition. However, Clark is the better candidate in this world of potential terrorism with his experience in handling military conflicts.

[UdoKier]

19. Clark has no history of stabbing us in the back.

Hillary does. Not to say that she's the worst of the DINOs, but she definitely is one. A bright, talented, and perhaps even sincere one, but a DDINO nonetheless.

Clark's stated positions on any number of issues have been more in line with the progressive stance than Hillary's have.

Hillary is much closer friends with Joe Lieberman, who is only surpassed in GOP-lite scuzziness by arch-conservative Zell Miller.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

21. Clark is actually quite liberal

For example, I believe he supports abortion without any restrictions. Hillary has recently backtracked. My three favorite candidates in the last election were Clark, Dean, and Kucinich, in that order. But those people are right who propose that his image as a General, as a southerner, and a non-insider makes him more appealing to the so-called "heartland" than Hillary, who is now going to be seen as an easterner.

But winning isn't everything. I would prefer not to win, if it meant remaining true to my beliefs. I don't support Clark because I think he can win. Clark to me represents the best in America and its cherished values.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Oh, Gawd, what a horrible thread to comment on!

Clark is respected while Hillary is nothing but a shill for the PNAC neocons. The Democratic version goes by the name of PPI.

[bozeman]

31. Funny how they're friends, huh?

Many DU conspiracies just don't hold up in the light of day.

[Stand and Fight]

33. What conspiracies?

You're talking about DU conspiracies and I have to wonder if it is just because people don't agree with you. It seems to me that you are throwing that term around an awful lot.
conspiracy
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

theory
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


So, what exactly about the poster's reply to your post makes it a "conspiracy theory," and for that matter, what exactly is so bad about "conspiracy theories" that you seem to have such a problem with, bubba?

[FrenchieCat]

34. I didn't see Hillary endorse Wes Clark during the primaries,

Did you?

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are friends. What does that mean?

Should Democrats be the mortal enemy of each other or what?

Hell Kerry and McCain are "friends"....so I don't get your point or it's meaning.

[UdoKier]

36. Friends, huh?

In what capacity? Sure they are from the same state, he worked for Clinton. I haven't seen any stories about them yachting together on Martha's Vineyard.

What do you know of their relationship?

[Donna Zen]

89. Indiana Green--come back!

The PPI? Is the outer ring of PNAC? I remember coming across this bit of information at one time, but lost track of it. There was a group, that while not actively engaged in the writing and planning of the PNAC policies, did offer support. Lieberman and I believe Bayh had voth signed on, but I don't recall seeing Hillary listed.

Interesting.

Of course it is all in the way the political back-rubbing goes as opposed to which papers they sign.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. H. Clinton is my Senator and I will work for her reelection.

I feel far better about her than I do about most elected Democrats. She has been smeared more than enough already by Republicans and I will not pile on against her here. I am not anti-Clinton. I am Pro-Clark, for many reasons. I don't revere Clark but I do honor and respect him. I have some positive, but less deeply felt feelings about Senator Clinton. I wish her well, but I am not supporting her in 2008 unless she becomes the nominee or unless it comes down to her and some other Democrat who I respect less than her and/or feel has a significantly poorer chance of winning than her. She is not my ideal Democrat.

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Share your sentiments.

I am very pro-Clark but I also reserve a very special place in my political pantheon of stars for Hillary. My belief is in an abundance of talent not scarcity.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Does this sound like Hillary Clinton?

Wesley Clark Slams Media Consolidation
The consolidation of American media companies should stop, and rules that safeguard local media company independence need to be reinstated, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said
http://www.adrants.com/headlines/2004/01/wesley-clark-slams-media-consolidation.php
http://www.fradical.com/Presidential_candidate_slams_media_violence.htm

No, didn't think so.

[cestpaspossible]

46. Maybe because Clark has never held public office

therefore he has not had to make tough political choices that will please some, and anger others.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Who are you selling that bunch of " Hooey" to? Uniformed fools?

Maybe John Kerry USED TO HAVE THE KIND OF COURAGE (Circa 1972), but these days it appears that he votes for political expediency and not because of his principles.

But don't talk about Wes Clark and doing what's right. Voting in some chambers doesn't even equal risking your life nor your job, which Clark has done both of RECENTLY!

b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.

Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.

She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."


Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .

"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."

http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...

[bozeman]

56. I admire your passion for Clark

Your arguments are well thought out and supported. I agree with a lot of them. If he does somehow get the nom I'll enthusiastically support him.

I still think Clinton is the better the candidate. That's my gut feeling, so no reason to get in a big argument about it.

[Career Prole]

64. "I still think Clinton is the better the candidate. That's my gut feeling"

This from the person squalling about "knee-jerking".
I've seen here a lot of sensible arguments for Clark, and a lot of sensible arguments against Clinton...but you with your "gut feeling" accuse others of knee-jerk responses. Shit fire and save matches, they're the only ones doing any thinking in your thread, gutboy!
:wtf:

[bozeman]

92. LOL

A gut feeling is not offered up the minute a name is brought up.

[Career Prole]

103. Explain to me then the thought which goes in to a gut feeling.

If that's not too much trouble.

[Career Prole]

122. No answer?

I thought not. :thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

65. I don't have any problems with your feelings,

and thank you for respecting mine.

I hope that many learn about Clark during the next few years. He is a man of consistence in reference to loving America and what it can be domestically and internationally.

Is he perfect? No.

Is he one of the strongest and most effective Dems we have? Yes.

Is he the kind of President that we will need in the upcoming future (2008)? Yes, I think that he is exactly what America will need. A Non partisan but highly principled individual who will put all Americans first, and will consider world implication in this interelated sphere, politics be damned.

HERE'S SOME OF CLARK'S QUOTES I REALLY FEEL SUMS UP THE MAN:

"You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences." - Wes Clark (Seton Hall Graduation Speech, May 13, 2002)


Said on National TV after proposing his tax program:
"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it," Clark said.
"And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it."

AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A LIBERAL:
"We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

[bozeman]

95. "this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment"

More Democrats need to talk like that. Our founders were people of reason and science, not right wing Christians.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

[seventythree]

147. I signed petitions, wrote letters, and gave early money to get him

in the race, but then he disappointed me. He wasn't ready for prime time, and I switched to Kerry in Iowa. You have to be able to win --not just have the right positions. From the look to the speaking ability -- you have to have it packaged before the debut -- get the coach, get the handlers before the next run, please. I've been in the business for a long time -- it's about the win -- end of story.

[cestpaspossible]

57. CLARK HAS NEVER HELD PUBLIC OFFICE.

it is a fact that won't go away no matter how off-topic crap you post in reply.

[FrenchieCat]

68. And John Kerry never won the presidency,

although it was just between him and another guy (actually, a total piece of shit).

Nothing you say will change my mind that Kerry had a real chance, and yet Bush is President.

Period.

National election = 50 states
Statewide election = 1 state

Why does Kerry winning Massachusetts not impress me as much as it impresses you?

[cestpaspossible]

69. The question was posed, sorry you don't like the answer.

The question: Why is Wesley Clark so revered on DU, and Senator Clinton not?

The answer: Clark has not had to make tough political choices that will please some, and anger others.


Your off-topic rants don't impress me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. That might be a valid element of an answer

But you must admit it is very two dimensional. There are many other variables at play as well. I will grant you that making tough calls can turn off possible supporters. It's not like Clark hasn't made some tough calls in his life, and he gets called on them here at DU all the time.

He got called on them at the Pentagon too. Clark ruffled as many feathers as he could trying to get the United States to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

[cestpaspossible]

76. I'm sure all the folks whose feathers he ruffled at the Pentagon

are regular DU posters... :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

78. No,

But some DU posters CAN read and have a mind to think with. They understand that Clark was "retired" because of his actions.

Your post didn't really make that much sense, actually,

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. No the regular DU posters whose "feathers he ruffled" with his choices

Are those who will not consider voting for a career military officer for President. Clark chose to serve his nation in a specific capacity, the armed forces. That was his choice. And as a result of that choice some think he should be eliminated from consideration as Presidential material. That is one example of a Clark choice that has cost him support from some progressive Democratic activists.(I am not referring to people who are not bothered by him having spent a life time in the military, but who want him also to have been elected to some other office first. That is a different issue.)

Yes Clinton is forced to make choices as an elected Senator that will cost or win her support. I am not disputing that.

