Just WHY do we need Wes Clark? Well,

[mikehiggins]

because it ain't over yet, folks.

The US will still be in the middle of a military expansionist program in 2008 no matter what happens in the ensuing period. The bases in Iraq will still be full of US servicemen (and women, but we won't tell the Muslims that--or the RW at home who won't want them in combat roles or sharing unisex toilets or, etc.) and our relations with Europe will be as strained as they have been since our first boots hit the ground in Iraq.

The economy inside the US will be more fucked up than most can imagine at this time but foriegn policy will be more important as more and more of our kids get the shit blown out of them in places most of us can't spell.

Why Wes Clark? Because the Democrats will need someone with his credentials who can tell the American voter that he will straighten out the mess, and have a chance of being beleived. When I was a kid, Ike announced that he would go to Korea himself, upon being elected, and it made a big impact on the general public. In 2008 the Democratic party will have to do something similarly significant (even if it is bullshit just like Ike's initiative) in the publics eye. The only guy we have who can do that is Clark.

We are approaching "the end of days" for US democracy, folks, and unless we regain the government from the forces now dominating it this nation will become in fact just another banana republic, only we won't even have bananas.

We are going to need someone like Wes Clark to lead the charge, and all I can hope is that he doesn't do something incredibly stupid between now and then, as it seems all our people are prone to do.

And no. I don't think Hilary has a chance in hell.

[Clark2008]

1. Amen, brother.

I think it's hilarious how the Poodle Press is trying to pick our candidate for us already.
Hillary won't win - she won't turn one red state and she may even turn one or two blue states to red. She's not the answer.

[sybil]

87. I can't believe...

...the endless run-on-Dem-Drone: "Hillary-Shrillary...", and that other fella, what's his name? kerry who? Well there was an effective candidate against the worst leader ever in the history of the free world. <sarcasm>

The DNC denied us a candidate who could have turned red states blue (or at very least a lovely shade of deep purple.) I don't want to see that happen again...ever

"I didn't AIM to shoot myself in the foot!"
"Well just don't point that thing at me..."

[capi888]

2. Right on!!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself...and I am tired of the R-Wing, and the media selecting our Democratic candidate...That is why Wes Clark is going after the FCC...Every poll, that I have seen, (unless it is Rwing) does NOT put Hillary in the lead with Dems grassroots. It is Wes Clark....So...its time to not let these biased media pundits select our 2008 candidate...
Wes Clark is true to his words, intelligent, and will do what is RIGHT for not only the US, but the World...He truly loves democracy...and the American People..

[HannibalBarca]

5. Its a travesty

He absolutely should have been the candidate to run against Shrub. Certainly even with a former NATO supreme Allied Commander, war hero, top of class west point graduate they would have attempted to smear him as they did JK but they would have had much less success.

[Totally Committed]

7. I could not agree more!

Thank you for stating that so elegantly!

TC

[senseandsensibility]

20. Clark 2008!

Not only will they have less success smearing him (I agree the scumbags will try; they'd smear Jesus), but now Clark knows from Kerry's experience to hit back hard.

[Dinger]

62. I Drool At The Thought Of A General-Chimp Debate

In my dreamworld, it was something to see!

[Totally Committed]

279. Sorry I didn't see this post until now...

"Certainly even with a former NATO supreme Allied Commander, war hero, top of class west point graduate they would have attempted to smear him as they did JK but they would have had much less success."

Exactly!

TC

[Mr Rabble]

3. getting that message out

should be priority #1 for the DNC.

I feel that it is never too early to start those wheels turning.

Of course, that wont happen, but I think it should.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Why do we keep talking about 2008?

Why does that keep popping out? It's only March of 2005! 2006 is much more important. If we can't win then we can't win in 2008.

[Totally Committed]

9. I see a lot of pushing of all candidates...

so why shouldn't we talk about Wes Clark? People need to know what an awesome candidate and President he will be.

TC

[ICantBelieve]

13. Because we need a strong "leader"

to take us through the 2006 elections. And Wes Clark can be that leader.

Lots of the ultra left don't want a leader. They want us all to be leading together. That's fine. But that's exactly what Wes Clark is about. He's a symbol of what we all believe. He knows that's the job of a leader--to give oneself to the people being "lead," to help them to do what needs to be done, regardless of how little or much actual guidance they need. He helps us phrase our values, the values that have already been a part of us since we were old enough to comprehend them. He helps us put them together into a package. He helps us respond to critics by relying on that package. He helps us not get angry when some nutso right winger says something ridiculous because we know that we are not alone in our value system. He helps us fight back by showing us how to speak of our values.

That's why we need to be talking about him now. Without these tools, we're dead in 2006. Anyone who shares our value system and possesses tremendous leadership skills can do this. It just happens that Wes Clark is one of the few people, if not the only person, with the values and the skills who's offered himself up for the task.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

19. Kick, Kick, Kick!

[NurseLefty]

14. Both are important.

As a dyed in the wool Wes supporter, I would love to see him be our nominee in 2008. I would also love to see the Dem leadership make a concerted effort to pick up Congressional seats in 2006. BOTH endeavors will take money and laser-like strategy. What sucks the hope out of me is that the gop is loaded for bear without trying. It's 'stinking thinking' - I know. Gen. Clark was the first person in a long time who made me feel optimistic. I got involved in the "Draft" effort because of that.
Maybe it is possible...

[dogman]

37. If the people are not heard now, we will have the MSM make our pick.

We are not neglecting 2006. I am working on that at the local level now because those candidates have to be slated by this coming December. This is not a local forum however. The primary criticism of the Clark campaign was that it started too late. Those of us who feel he was and remains the strongest national candidate do not want that to happen again. The fact is Clark supported House and Senate candidates in '04 and through WESpac,I'm sure he will support them and others again in '06. He will not pick those candidates however and will not be involved on the large scale until they run again or anew. In the meantime he is out discussing issues and educating them and the public on how to win the public debate. The more we support him now, the more he is able to promote Democratic victories and give a voice to like minded Democrats.

[Jai4WKC08]

38. In addition to what TC and IBC said...

One of the reasons Repubs have been so successful at winning elections is because they plan ahead. You think they aren't already working on their 2008 strategy? Hells bells, they're probably planning for 2012 and beyond, with alternate courses of action depending on what happens in 2008.

And not just elections. They've been working on the media, on the churches, on school boards and youth group leadership since at least the 1970s, and quite possibly before.

The difference is, Repubs keep their real strategizing behind closed doors, and use their media hacks to pass on "talking points" for the rank & file to blather about. There may be Democratic power brokers who try to do the same, but they have neither the willing foot-soldiers nor the media to reach them.

But if we're gonna remain an active and effective grassroots, we'd better sure as hell perform the same function. Because as long as Democrats are only thinking about the next election, we're bound to lose more than we win.

[mcscajun]

6. Yes! We need Clark in '08. Absolutely.

"Do you stand with Mr. Dickinson. Or do you stand with me?

"I stand with the General. Well lately, I've had the oddest feeling that he's been…writing to me."

[trillian]

8. My thoughts exactly.

No one has a better chance at regaining the White House than Wes Clark.

[ICantBelieve]

10. Count on General Clark

I have no fears that he's going to do something "incredibly stupid between now and then." Wes speaks from his heart. It's all about values to him. Even if he says something that comes out wrong, he should be able to recover. I truly believe that 75% of American's share Wes Clark's values. General Clark oozes his values. People will see that. Once people see that, any innocent mistake he might make will bounce right off of him.

[jen4clark]

11. It's hard to fathom

what will be left of our country if we actually have to endure this Regime until 2008.

The fact that General Clark has his new website up and running and in a matter of days has posted the first action alert is so reassuring! Just knowing he's out there speaking truth to the lies of this Regime gives me hope and inspires me to keep on keepin' on.

http://www.securingamerica.com

[capi888]

15. I totally agree Roomie.....

Wes is not afraid to STAND UP, when others are
SITTING DOWN.... He speaks his mind, not with anger but with convictions and truth...:pals:

[prvet]

12. Clark08

The right man, at the right place, at the right time.

[trillian]

16. A man for all reasons!

:kick:

[Auntie Bush]

17. Welcome aboard prvet!

:hi: Always glad to have another Wes Clark supporter/admirer. :bounce:

Amen! To everything everybody has posted in the above threads.

Wes Clark is the only one that can save this country and the WORLD!!!!
The whole world NEEDS him...NOW..damnit...not in 2008. I just hope it isn't too late by then. :scared:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

18. Amen! Wesley Clark will not be making any fake plans.

He knows what has to be done and he can do it. He is a gifted communicator, intellectual (West Point Graduate), and a TRUE PATRIOT!

Wes Clark 08!

[bowens43]

21. Clark has no credentials.

Thirty years of military indoctrination is not a qualification. It's certainly not a qualification for creating a sane foreign policy. It amazes me that people think that putting 'el Generalissimo' in the oval office will stop us from becoming a banana republic....

He has already done something incredibly stupid. He lavished unmitigated praise on bush and his henchmen. Was he stupid or was he lying? Either way, his credibility is in the gutter which is why he did so poorly in the primaries. He won't do any better in the 08 primaries. Democrats have already rejected him.

[Leilani]

22. No Credentials?

He has the credentials of a LEADER!

Have you been watching the NCAA tourney?

Coach K does a terrific commercial. He says he's a Leader, who just happens to coach basketball.

Wes is not a pol, but he's a leader, too, & they're both West Point grads.

We need someone to unite us, & this country. I don't see leadership among the other people being offered.

[capi888]

25. I met Coach K

He was quest speaker at a Summit I attended and he is great leader. It was last year, and he sounded so much like the General....Team work, leadership, standing together win or lose. When one makes a mistake, the entire team makes it together...no matter who makes the winning basket, its the teams winning basket. It takes 5 people on the court to win or lose a game. I just loved what he had to say...Great guy!!!

[Leilani]

27. I love Coach K...lucky you!

That's what I mean about leadership...some have it, some don't.

But military people, especially the Service Academy grads are instilled with those beliefs & know-how.

I've been in the same room as K, but never met him.

[capi888]

23. General Wes Clark

bowens43,
you are always knocking Wes Clark..the speech you are referring to has been told to you so many times, paid speech by the R Party, what is he going to say...how crappy they are..and you still don't want to accept it...but, thats ok, know why? Because you are only one! You are trying to stir the pot with negativity.I respect that, you have the right to decent. General Clark would honor that also, however, you are wrong! Do your research, open your mind, read the FACTS, cuz most are really tired of your ignorance about the General. Talking about credibility in the Gutter, you should know!!!!

[Totally Committed]

24. John Kerry had impeccable "credentials"...

and look where THAT got us.

30 years in the military means he's run complete military bases, seeing to everything from the schools to the welfare of the families to the budgets... top to bottom.

In those 30 years, he has worked in the White House writing a budget for the U.S.

He has negotiated peace treaties with foreign powers.

He has stopped genocide.

He has commanded NATO.

He has worked first-hand with Presidents their Cabinets.

He has had the likes of Samantha Power, Madeleine Albright, and Richard Holbrooke write glowing praise about him in their books.

He has written books, position papers, Op-Eds for major newspapers, and articles for major publications.

He wrote an Amicus brief in support of Affirmative Action in the case of U Michigan.

I dunno... I'd call those "credentials". And, good ones, at that!

As far as his "heaping praise" on Bush, well there are a lot of Democrats who do that daily. Joe Lieberman for one. While I disagree with your appraisal, praise of a sort comes from Senators who vote for the Bush agenda. Kerry voted for the IWR. Edwards voted for the IWR. Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka and Mary Landrieu voted with Bush on ANWR. It happens every day. Where's your outrage over these Democrats and their votes?

Wes Clark is now a Democrat in every sense of the word. Get used to it.

TC

[capi888]

26. Nice TC N/T

[Totally Committed]

28. Thanks!..........

And, he's a Rhodes Scholar with advanced degrees (one in Economics!)

Wes Clark will be an outstanding and historical President of the United States if we ever find the guts and wisdom to elect him.

TC

[cidliz2004]

29. If Wes Clark has no credentials, then you have no brains

Thats how obvious his credentials are! Come on, you don't like him, fine (your loss), but he has the best credentials for the type of leader that we need for this time period in our history.

He has a chest of awards and recognition from foreign leaders - they recognize his brilliance.

He was supported by over 50 Diplomats - what does that tell you?

He actually chose service to country over riches....what does that tell you?

He jeopardized his career more than once for his ideals...WHAT POLITICIAN would do this?

He jeopardized his life more than once in bravery and did it when it wasn't necessary for him to do it.

He is the best kind of leader, he can bring this country respect, solutions and integrity...something that it is sorely lacking right now.

Even Jesus wasn't appreciated by everybody (and he was perfect) and people chose to find fault with him, so I figure - no big deal that there are many many people out there that don't recognize a treasure, a gift, the right man for the right cause... It is just a shame that throughout the centuries there are still people that let fear and ignorance rule their lives.

[checks-n-balances]

33. I'm with you - Gen. Clark ROCKS!!!

He would be great for us and for the world!

[capi888]

34. I'm with you too..!!!

Love your enthusiasm....Keep it up...

[Leilani]

30. "A sane foreign policy?"

Half the Dems who'll run don't know where the foreign countries ARE!!

And chances are, Wes has been there, maybe speaks their language, & knows their leaders.

Does a 1 term Senator have more world experience?

How about a 1 or 2 term Governor?

What a joke.

[Clark2008]

31. Hmmm... I guess coming in first in Oklahoma,

second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota and third in New Hampshire, Tennessee and Virgina before dropping out (and with absolutely NO media coverage as the Poodle Press blacked him out) are considered "doing poorly in the primaries."

:eyes:

Whatever.

[Totally Committed]

32. There are none so blind...

as they who will not see.

TC

[capi888]

35. You are sooooo right...

Thats why he is going after the media...FCC....Wes was snubbed by them and he doesn't forget. I remember his statement on P.Zahn, townhouse meeting..when asked about the fairness in the media...In a word, SPIN! taking the bits and pieces of a paragraph, and making one sentence, without the entire context...The General is on a roll,

[Lefta Dissenter]

36. yeah, but

capi, what sweater was he wearing at the time??? Isn't that just as important to discuss? I mean really... how can you call it a snub when his sweater choice is the topic of conversation??? :eyes:

edited to add: Great posts, Mike, Tot Com and everyone else... :hi:

[capi888]

42. Gotcha Lefta....Golly how could I forget LOL!!!!

The poor man was in NH...-30 below, and bummed the sweater from his brother-in-law....How Awful, hahahah...I think he handled that beautifully, put it on EBAY and gave it to the $$ to Retired and diabled VETs....what a bad guy!!!!! LOL

[haypops]

45. Counter intuitive

It may seem counter intuitive to some, but most frequently those with the strongest military backgrounds are the least likely to go to war. General Clark, is above all other things dedicated to internationalism and diplomacy to prevent military action.

[Dinger]

63. Just Out Of Curiosity, Who's Your Candidate in '08? (nt)

[Clarkie1]

66. Isn't it amazing how we just keep going over and over the same crap?

You would think the people who throw the same worthless mud at Clark over and over would try to educate themselves about the person they are throwing the mud at, instead of making unfounded accusations that have been refuted again and again.

If Clark has "no credentials" then neither does any senator, governor or anyone else. WTF gives a senator or a governor "credentials" to be president?