[politicasista]

75. Alright cestpaspossible!

:yourock:

[FrenchieCat]

80. and the little cheerleader

is cute, but cheering for a post that made little sense seems a bit silly.

Guess You've got his back! (where have I heard that one?)

[politicasista]

83. Yes, I am a little cheerleader

A cheerleader for truth.

[politicasista]

82. You don't have to slam Kerry for it

Sure mistakes were made, but slamming him isn't going to change anything.

[Auntie Bush]

72. Who the hell cares...only people he threatens to "beat the shit "out of.

[Donna Zen]

84. Clark has never held public office?

Thank God!

[ClarkUSA]

114. Ahnuld has -which must make him Presidential material to some here

And now former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynne Swann wants to run for Governor of PA.

And then there's the village idiot named W who became Governor of Texas.

Anyone who thinks someone needs to be a Governor first needs to be looking at the low bar needed to become one.

[UdoKier]

86. Neither had Dwight Eisenhower.

And he was a fine president admired by partisans on both sides.

[cestpaspossible]

90. The question was posed: Why is Wesley Clark so revered on DU,

and Senator Clinton not?

My answer is: The answer: Clark has not had to make tough political choices that will please some, and anger others, because he is not in public office.


What does Dwight Eisenhower have to do with anything? Seems like your post was like a kneejerk reaction - it might have been appropriate if I was arguing against Clark - but I wasn't. I was simply pointing out the undeniable fact that Clark has never held public office and therefore he hasn't pissed off as many folks as he would have if he had held office -- because it is impossible to please everybody.

[UdoKier]

96. I can only go by what Clark says.

As for tough political choices, IWR was not a tough one. The basis for war (or even the cop-out - giving Bush the AUTHORITY for war) was simply NOT THERE. Hillary had thousands of New Yorkers pleading with her to do the right thing, and she told them to go F- themselves. As far as I'm concerned, that was the end of Hillary for me.

If Clark came out today and said that he could have voted likewise, I wouldn't want anything to do with him either.

As for not having held office - he has a long and admirable career of military service, and I think that counts for something.

[cestpaspossible]

100. Are you aware that when he was asked that question, that was his answer?

One of the early 'gaffes' of his campaign.

But again, you seem to think I am saying something I am not. I am not arguing that a military career can't be a good foundation for further service, I'm simply saying - what I actually said, and nothing else.

[UdoKier]

102. I'm aware that he changed his position and admitted he was wrong

Hillary has done no such thing.

[Donna Zen]

113. Adam Nagourney aka Mr. Smeary-smarm

Reported that bit of tripe. The other reporters on that plane knew that Clark was musing over the question posed about how the vote had gone. A gaffe? Well, since Nagourney was fishing for one. But Clark is on the record from the Senate hearings advising against a war in Iraq because it was always a bad policy. Still is.

When MSM twists the words of other Democrats, I know whose side I'm on regardless of my disagreements with that politico's opinions on any variety of issues. And yet, I consistently see well-meaning posters out to do the dirty, grab the easy meme, if it bolsters their particular position. I must say, I do not understand that attitude at all.

[Career Prole]

104. And George freakin' Chimp had an undistinguished bought-and-paid-for

governorship. Clark has the superior foreign policy experience just from his military career. No one gives a flyin' fig if he hasn't held office. That fact may just add to his appeal after the b.s. we've been through.

[Clark2008]

132. I keep asking, "Why does this matter?" to everyone of these

inane posts about his never having held office, but no one seems to answer them.

The vast majority of the voters do not CARE if he's ever held office - they only care if he'll A.) Make them safe, B.) Not lie to them, C.) Lead them, D.) Look good on TV and E.) Listens to them. Not one of them cares a whit if he was dog catcher, general, senator for 12 years or governor - only that he does the other things.

[bozeman]

58. If Clark had been a Senator

I'm sure lots of people on DU would be pissed at him for one thing or another.

[Crunchy Frog]

106. Not all Senators are equal.

I could support Feingold or Boxer without reservation. I could not say the same thing about Hillary.

None of us really knows what kind of a Senator Clark would have made. We can only speculate. In his military career he operated with a high degree of integrity and courage. This is something that I see lacking in many Senators, Hillary included. Whether Clark would have shown the same level of integrity and courage as a Senator as he has as an officer is absolutely unkowable.