Study Clark's life, history, and accomplishements before you tell me he doesn't have the life experience and "credentials" we need. The root word of credentials is credible...as in credibility, and those with eyes not blinded by prejudice such as yours see more credibility in Clark than in ANY career politician.

That's why he'll win, and when Clark wins we'll all win.

[Totally Committed]

278. And, I have a feeling it will be this way

for some people forever.

Absolutists don't have to think they just disagree with anything even remotely against their beliefs. To consider the possibility they may be in error is too difficult. It's easier to just dismiss stuff out-of-hand. And, when they see others disgreeing with them, it's just easier to attack the object of disagreement.

I'm getting tired of the bullsh*t.

TC

[shireen]

89. huh?

Anyone who has taken the time to learn about Wes Clark (which the media refused to do during the primaries, a major disservice to its viewers), knows how totally misinformed you are.

His leadership record has had mixed reviews because he did what he felt was right, challenging dumb decisions made by military leaders. In all instances, like Kosovo, he was eventually vindicated.

During the primaries, people once under his command, or worked alongside him, came out of the woodworks to campaign for him. That in itself was a very powerful statement. For instance, one of his biggest supporters in Baltimore, a former general who had worked with him, showed up at most meet-ups. Not only military people ... a lot of foreign service officers and diplomats, including James Rubin, stood by him during the primaries. My favorite moment was when Michael Moore, my hero, endorsed Wes.

That so-called "praise on Bush and his henchmen" is one of the biggest pieces of anti-Wes garbage that's been circulated by Democrat opposed to him. Let's put this in context: shortly after the start of the Bush administration, while Wes was a registered Independent, he was invited to speak to a group of local (Little Rock) Republicans, not as a fellow-Republican, but as former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. (No doubt, there were behind-the-scenes efforts to lure him into the party; even the Republicans knew what a major asset he would be. Fortunately, Wes has a good bullshit detector.) Clark's remarks were simply a diplomatic goodwill gesture of support for a new administration. No one wanted the new Bush administration to fail, no matter what our political affiliation. Wes, like many of us, was being hopeful for the future, wishing them well. Now, what could possibly be wrong with that?

"his credibility is in the gutter which is why he did so poorly in the primaries" ... did you watch the tv news? If he was even covered, it was over superficial crap like that sweater purchase in New Hampshire. There was no coverage about his positions on so many issues that matter to us. People never got a chance to know him! At one point, Wes Jr. really let the press have it over the abysmal coverage (and us Clark supporters were cheering him on!).

After he dropped out of the race and started campaigning for Kerry, Clark drew a lot of notice at local levels. People were wondering, who is this guy and why didn't we notice him before? Again, we have our incompetent mainstream media to thank for that. They went out of their way to either ignore or poke fun at Wes. I saw it more times than I can count ... if you want to discuss lack of credibility, look at the major news corporations who control the airwaves.

Most elected officials, notable exceptions being folks like Conyers, Waxman, and Boxer, evoke negative impressions. They're either rich greedy bullies or spineless corporate reps.. By the time 2007 rolls around, the American people will be totally sick of business as usual. They'll be ready for a new kind of leader, someone with proven leadership qualities, incredibly smart, honest, compassionate, and charismatic.

[TheFarseer]

181. If I have learned anything in the past 10 years

about politics and campaigns, it's that no one gives a flying flip about qualifications. Arnold won and he's not qualified for mayor. Jesse Ventura won and he wasn't qualified. bush wasn't overly qualified and he sort of won. I've seen a million House races, where the guy wasn't qualified. No one cares. They only care what your values are or in shrub's case, what you say your values are. And are you a leader that will speak your mind and be your own man, or in shrub's case, does msm say you are a leader and your own man.

[Totally Committed]

39. The Seante just voted UNANIMOUSLY for the Terry Sciavo amendment...

War is Peace

Black is White

Wrong is Right

And, the Democratic Party just kicked us in the teeth again.

UNANIMOUS... as in NOT ONE EFFING DEMOCRAT. Not ONE.

Why do we need Wes? Because he's the only think in this insane country that makes sense at this point.

I am horrified by this vote and the ramifications. Let's hope they DO run Wes CLark for President. It is the only way the Democratic Party EVER gets another vote from me.

TC

[Joe Chi Minh]

40. No. You need

a peace-time leader, who has played hardball with the lawyers and politicos in Washington, more than you need an army General.

Kerry won't be at a loss to handle the problems in Iraq and the Middle East. In fact, he's already had cordial discussions with the leaders of the middle-eastern countries.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Oh sure...

His campaign was such a study in hardball.

/sarcasm

You think Supreme Allied Commanders don't know hardball? Believe me, they do. With allies, enemies AND congresscritters inside the Beltway.

[Totally Committed]

44. You got THAT right, Jai!

No Surrender, my foot!

TC

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. No, Jai,

Clark doesn't have experience with Heads of State, and do you really think he could have taken on The Republican far-right and the CIA concerning the BCCI scandal? That's hardball, the big picture and the nitty gritty. Kerry did it as a young man.

[RandomUser]

50. "Clark doesn't have experience with Heads of State"?

You couldn't be more wrong. I don't blame you for your ignorance, but you would do well to alleviate if you're going to try to attack Clark.

As SACEUR, Clark's status was the equivalent of a Head of State. No other Dem Candidate has ever had Head of State status like Clark. Accusing Clark of having no experience with Heads of State -- when Clark himself was given Head of State status -- is preposterous.

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. Perhaps I'm compounding the ignorance

on the subject you refer to, RandomUser, but would Clark not have been interacting with the military chiefs of staff of the various countries in NATO, not their respective Heads of State; all of them being plentipotentaries for the purposes of NATO, i.e exclusively military; with Clark as the their Commander-in-Chief?

Perhaps some element of confusion has arisen because your President is officially designated the C-in-C of your armed forces, while (as far as I know) European Heads of State would, for the most part, presumably be simply de facto C-in-C? Our sovereign's status, as such, in the UK, being no more than titular.

I get the feeling that many of you think discussions with the Gulf Heads of State should be from a position of military superiority, as in the old days. Don't do as I do, do as I say. And don't argue.

Or am I mistaken?

[RandomUser]

106. SACEUR is not a US position

Wes Clark was "dual-hatted" -- meaning he occupied two different offices simultaneously. This is a unique arrangement created between NATO and the US for Eisenhower during WW2.

What this means is that, Clark served as Commander-in-Chief of the European Command (as part of the US military) and also simultaneously as Supreme Allied Commander (as part of NATO). Two different chains of Command.

Under the the American chain of command, there is the President (commander-in-chief and Head of State status) and several regional commanders-in-chief who do not have Head of State status. As Commander-in-Chief of the European Command, Clark does not have Head of State status.

But, Clark also simultaneously served as Supreme Allied Commander under the NATO chain of command -- and this grants him Head of State status. No other general in the US military has Head of State status except Clark. Because all the other generals serve only as regional CinC, but not as a seperate political office as part of NATO.

Clark's Head of State status comes not from the American military, but from the NATO political structure.

I suggest you read the book Waging Modern War. You'll find that SACEUR is a political as well as military position, and Clark interacted not only with the military structure, but also regularly with Tony Blair, Chirac, and other Heads of State.

As Supreme Allied Commander/European Command (i.e., SACEUR, two different positions) -- Clark was responsible for reconciling the diplomatic differences between the two entities of the US and NATO. He served as the link between the two different chains of command.

His power and influence depended on his political skills. In order to pressure NATO to listen to him, he needed to used his power over the US military (Americans only serve under American commanders, so US forces never serve under the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, only under C-in-C of the European Command of the US military -- but since the two are the same person, that makes it simple) to negotiate and get the political people of NATO to do what he wanted.

In order to get the Pentagon and U.S. military to listen to him and influence their actions and decisions, he needed to use his status as Head of State and as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO -- which is outside the US chain of command and need not obey any orders from Americans -- to pressure the pentagon.