I can and do speculate that he would show it as President, and that is why I support him.

[UdoKier]

108. Yes, and he's not beholden to donors...

who have kept him in office for decades to continue giving them favors. most of the senators are tainted by corporate money to one degree or another. Clark is a relatively clean slate.

[Leilani]

54. From my point of view,

Hillary is an opportunist.

Her relationship with Bill Clinton has given her advantages that other aspiring politicians never had.

Sure, she's smart, a hard worker, & has some positives, but I admire people who have gotten there on their own merits.

Wes Clark has spent his entire life serving our country, putting his life on the line, & making sacrifices. All the promotions he received were based on his own talents, intelligence, & hard work, whereas Hillary got to run for the Senate because she was Hillary Clinton.

I can't wait for the first female President, but it will be someone who deserves it in her own right.

[MoonRiver]

61. He was against the Iraq war, and Hillary voted for it, for one.

Also, I just trust and like him more. Don't get me wrong, if Hillary wins in 2008 I'll be celebrating in the streets. But I would rather it be Clark, or a number of other people.

[cestpaspossible]

73. Against the Iraq war? Is that why he smelled 'the scent of victory'?

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.
Wes Clark writing in the Times of London on the fall of Baghdad, 4/10/03

I like Clark and I think it is a shame he's decided to not run for Governor of Arkansas, but, I don't buy the line that he was categorically against the war. Now, maybe, yes, but then? His own words speak otherwise.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Oh God, that out of context again.

The very next two paragraphs read:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people....

Further Clark wrote:

" As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome..."

And this:

" The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."

Compare that to what most politicians, Democrats and Republicans, were saying in those "Mission Accomplished " days.

Clark was pulling in his readers with that opening. That is what most people watching the news were feeling then. And those scenes were moving by the way. That is exactly why some (but not all) of them were staged. Most people in Iraq did want their freedom from Hussein. But that isn't why Bush said we invaded, and Clark pointed that out. And the Iraq public certainly didn't want the chaos that Clark was warning about which followed in the months and years ahead.

[FrenchieCat]

85. You mean those paragraphs that you posted

are in the same article that a paragraph was cut out in order to distort Clark's writing by a Kerry Supporter?

Jeeze, Who needs Republicans when we've got Kerry supporters doing this kind of Hack job.

so, so sad.

But guess that discredits Kerry supporters in terms of their "principles" and their beliefs in their guy.

To have to lie about another, to prop your own. How discouraging that must be!

For a fact, it's a pretty damn low way to go!

[cestpaspossible]

94. It is untrue to say

that this article http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

"distorts Clark's writing."

That would simply be a falsehood. Actually, it is Clark's writing, he wrote it, I didn't, and everyone who thinks Clark was 'opposed to the Iraq war' should read it, in its entirety, for themselves.

[cestpaspossible]

88. I don't blame you for spinning it.

Of course, most DUers will just read the piece for themselves and form their own judgements.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Which piece,

the one cut out of the article, or the entire article?

You would seem to be sophisticated enough, yet you obviously don't understand that Clark is discussing two issues in one piece (yes, and he chews gum and walks...all at the same time); a short term military victory vs. a long term plan to win the peace. A General will always give the troups kudos....but Clark doesn't praise the Bush policies in this piece.

Maybe that's way too complex for you? It's ok, if it's that.

Otherwise, you either didn't read the whole article, or you chose to distort Clark's words to try and make him look bad. Whichever it is, it ain't good.

[cestpaspossible]

98. This one

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Everyone who believes Clark was categorically 'against the Iraq war' should read the article in its entirety for themselves and form their own judgement.

See, that's why I include the link to the article in my comment, so that people can make up their own minds.

As for your insulting comments towards me, they don't really say anything about me, but, perhaps they reveal something about you.

[politicasista]

99. I never said a bad thing about the General

I like him too.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Then sorry......

if I accused you of a crime that you did not commit.

[cajones_II]

62. Clark deserves every bit of the props he gets here

He's shown himself via speech and deed to be a LOT more liberal than Clinton.

While Wes Clark is his own man, despite the common misconception that he's a slave to Hillary's bidding, Hilary has demonstrated to me that she's still a devotee of 90's DLC-style triangulation. There's only one guy who could pull that off, and the timing of that seems lost on many. Clark is the one guy who can mitigate the fear factor and recapture the WH; Hillary can not demonstrate a grasp of this no matter how hawkishly she votes in the senate.

So speculate away about the whys and wherefores, but Clark is the most reasonable choice to make, unless "woman President" has some meaningful importance to you.

[robbedvoter]

71. Could it be the little unpleasantness of that war that makes them

different? The fact that unlike Hillary, Clark denounced PNAC, 9.11 negligence and calls himself a liberal?
I voted for Hillary in 2000. Enthusiastically. Never again - for no office she runs.

[brainshrub]

77. Clark was the only candidate who answered Democracy Now's questions.

That took guts.

I didn't agree with much of what he said, but during that interview I saw that he had thought deeply about the ramifications of his actions and was willing to answer for them.

Ever since then I've taken Clark a lot more seriously. The more I learn about him, the better he looks. The opposite has been true for Senator Clinton.

Frankly, I think Clinton will be defeated in 2006. She will learn the hard way that if you are a Democrat, but run as a Republican... you lose.

[cajones_II]

87. I hope you're wrong

If Clinton gets the nom over Clark or any other progressive, Howard Dean will have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

[brainshrub]

93. I'm sure Clinton will run in 08 whether she is in the Senate or not.

But I don't think she has the momentum she once had to win the nomination. Boxer took Clinton's thunder when she stood up for Democracy three months ago by refusing to accept the electors from Ohio.

[Leilani]

97. Another reason I support Clark over Hillary

I'm just tired of politics as usual...the usual suspects manage to do quite well for themselves whether they win or lose.

I'm tired of Bushes & Clintons & dynasties...I want a fresh start, & I want someone who has liberal ideas, but can appeal to all.

I'm tired of our divided country & the political vitriol.

If Hillary is the leader of the Dems, the hate & nastiness will increase, if that's at all possible.

I don't just want to win an election; I want the Dems to become a majority party again, because the majority of Americans agree with Dem principles, but the Right has packaged their message better.

Hillary symbolizes division & political rancor; I want to move ahead with politicians who can bring a new message, crafted for the entire country that will change our direction.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

101. Clark is a man of great courage and conviction - not of compromise

which may be both his strength and his weakness. Here are examples:

(1) When it seemed that all of America was trashing France for taking a position on Iraq, Clark came to their defense. In an article appearing in the Washington Post entitled "Wesley Clark, Still On Maneuvers", here's what Clark said about France:

"...Clark says that America's relations with its traditional allies can be repaired. France, he says, is the country most like the United States. "They have a worldview, they have a lot of pride. France and Texas, they're two sides of the same coin." It's the job of statesmen to build bridges, Clark says..."

What American politician, on either side of the aisle, came to the defense of the right of our oldest ally to express dissent? What public figure in America dared to say that "France is the country most like the United States"...??? And what public figure in America proudly wears both the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the French Legion Of Honor? Who in America had this courage, risking the hatred of the media?

(2) When it seemed that all of America was trashing Michael Moore's statement at the Oscars for having dared to utter the five words "Shame on you Mr. Bush", Clark was the only public figure in America to come to the defense of his right to dissent. Public opinion be damned, Clark nonetheless spoke up, risking the hatred of the media. Here's what Michael Moore wrote at his website:

"...Dear General Wesley Clark, I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense. And that person was you".

(3) When it seemed that all of America was trashing Islam and especially Al Jazeera, General Clark once again stuck his neck out and showed true courage in coming to their defense. Remember that General Clark has Jewish roots and also supports Israel's right to exist. This is how he was quoted in an interview in the Arab News:

"...Questioned on if he thought this administration targeted Al-Jazeera in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark said: "There is a legitimate difference of opinion between the way we see the problems in the Middle East and the Islamic perspective. One of the most important things we must understand is their perspective and their view of the facts. And, I'm generally against the muzzling of the media."

I repeat: "...we must understand their perspective and their view of the facts...". Has any other public figure in America had this kind of courage? Has any public figure in America even dared to suggest that there is another point of view besides the American point of view? Has the Islamic perspective been given any thought by anyone in America? Again, Clark is half Jewish and 100% enlightened.