So you see, as CinC of the European command, he served the US president and was answerable to him. But as Supreme Allied Commander, he was a Head of State in his own right, answerable only to Soltana (who also had Head of State status) -- involved in negotiations with other Heads of State such as Milosevich.

The inability of Shelton to understand this duality, and the dislike of Shelton that Clark was Head of State and outside his chain of command as SAC (but not EUR) was a cause of friction on the US side. And on the NATO side, you had officers who clung freely to independence and served Clark as SAC, but not Clark as EUR. Examples of this was when US military personel were present during a NATO command change-over and the NATO people didn't like it, b/c they serve SAC but not EUR.

Clark had to negotiate all this tension and hold the Alliance together. You try to get 19 friends to agree on something, much less work together in signing a peace deal or waging war, and then tell me it doesn't require diplomatic and political skill.

So you see, your ignorance has nothing to do with any ignorance of US customs or arrangements -- this is a uniquely NATO arrangement and political solution created at the end of WW2. And that is why Clark had Head of State status and interacted directly with Heads of State.

The Supreme Allied Commander (Clark) and Secretary General (Soltana) of NATO were both given Head of State status to cut through red tape and contact whoever they needed to keep the Alliance together, a legacy of WW2. They worked as a team, with the civilian nominally in charge of the military. Clark focused more on the military side (like negotiating with Milosevich) and Soltana more on the political side (like wrangling funding for NATO -- but Clark had to do his own wrangling with the Pentagon and the U.S. Congress for funding outside NATO). But both are political positions and requires diplomatic skill. If you read Clark's book, you'll find that he also speaks directly with Blair and Chirac (and Milosevich and all the other Heads of State) and knows both personally.

I, too, once thought of Clark as no more than an ordinary general, even a high ranking one. It wasn't until I read Waging Modern Wars that I understood how political his office was. His job description of SACEUR required him to play the Pentagon against NATO and NATO against the Pentagon to get them to agree with each other. Clark was the political link between the two chains of command (since Soltana had no position inside the US chain).

I strongly suggest you read Waging Modern Wars to get a glimpse of the inner political workings of the US-NATO relationship and diplomatic wranglings, all a legacy of WW2 and Eisenhower's foresight of having SAC and EUR be the same person with distinct and competing obligations.

[cosmokramer]

107. OR perhaps you are just ignorant of the facts and rather presumtuous

What a shameful tone you use here.

General Clark was endorsed by over 50 Ambassadors. Of course, it wouldn't be proper for 'Heads of State' to endorse, but he is personal friends with your Mr. Blair as well as other world leaders AND 'Heads of State', not just military leaders. He is well respected and admired all over the world. It would serve you well to educate yourself before you speak on matters of which you know nothing. His function as SACEUR was much more than 'military'. It is a position of 'diplomat' and 'negotiator'.

I do not take kindly to your philosophy that we seek to take a position of 'military superiority' and your implication that our choice of General Clark exemplifies this. You are dead wrong. We support the General for his intellect, stature, courage, ideas, humanity, kindness and a host of other reasons which you fail to recognize through your prejudiced eyes.

Learn more about him from ALL sources before you judge.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. Excuse me?

As Supreme Allied Commander, Clark enjoyed head of state status himself, according to the treaty. He had the power to speak with the head of ANY member nation at any time he chose. To include the POTUS.

Now, as an American General, he would not have done that without US clearance, and he never made an end-run around the Sec of Defense to talk to the President. But it was within his authority.

And in fact, Clark met with Blair, Schmidt, Mitterand and the rest repeatedly. Worked with the Secretary General Solana, also considered a head of state, on an almost daily basis. In fact, he was having dinner with the head of state of Lithuania the night he got the call from Shelton that his command would be cut short by two months.

[Auntie Bush]

54. "the call from Shelton " Pleaaaase don't remind me of Shelton.

I'm watching my blood pressure.

[Joe Chi Minh]

98. Interesting, jai,

but it doesn't seem relevant, since his remit was solely military and/or geopolitical in terms thereof.

As I mentioned to RandomUser, there is an element of confusion engendered by the fact of American Presidents, themselves being official C-in-Cs. And consequently, as the President's designatetd plentipotentiary for the purposes of NATO, it would be strange if he did not have immediate access to the President.

But while the status of an American C-in-C of NATO may be considered by Americans to easily trump that of any Eastern potentate or Head of State, but I suspect that diplomatic protocols would have it otherwise.

Kerry, on the other hand, was presumably received by the Eastern potentates, in person, as America's shadow Head of State, who might conceivably be called upon to take over the reins of power in the US, in the short to medium term.

[RandomUser]

110. You're wrong

Clark's Head of State status has nothing to do with his American position.

[Jai4WKC08]

116. "...his remit was solely military and/or geopolitical in terms thereof..."

Huh? In English? And "thereof" what? I don't know what you're tryin' to say, but "military and/or geopolitical" pretty much covers all the bases.

Fwiw, I never said the Supreme Allied Commander "trumped" anyone, only that he enjoyed Head of State status, and dealt with other Heads of State routinely (and NOT just their military reps). Technically on an equal footing, but I will grant that probably depends to some extent on the head of state involved. In any case, that's something you claimed to doubt up-thread. Now you are admitting that he did, but it somehow is meaningless to the discussion? Remember now... this is all about whether Clark can play hardball.

What-ever.

It was kinda cute how he was on a first name basis with Nelson Mandela at the Clinton library dedication tho.

I'd also like to see a source for the following:
1) which "Eastern potentates" Kerry had any direct dealings with
2) when he met with them,
3) what he actually accomplished, and
4) on what you base the idea that he was received as a "Shadow Head of State."

I don't recall that Kerry travelled to the mid-East during his campaign. I do remember that he skipped the challenge to the Ohio electoral votes because he was over there in Jan 05. Are you trying to tell me those "potentates" (what a quaint and condescending term) actually thought he might be President AFTER the election? When he didn't even have the balls to challenge it? That's laughable. Them Ay-rabs really are a lot smarter than that, you know.

[dogman]

52. Why would these people endorse him then?

Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.
http://clark04.com/press/release/221/
"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to theNetherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts Americaand the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."

[Totally Committed]

55. Do you even KNOW Kerry?

Or are you just a fan?

I've "known" him since '72, and have been his constituent all his political life. I worked on almost every one of his campaigns. It should say something to you that I supported Wes Clark over Kerry for President.

TC

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. Would you care to share with us

your reasons for ceasing to be a "fan" of Kerry, in favour of Clark, TC? What weaknesses has your 33 years of familiarity with him uncovered?

That is a long time, although however gifted a leader, favouring and remaining loyal to him is not in itself a guarantee of political astuteness. There may have been one or two issues he represented which were of particular relevance and/or appeal to you. And could even have been issues he was, in fact, less comptetent in.

I am not suggesting that that was the case, just that I am not persuaded by your history with Kerry's campaigns, that your move to Clark's fan base is necessarily thereby validated as a sound, prudent move.

In the end, of course, in any case, it's for you to pick your leaders, however bad a cold the rest of the world may catch. But we are bound to be almost as passionately anxious as you that you choose (obtain) the right one.

[RandomUser]

113. Please brush up on info

I would suggest you shore up your credibility by first getting your facts straight. Your statements reflect a lack of understanding of the US-NATO infrastructure and are often factually incorrect.

[Totally Committed]

238. He definitely could talk the talk...

but when push came to shove, time and time again, he failed to walk the walk.

He caves too easily, and in the end always does the expedient thing.

Too much of his personal integrity at any given time are tied to whomever he owes the biggest favor to at that moment. He justifies too easily his own vascillation this way.

He has trouble making decisions on his own and in a timely fashion. And, this is my opinion, but I feel his judgement is often faulty. And, when he seeks out guidance (which is a LOT), he listens to a lot of the wrong people.

In 1972, the John Kerry I met was a man with fire and passion. The John Kerry that he bacame over the years was increasingly a disappointment, and eventually, a vexation to me. I lost all respect for him when he conceded 4-1/2 hours after the last vote was cast, but I wasn't surprised. What happened was a microcosm of what I had come to know about him: He promised to fight until the last vote was counted, to "never surrender". Then he conceded. That, in a nutshell, was an illustration of almost everything I came to dislike about him. He promises one thing, and then, out of expedience does another.

I prefer integrity, honesty and truth. Wes Clark, is that to me. John Kerry is not now and never will be again. This is a personal opinion, and I don't expact anyone else to share it.


TC

[Jai4WKC08]

57. I was so shocked...

By your ignorance about heads of state, I totally forgot the part of your post about BCCI. And while I will not say anything bad about what Kerry did in that regard, I have no doubt Clark could have handled it as well. He is, afterall, an economist and investment banker himself, and thus extremely well versed in the potential for crime within the banking industry. Knowing the players on the world stage as he does would be an added advantage. Perhaps he could have resolved the problem before it got to be a "scandal," or created conditions where it could never have happened in the first place.

Altho that's not completely fair. As Kerry was only a senator, and a fairly junior one at that, he was in a different position vis-a-vis the participants than Clark would be as president, so I can't really expect him to have been able to pre-empt anything. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Otoh, Kerry didn't exactly resolve the entire problem all by himself either. He was instrumental, but there were others involved. And let's face it. It was important, but hardly "big picture." Not compared to holding the NATO alliance together, fighting its only war, and save a million and a half people.

Fundamentally, K, I think you grossly underestimate the scope of Clark's experience and knowledge. I don't know what you think he has done in his career, but since he gave up division command in 1994, his career both in and out of the military has been nothing like the stereotypical Army officer. Not even for a general.

That all said, I refuse to let the thread get hi-jacked any further on Kerry accomplishments. He did good. No reason to think Clark couldn't have done just as good. Go start a BCCI thread if you want to discuss it further.

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. I'm happy to let our

comments speak for themselves, jai. But thank you for the invitation.

Correction: I think you should all read this URL.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

I'd forgotten what a - shall we say "ambiguous" - Democratic past he had. Really, how you could have talked him up as a political leader defies me completely.

[dogman]

114. That's impressive.

Some do nothing load has the courage to call Clark a twit. Leaders lead, that's how.

[Jai4WKC08]

121. You're joking, right?

That website is a collection of lying smears that have been disproved a million times on DU. I can't believe you would try to bring them all up again.

As for an allegedly "ambiguous" Democratic past... Military officers are supposed to be non-partisan. Trust me, it's a very bad thing that so many no longer are. Clark was an independent. But he has lived Democratic values his entire life. And actions are a helluva lot more important than which block one checks on a voters registration.

Eisenhower was also an independent upon retiring from the Army. In fact, he had never even voted. It stopped neither party from courting him for the nomination. He ended up registering as a Republican one month before the NH primary. And the Repubs were glad to get him. They are often smarter than we are.

It "defies me" (lol) that it would matter one whit to anyone how long Clark's political pedigree is. What matters is who he is, what he's done, and what he will do for us in the future.

[CarolNYC]

67. "Clark doesn't have experience with heads of state"

Wow, that statement is just so....absurd.

The absurdity of it just goes to show how much work we have to do in educating the masses as to what the Gneeral's qualifications really are.

Wow, a statement like that just stuns me. I guess sometimes we take for granted that folks would know the obvious elements of Clark's career and life.

As for Kerry, I honor and admire the stands Kerry took as a young man. Unfortunately for all of us, his experiences in those times seem to have caused him to become too cautious and timid, at least for my taste.

I have no doubt that Clark could take on whoever needs to be taken on. He put the life and career he loved on the line to do what he felt was right during the Kosovo operation and made enough enmies to have it cost him that career yet that's only made him a more determined, stronger fighter. It was his fearlessness in his TV appearances before he announced that brought my Mom over to the Clark side. He fears noone and back down from no challenge.

[cidliz2004]

81. Milosovich, Blair, Schmidt, Mitterand....

Are these not heads of state - and these are just the few that I know about.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. I seem to remember

he did show great character in Kosovo. I'd wish him all the best if he did become President. Not that I'd accept your opinion concerning Kerry and his motivations.

[Totally Committed]

280. If he didn't have the experience...

I doubt he would be in such demand for these foreing policy forums and speaking series... Here's one from just this morning:

UMW announces lineup for Fredericksburg Forum

Excerpt:

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and underwater explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau are among the speakers planned for the 10th season of the Fredericksburg Forum.

The Forum, hosted annually by the University of Mary Washington, invites prominent speakers twice a year to the Fredericksburg campus. Speakers for the 2005-2006 season were announced last night.

On Oct. 12, Albright will participate in a panel discussion on "The Role of the United States in World Affairs." She will be joined by former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former presidential candidate and retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark.

Albright served as secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and was the first woman to hold the position. Her autobiography, "Madam Secretary: A Memoir," was published in 2003.

Eagleburger was secretary of state from 1992 to 1993, and had previously served in the U.S. State Department for 27 years.

Clark, a four-star general, served in Vietnam and Latin America, and was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Supreme Allied Commander during the Kosovo conflict.

Entire Article:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/032005/03252005/1712771


TC

[sybil]

72. kerry who?

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

158. the lack of understanding

of what Clark's background has involved is breathtaking sometimes.

In some ways it's reassuring to know that those who think they know why he's not suited to be POTUS actually know so little, but it's also disturbing to find that there are people who honestly think being Supreme Allied Commander Europe doesn't qualify someone for dealing with heads of state.

Lord save us from people who think 34 years in the military means an ability to salute, wear a uniform and a desire to go to war.

Liberals can be so narrow minded when it comes to certain things.

[Totally Committed]

43. And Wes hasn't?

TC

[capi888]

46. What you need is....

Not someone who has cordial discussions, but someone who has dealt with them head to head, with years of experience bringing leaders of the world to the table, setting them down, leading the discussion with knowledge and experience, in listening to others problems, and bring them to a resolution. That person is Wes Clark...Kerry has been in the Senate, for years, and I truly respect that. However, this is way out of control and we need someone who knows the Middleast, EU, and has the will and experience to solve issues....with diplomacy and skill. Wes did that before and he WILL do it again.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. Are you sure Wes Clark

has engaged in discussions with the middle-eastern Heads of State? I doubt it. Not that Clark would not have admirable qualities and experience with EU MPs, but that is something else again.

As regards, my use of the term, "cordial", though, I was indicating not bonhomie, conviviality, etc., but respect for Kerry on their part.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. You would be mistaken

He was in Dubai at a major conference just in December. Before that, he has toured the region and met with their leadership at multiple levels.

Then too, remember much of what we consider the Middle East was in his area of responsibility as CinC, EUCOM. It wasn't just Europe.

[Totally Committed]

53. General Clark was also...

in charge of the fly-overs the Iraqi "No Fly" zone after the first Gulf War. Because of this he had frequent contact with the leaders of all our coalition allies including Jordan and Egypt.

As a negotiator of the Dayton Accords, he also has had much contact with Muslim leaders of that conflict seated by the side of Madeleine Albright. He also knows many world leaders through friends like Richard Holbrooke and Jamie Rubin.

Wes is no slouch in the Foreign Policy area. And, an added plus: He keeps his promises.

TC

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Only the Northern No-Fly Zone, TC

CinC CENTCOM (Zinni for more of the time Clark was SACEUR) had the Southern No-Fly Zone.

But you are correct that he had to work with Hussein and Mubarak, as well as whoever was President of Turkey at the time and probably the whole lot of nations in the region.

[FrenchieCat]

59. KCabotdullesMarxIII, all I can do is ROTFALOL at your

statement.