I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton isn't qualified. I actually like her. But because she has recently shifted to the right, and because she hasn't spoken out the way Clark has dared to speak, often supporting the right of free speech and the defense of the most hated in our society in the three examples I have provided, I fear that she may be too motivated by the desire for power and may compromise herself in that pursuit. Clark, however, is uncompromising, even if it means losing elections and earning the hatred of the media. Again, these qualities may be both his strengths and his weakness.

[FrenchieCat]

107. Damn....

that was good! :smoke:

and let us not forget when he stood up for the term liberal on Bill Mahr show!

[Donna Zen]

128. This is a classic.

Loving this country, its Constitution, and having clear and democratic vision for its future, means something to me. To anyone who possesses that all to rare quality, to the people who dare to put the people's welfare ahead of the next fundraiser, I am willing to give my support.

[UdoKier]

105. By the way - the word "revere"...

Most liberals don't believe in reverence towards elected officials. Admiration, sometimes, but not reverence.

Authority is always to be questioned, IMO.

[Leilani]

109. Excellent point!

I don't revere Wes Clark, or any other politician.

I respect & admire him. He also gives me hope.

[FrenchieCat]

111. Of course!

"There's nothing more American--nothing more patriotic--than speaking out, questioning authority, and holding your leaders accountable."-- Wes Clark

[Crunchy Frog]

115. My answer.

As others have already pointed out, the word "revere" is an inapropriate one. Wes Clark however is someone that I would actually want to have as my President, rather than merely being the lesser of two evils, which is how I've regarded every Democratic nominee during my adult life.

There are no qualities I can think of that I admire in Clark that I also see in Hillary. She has been far too accomodating to the Bush agenda. She favored the invasion of Iraq, and has not asked the difficult questions or called out PNAC that I am aware of.

Wes Clark is friends with lots of people, as are the Clintons. Other people urged him to run as well, including Jimmy Carter and Charlie Rangel, among the most prominent. Apparently it was Wes Jr.'s urging that proved decisive, at least according to what Wes Jr. says.

On top of my not being thrilled with Hillaries politics, I genuinely believe that she could not get elected. Sorry for saying it, but it's just my very strong belief.

If by some miracle she were to get elected President, I think it would almost plunge this country into a civil war. There is a contingent of people who hate her and demonize her that much. To get a feel for it, try listening to hate radio for a little while. Our hatred of Dumbya, as intense as it is, doesn't even come close. Like many others here, I'm tired of seeing this country so bitterly divided. I would prefer a President who could begin healing the divisions rather than one who could only exacerbate them.

[MissB]

116. Finally. Nice av you have there.

[Andromeda]

118. Good question.

I happen to like both of them and believe that they do agree on most issues important to Democrats. Wes Clark has only run for office once while Hillary has more political experience.

A lot of DUers here don't like Hillary for different reasons but the main one IMHO is probably because she's not ideologically "pure" enough for the lefties here.

You'll see a lot of :puke: and a lot of these :mad: when her name is mentioned.

Some people love to call her a DINO because of what they perceive as a certain willingness on her part to "compromise" on certain bills. Senators do that, your know, but it's not popular here on DU.

The Senate we have now is probably the most partisan one we've ever had. Republicans don't want to give an inch because they don't have to. They're in the majority and they're corrupt.

Hillary is a Senator and her votes are politically driven by New York's needs as all the other Senator's votes represent their constituencies. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.

I don't agree with everything Hillary does, or says, but she's better than any Republican I can think of. She's a good advocate for Democratic principles and doesn't take a back seat when it comes to defending women's rights, or civil rights for that matter.

She tends to be a hawk on foreign policy but that's not all bad. We need a strong defense BUT we need to have responsible leaders who don't abuse the power as Bush has.

I believe Wes Clark feels pretty much the same way. He doesn't believe in preemptive warfare but he does believe in a strong military. Clark has great concerns for the welfare of our troops and concerns for how our troops were sent into battle without all the equipment they needed to keep them safe.

Clark is articulate and knowledgeable and I would trust his foreign policy decisions over anybody else's.

[Dinger]

119. Clinton Not Revered?

I respect her a great plenty. To me, Wesley Clark has more positives, it's not that she's bad & he's good. That's about as simple as I can put it.