Clark has already been Commander in Chief of the Southern Command and of Europe and Supreme Allied Commander.

It is not "legislative experience" that's needed to make a great president, it is executive experience that must be the pre-requisite for the presidency. That's why Senators don't make it often as Presidents....they lack executive experience.

Additional PRE-REQUISITE QUALIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008 should include those listed below. Please note that Clark is more than qualified....and in fact, one would be hard pressed to find someone else that is more or even as qualified.

VISION & INSIGHT = Wes Clark has the best thought-out and complete vision of his ideas for America. In 2004, he wasn't just talking about how he would beat Bush out of the White House but about his 100 Year Vision for America. Probably one of the most far-reaching themes of any campaign since JFK.

INTELLIGENCE = 1st in West Point Class; Rhode Scholar; written two best selling books and a myriad of op eds (first book currently used as a teaching tool at the Carnegy Council of Ethics and International Affairs.)
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplat...
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cg...
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/Lib/lib028.html

EMPATHY FOR THE LESS FORTUNATE = self made man who made not more than $50,000 most of his life and has lived in real trailers/$90,000 as a 4 Star General; philosophy degree from Oxford; wounded to near death in Vietnam; called for action against genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo; wrote Army amicus brief for U of Michigan Affirmative Action case to the Supreme Court; called attention to Darfur; currently on board of the International Crisis Group. http://www.icg.org/home/index.cfm?id=3247&l=1

ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE = Masters in Economics from Oxford/White House Fellows in the Budget office. Is a licensed Investment Banker; Proposed the best progressive tax reform plan during the primaries. http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/my...

NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE = Clark is considered an expert in the field as he was in charge of National Security in Europe and Latin America. Currently works for Witt and Associates--A Homeland Security company http://www.homelanddefensestocks.com/Companies/Homeland...

FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE = Negotiated Dayton Peace Accords in 1995; Negotiated with dictators and stuck his finger in their face; testified before Senate and the House against going to Iraq; Testified at the Hague against Milosovich. Has been knighted in England, decorated in France and received Medal of Freedom from Prez Clinton, apart from numerous medals from various countries, including the U.S. Clark has so much experience on the matter of Foreign Policy, it's not even funny.

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING EXPERIENCE = Ran for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2004. Placed 3rd in NH after 1st and 2nd place New Englanders; was the only candidate apart from the eventual nominee to win a state that was not his home state; placed 2nd (without media coverage) in New Mexico, Arizona and North Dakota. Bowed out gracefully when it was clear that Kerry would be the nominee; Raised the most money after Howard Dean up to January of '04 (and raised the most in January '04) although was only in the race for 4 months (compared to 18 months for others); Put together a credible campaign in just a few months with leftover staffing; Had the biggest Grassroot movement after Howard Dean.

SPEAKING ABILITIES = Debating Team at West Point; speaking fees of $30,000 upon retirement; CNN commentator during the onset of the Iraq War; spoke one of the best speeches during the Democratic Convention; surrogate at large for John Kerry during the 2004 Prez campaign (meme that he's not "ready for primetime" made up by the corporate media who, to protect their various interests, did not want Clark as the nominee to go against Bush).

INDEPENDENT & COURAGE = was his party affiliation until he became a Democrat. Cannot be described as highly partisan, but stands for Democratic ideals stronger than most Democratic politicians. Courage in the face of battle in Vietnam and was rewarded with Bronze, Silvers and Purple Hearts for non-controversial but couragous actions. Was retired early for standing up for principles. Privately Encouraged both O'neal, Clarke and S. Hersch to expose the Bush Administration.

TRUE "BLUE" REPRESENTATIVE OF FAITH, VALUES, and PATRIOTISM = Married to the same woman for 36 years. Is 1/2 Jewish, raised a southern baptist, converted to catholism. Southern Values are his forte. Served his country for 34 years. Firmly believes in the separation of Church and State. Wes Clark can speak on the subject of values, faith, patriotism like nobodies business. He has lived these values, he has breathed these values, in fact, he represents these values.

HAILS FROM A RED STATE= Arkansas -- Is a real progressive, but perceived as a moderate by the general voting public.

GRAVITAS = Sole Democrat 4 Star General who won the last war America fought (prior to Iraq) without losing a single American. Most decorated officer since Eisenhower. Perceived as a "Strong" leader by the masses.

NOT A SENATOR OR A WASHINGTON INSIDER but understands Washington= Wes Clark

VIABLE ACTIVE TRUE GRASSROOTS = Clarkies are everywhere and really did make a difference in his last campaign. Blog still gets over 300-500 comments per day.

TELEGENIALITY AKA "IT"= Face it--The guy looks great!

SCIENTIFICALLY INCLINED= http://www.greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm

HUMOR = Does really, really good impressions.

CALM UNDER PRESSURE BUT WILL KICK ASS WHEN REQUIRED = See Faux Smackdown appearance being interviewed by AsSman!

HONESTY =(shit, the man even told us who he had voted for in the past. He didn't have to, now did he?)

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS(Partial list):
1980-1982- Commanded the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado.
1983-1983- Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC
1984-1986-National Training Center, as Commander Operations Group, he revised the overall training program by improving scenarios, enhancing After Action Reports, and developing the first Brigade-level training exercise and the first heavy-light rotations.
1986-1988- Commanded the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado.
1989-1991- Commander of National Training Center General Clark --spent 5 years training leaders and soldiers at the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, California.
1991-1992 - Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine and Developments, US Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia
1992-1994 - Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
1994-1996 -Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff where he was the staff officer responsible for world-wide politico-military affairs and U.S. military strategic planning. He also led the military negotiations for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Dayton.
June 1996-July 1997 - Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama
1997-2000 - Supreme Allied Commander Europe on 11 July 1997. Also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command.

[ICantBelieve]

60. Wow! That's terrific!

That's a terrific summary, FrenchieCat. I'm going to steal it, if you don't mind.

Hey, though, you left out where that picture came from! Yet another feather in Wes's cap.

[FrenchieCat]

93. Please do use it, and add whatever I may have left out.....

and you can be sure that I did leave things out, as there is so much that Clark has done.

[CarolNYC]

68. That's one thing that confuses me....

I don't understand why people tout legislative experience as a prerequisite for someone running for President. Do people not realize that the Presidency is the executive branch of the government. Someone running for an executive position would be better served by executive experience, no??

[Clarkie1]

69. The senate is not a training school for the presidency.

You are correct. Someone running for an executive position would be better served by executive experience.

Govenors at least have that, but ideally a president would have a broader, more international perspective than what comes from serving the idosyncratic needs of a single state within the United States.

Which is why Clark is the best candidate for the presidency this country has had in a very long time.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Don't be confused.

When folks support a candidate that has no executive experience, it is natural that they might claim that none is required, or that legislative experience is better. Same goes for those who want to support a candidate who has no National Security Experience. Those folks might say that 2008 will not be about that (I beg to differ--the GOP and the media don't keep saying that 9/11 changed everything for nothing), but it will be about something else (yeah, right...like GOP is going to let go of their trump card ) cause that's what is convenient to Dems.

It's kinda of like folks who feel that one must be a politician to run for the presidency (they must have been elected before, i.e., won an election). There are people who may truly believe that a candidate has a better chance of winning the number of states needed to win the presidency if they have at least won one state or one district of a state in the past. I'am not from that school of thought, as I don't think that winning one state (say New York or Massachussetts) equals to meaning you can win the presidency. I think people vote on the character and their trust of the nominee, not whether he/she has won before.

On the one hand, voters as a majority seem to distrust politicians, yet on the other hand, some think that only politicians can win. There's a disconnect there that I don't think is truly logical. But it's an argument (and probably the only one you will hear raised when Clark's name comes up as a possibility).

[CarolNYC]

151. Yeah...

Frenchie writes:

"When folks support a candidate that has no executive experience, it is natural that they might claim that none is required, or that legislative experience is better. Same goes for those who want to support a candidate who has no National Security Experience."

yeah, I see what you mean....

[Totally Committed]

88. Wow, Frenchie!

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to try and take on these posts when you are so deadly GREAT at it!

Yowza, woman!

TC

[FrenchieCat]

96. Keep posting TC.....

You have much to say, and you say it very well. The more, the betta'!

[Silverhair]

172. GREAT POST !!!

I am stealing it too. I have copied it and saved it. Great job of summing up Clark's qualities.

[sybil]

71. kerry who?

[Clarkie1]

74. domesticated lawyers and politicos are softball, not hardball.

Irregardless of the name of Tweety's show on MSNBC.

You don't know what hardball is.

[shireen]

91. you keep embarrassing yourself ....

Thanks for the laugh! Clark has more experience with world leaders than Bush and Condie have right now!

What's sad is while I watch the antics of the incompetents in the Executive Office, I think of what we could have had ... a real leader.

[cosmokramer]

58. We should all learn from 2004 elections..

...it takes a non-New England, non-Senator, no congressional voting record SOUTHERN person with VAST military/foreign policy experience to win who has a humble background.

Duh, he should have been our candidate in 2004 and we would have WON the White House.

Come on dems, lets finally learn from our mistakes. Pick the General in 2008, and we WIN.

[cidliz2004]

82. You took the words right out of my mouth!

If Clark would have been the Democratic Nominee, we would have a Democrat in the WH AND there would have been a massive investigation on voting fraud.

[Mass]

84. So NE should secede

if being from the South is a prerequisite to be president.

May be there is still a chance to make an union with a non religiously driven, liberal and democratic country like Canada,

[FrenchieCat]

90. Red States are not all Southern States....

Please see:
Arizona
New Mexico
Iowa
Nevada
Missouri
Ohio

These states are "Red States" because the Republicans won there in 2004, but yet they are not in the South.

It appears that being from the South helps win election based on recent history. This is just a current fact.

Whether we end up with a Southern nominee or not, is another question.

For those who want to win, guess that a southern man might feel that it would increase our chances.

[Totally Committed]

248. I'm from Mass. ...

And I want to WIN an election sometime again soon. We cannot govern if we cannot win. I say if Senators from MAss. are no longer considered safe bats for that win, then so be it!

I'd rather have a Party that would not disenfranchise me by front-loading the primaries like last time, thank you.

TC

[Dinger]

61. Testify! Amen To That!

Excellent post! Thank you, thank you, thank you:yourock:

[jen4clark]

64. Clarkies rock!!

:bounce:

[Tinksrival]

65. A President this great country deserves!

I feel blessed to have come to know Wes Clark. At first I thought he was too good to be true and I prepared myself for some let down, but it never happened. He has never disappointed me and that is remarkable. We all share a common bond in this remarkable man and we all are better for it. I will continue to watch Wes for inspiration and I hope others will come to see as well.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

[Nostradammit]

70. Why does this thread make the hair on the back of my neck stand up?

This all just feels so "astro-turfy."



Sorry -

Just thinking outloud is all.

Carry on, soldiers...

[Tinksrival]

73. No astro turf..... it's the real thing

It's the greener grass on the other side.....your standing in bushs and weeds.

Just say'in.

[Nostradammit]

75. Oh... Well, thank God I have a copy of *this* with me -

Just say'in zawl.

[shireen]

92. are you confused?

this thread is about politics, not grammar.

[Jai4WKC08]

77. I don't understand what you mean

by "astro-turfy."

Are you trying to say our responses are "manufactured" and not "grown" as true grassroots? If so, that's utter bullshit.

But surely you wouldn't make casual accusations against fellow DUers and Democrats without some facts to back it up... would you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Do you have a few reams of paper and a free weekend to read?

Many of us Clark supporters at DU were active in the original Draft Clark campaign for the 2004 Election. I got in toward the tail end but some here were very early members. One Draft Clark site collected letters from citizens asking Clark to run which were posted and then delivered to him. There was a suggested form letter people could just sign if they wanted, that's standard practice as you know, Move On uses that, all the Boycott movements use that etc.

Often though people just used that letter as a starting point for their own comments, or wrote their own letter from scratch. Many of the letters are quite long. All of the letters are archived at this URL: http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/supporters0826.htm
It goes on for pages and pages and pages. You can quickly scan past the form letters if you want, they are easy to recognize, but do know that each was signed by a different person. It is the personal letters that are powerful. Astro Turf? No. I dare you to read through those letters arid come back to DU to comment on them.

Or if you want to see a collection of letters that people sent in that I started collecting and saving during the last couple of weeks before Clark announced, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x610
There are no form letters in this group, just an amazing diversity of strong support for Wes Clark running for President. I call it grass roots support.

[capi888]

80. Thanks Tom for posting the letters addy....

I am also one of the original Draft Clark group..and one of those letters is mine...thanks...

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. My pleasure

There were very many powerful and personal statements written there. Reading them the first time helped me turn the corner from being a skeptic about Clark to a real supporter, The range of support he received amazed me, and there were some very moving accounts written by people who knew Clark personally.

[CarolNYC]

153. Yes, thanks Tom.

I think I've got a couple of letters in there...As I began to fear that he wouldn't run, I wrote him again.

[autorank]

76. Precisely! An exceptional military man, intellect, and a liberal.

This is so correct. If Hillary handles Iraq the way she did health care, we'll be dealing with it 13 years from now.

[kevsand]

78. More like twenty years... n/t

[Mass]

83. She said so herself

She said that the important thing was not how long the American troops stayed in Iraq as long as there were no casualties. She must be dreaming.

[Texas_Kat]

86. We need Wes Clark because

He's the only one in the field who has a true strategic grasp of the issues we face and the ability to connect the dots for those who don't.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/107

http://tinyurl.com/42dwk

Forging a New Vision for America

Snip...

"It's up to us. Let's get to work.

America today is at a crossroads. Both at home and abroad, our security and values are being challenged. And while technology and the globalization of capital present many opportunities, we also face many threats. America needs a new vision for itself in order to deal with its challenges and make the most of its opportunities.

The evolving global economy is making it harder for America to maintain its economic preeminence in the world and threatens Americans' ability to compete for the best jobs. The threats to our physical safety and national security are greater now than they have been during any period since the end of the Second World War. We need a strategy to cope with these threats and to maximize our opportunities."

Wes Clark

[Sparkly]

94. Definitely!

Now more than ever.

[AP]

100. In my opinion, Clark activates conservative models for seeing the world.

If you think the Democrats are so far gone that they need to run, basically, a liberal version of what Republicans tell you is right for America (ie, a liberal who believes that the Republicans are right about what the most important issues are), then Clark's your man.

If you think the Democrats still have a lot to gain by running someone who activates progressive models for viewing the world, then there might be someone out there who can do a better job. There might be someone out there who is a symbol of a prioritization of values that invokes a more progressive model.

Why is this important? Well, one thing to consider is, if Clark is at the top of the ticket in 2008, where does that leave Democrats in other races at the bottom of the ballot? The argument that Clark would be making would be that the world is essentially a dangerous place, that foreign policy is the most important issue, and that what you need to solve America's problem is a general who isn't a Republican.

Is that an argument that helps, say, Debbie Stabenow or Jennifer Granholm win their races? Does that help your local congressman who started his career as a public defender? I think it would help a lot of conservatives make an argument that you should vote for them rather than for a Democrat, even if you were inclined to vote for Clark for president.

By activating the conservative model, Clark might be able to win his race, but, by activating the conservative model, he might actually be helping to undermine the races of down-ballot races where there is no way in the world that Democrats will find a candidate to run who works within the model Clark establishes -- and that's presuming that people would even be convinced to vote for Clark once they've been convinced that Republican priorities are, essentially, correct.