[ClarkUSA]

120. Wes Clark is no centrist -- he's a proud liberal Democrat

Wesley Clark On The Issues:

"Wesley Clark is a Populist-Leaning Liberal"
http://www.issues2002.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[applegrove]

121. I love the Clintons.

[MADem]

139. Me too....life was good back in the day, wasn't it? n/t

[hansolsen]

123. Clark is a Repub trying to be a Democrat. Hillary is a Dem trying to be a

Republican. I hope Wes succeeds and I would vote for him. Hillary and her buddy Bill are hawks on the war in Iraq, and far too friendly with Corporate America to suit me.

When I think of the last Clinton administration I think of Nafta, huge cuts in the capital gains tax, welfare "reform", and lots of sabre rattling around the world. Hillary would just be more of the same.

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. I grant you your poetic license, lol. I get the point you are making n/t

[faithfulcitizen]

126. very clever, but indeed he already has!

succeeded in being a democrat that is...:P

[FrenchieCat]

127. I beg your pardon?

I think part of your information is incorrect as Clark was never a Republican.

George McGovern said this about Clark:
There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

[Tom Rinaldo]

129. Well I granted him poetic license because the point he was making

Is that Wes has evolved in his life in progressive ways (while saying the opposite about Clinton). He needed poetic license because as you and I and so many others are constantly forced to point out, Clark was never a Republican. But Clark did vote for some, so I understand where this poster is coming from, he is saying look at what a person is doing now. That is fair enough with me.

[FrenchieCat]

130. Well, I'm cool,

since I got to post the McGovern quote.

[NVMojo]

131. I like both but he reminds me of my dad, an armyman...

[FrenchieCat]

134. Is that good or not?

That Clark reminds you of your dad, I mean?

[alittlelark]

135. You really want Hillary Clinton to run.... wow

In an ideal world she would be an ideal candidate. In the Reich -Wing dominated media world she stands naught a chance.

[JNelson6563]

136. "Revered"???

Beyond a handful here Clark isn't revered.

And Clinton isn't cause she's been such a sell-out.

Julie

[ZootSuitGringo]

141. I think that early up on this thread,

quite a few Clark supporters mentioned that they do not revere Clark, but rather they respect and admire him. Revered was used by the original poster, who I suspect is a supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Judging from this thread however, I will say that I count more than a "handful" of those who respect and admire the General.

[rman]

137. There's no consensus on that, on DU.

Some revere either or both, some neither.

It can't be said in general that on DU Clark is revered, and Clinton is not.

[MADem]

140. You're right...it's a big tent here, isn't it! n/t

[Ellen Forradalom]

138. Clark hasn't been elected to office yet

therefore he has not had an opportunity to disappoint people with his record.

The positions he has held, while impressive, are of a different nature than elective office.

[ZootSuitGringo]

142. You make a good point.

However, I will say that General Clark has stood up for issues that were not popular and was burned (retired) in some cases (rwanda & Kosovo), or was called crazy for others (exposing PNAC, Mentioning the call he got asking him to blame Iraq for 9/11).

I consider his actions honorable and actions that he didn't have to take, but took anyway. That counts for a lot.

Sometimes it's the actions that one takes when no one is watching that are the most telling. The problem with many of these politicians is that their votes are calculated to benefit them politically and not due to any real principle. That's one of the reasons that I am tired of most politicians.

[demwing]

144. ¿Quién es más macho -- Wesley Clark, o Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton es macho, pero tan macho como Generalisimo Clark.

¡Sí, Wesley Clark es muy macho!

[Clarkie1]

148. Hillary is gaining support in a recent poll

Apparently, 46% of those surveyed were Republicans, 49% were Democrats, and 5% declined to state a preference for the policical party they would like to see win the presidency in 08'. :-)

"Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion poll found that 46 percent of voters want the former first lady to run for the White House while 49 percent said she should not."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/politics/main678902.shtml

[alittlelark]

149. H Clinton

has been pilloried by the (' L-wing press' - Ha ha) for soo long that she would need to save a moon mission herself or rescue an abused child (w/ cameras full press).


They were smart and destroyed her early. She was a HUGE threat. An incredibly well put-together and thought out female.

She would have RULED at the polls..... they will make sure she does not get the chance.