This was a problem with Clinton on some levels, however it was with Clinton's language and not his image. Clinton LOOKED like a progressive. He did not have to open his mouth and you saw on stage a person who embodied the progressive model. However, when he talked, he used conservative language. For example, he talked about smaller government. Of course, it wasn't the kind of smaller government conservatives wanted. Clinton also didn't go out on a limb. He did a thousand small (and brilliant) things. But the sum total was that he didn't leave America with a progressive model for seeing the world. Had he tried harder to invoke progressive models for seeing the world, he might have been able to actually channge the mood and the spirit of America in a way that would have congealed many more voters into Democratic voters (he might have convinced Soccer Moms that they shouldn't defect into Security Moms). But at least Clinton looked like a progressive.

[Sparkly]

103. In my opinion, he does no such thing!

In my opinion, there IS no "conservative model" -- only issues conservatives claim to be their "model." In my opinion, on each of those issues Democrats have better policies, a better record, and better chance of achieving important goals. In my opinion, today's so-called conservatives (who aren't even conservative) simply use rhetoric that dupes people into thinking they and their policies are as fair, strong, compassionate and moral as Democrats' -- sometimes even fooling people into thinking their stances are in fact the very same as Democrats'.

In my opinion, your sentence beginning with "The argument that Clark would be making" is nonsense based on stereotypes and prejudices.

[dogman]

105. What is the conservative model?

It seems to be PNAC, which Clark has called out and condemned. He brings a progressive model, diplomacy first. He brings credibility and leadership ability. He has done these things not just talked about them. he has real life hands on experience along with intuition and intellect. When he ran in '03-'04 he stated that it would be necessary to elect Dems to office to give him the support he needed. He also offered an alternative to Civil War because GOPers could take cover in his stature to support him. dems normally benefit with a strong candidate at the top of the ticket. He has gone out and benefitted campaigns in the last election.

[AP]

111. That people should be willing to sacrifice a great deal in order to ...

be safer; that national security should be the preminent concern of the American people and that if you look after that first than other pieces fall into place.

[dogman]

117. Clark can walk and chew gum at the same time.

He is not a one trick pony with one stump speech.He has the ability to absorb many factors and come up with solutions that are not obvious to others. This has been backgrounded and linked many times for your benefit.

[AP]

119. This isn't so much about Clark the man as it is about Clark the message.

Whatever Clark is capable of as a human being, he is still is running on a finite set of ideas and a consistent persona that is defined by much more than "this man can do several things at once."

Look at the name of his PAC. Read his book. Listen to his speaches. Listen to what he says when he's interviewed on Fox and CNN. The themes he has chosen to define himself in the minds of Americans activate a conservative model. He is basically arguing that everything you hear Republicans tell you about what is important and what isn't is basically correct, but, although they have their priorities in order, their execution is poor. When you accept the framework for the conservative world view (that the world is scary, that national security is the most important thing, and that you should rank your concerns about other things a little lower) then you're conceding almost half the game right there. You have reduced your margin of error dramatically.

That's what Clark does. He may, in fact, be the most likely person to win if everyone in America decides that the Republican world view is right, so it's good to have him arround. However, my feeling is that I'm not ready to conced that someone who articulates a different prioritizatioin of values wouldn't be successful and wouldn't be the best way to get some deep roots growing so that the progressive tree grows stronger (which is what Clinton didn't really do).

[dogman]

126. The last election showed that is the electorates view of the world.

He is not telling you that the GOP view is basically correct, he is telling you that it is wrong. He is aware the neocon agenda will destroy America. He has also just recently pointed out that the most serious threat to our economy is not dealing with the emerging markets of China and India. We are way past a protectionist solution. He is calling on people to protect freedom of speech from the FCC. You might think it's easy to erase people's memories of 9-11 and the Iraq War, but they are going to be around in 2008 and beyond. In the private arena he is working toward environmentally sound alternatives. Just because the MSM chooses to seek his deep knowledge about FP and HS, does not mean he is limited to those arenas. He has expounded on the root causes of unrest in the Middle East. He has covered the ground Edwards mentions in the ABC interview and more because he has a broader understanding of the culture that has created the appeal of OBL to the youth of the ME. Clark the man is the message. He has engaged in numerous problem solving projects in the military and amazed others with his ability to see the totality of the exercises and come up with long term solutions that put him beyond any other participant. He has a Masters Degree in Economics. He has worked in the OMB.

[AP]

130. That's not my reading of the last election.

I think it was the lack of stickiness of the soccer mom to progressive values. Why did women so easily switch to security moms? Because all they heard was that the world is a scarry place and they went with the itchy-trigger-finger candidate who wasn't going to hesiitate to act in times of trouble.

I think if voters like security moms had a more progressive model activated for them -- if they thought more about whether their children were goig to graduate into a world that was delivering wealth to a middle class that worked for a living to create it, or was delivering wealth to a very few, very wealthy people who employed them -- then they might have cared more about electing a progressive president.

And I know that Clark is all things to Clark supporters, but the fact is, he is also trying to define himself very specifically, and I'm very confident that I'm not misreading him.

He is indeed trying to cover a lot of progressive bases, but there's no mistaking his prioritization of those bases.

[dogman]

140. I think they are more concerned that their children live to graduate.

I think the electorate is bigger than soccer moms or security moms. As I have said before, people have no use for wealth if they don't have the security to enjoy it. The election was more likely lost on the issue of gay marriage if the stats from Ohio are to be believed.

[AP]

144. Yes. And that's the conservative model. Which I don't like.

Your post perfectly embodies a mood that I think tends to lead to people voting for Republicans.

Although you embrace this model in a way that leads you to support Clark, I think that you are very rare. For most people, it will result in a vote for a Republican.

That's how fascism and fear mongering works, whether in Chile when the RW propagandized against Allende using the same arguments (with women, incindentally), or if it's Venezuela, or Italy, or the UK or the US.

This is why FDR told people they have nothing to fear but fear itself. He knew that that was the antidote to fascism.

And, incidentally, it turns out that it wasn't gay marriage that lost the election. It was the votes of white suburban women -- that was where the biggest shift to Republicans was.

[Sparkly]

146. There is no reason it needs to be that way

Republicans are NOT automatically winners when national security is on people's minds. Especially not if there's someone who's got the creds and the weight to say, without a doubt, that they are NOT the party to trust on such issues.

But I still contend it's not that simple, not that black and white. It's not all about national security; in fact, it's not completely about issues and policy. There are cultural factors at play, individual beliefs about "identity," and to a large extent stereotypes and lies people have bought from decades of strategy by Republicans.

Someone like General Clark annihilates those stereotypes without even saying a word. Three decades of rightwing "framing" disappear when Clark takes a stand. The familiar mud about "what a librul is" doesn't stick. That's not to say they wouldn't sling mud -- but it'd be a lot harder because the buttons they've created over so many years wouldn't be pushable.

[dogman]

148. I don't think it's a model, it's reality.

They see, what they thought was only in places like Israel, take place on a grander scale in NY. The GOP new it was a God send, based on history. The last analyses I had seen on Ohio said it was lost in the minority community because they were upset with the gay issue. I didn't really folow up on it since it was a done deal. My support for Clark was influenced by my admiration for his stands and the fact that I recognized the mood of the public and the likeliehood that he was the only candidate that could bridge the gap to the Republicans. I still believe that to be true. I originally looked at Edwards because like his brother I am a Union Electrician. I did not care for his conservative bent but realized it might be necessary to win. I then began to warm to Kerry because of his anti-VNWar stance and saying we needed regime change at home. I realized his personna probably could not beat Bush however. Then, as the Draft Clark movement built steam, i saw him as the candidate that had the appeal to me and could draw enough support across the board to beat Bush. I felt he was too good to be true and realized his problem would be the Primary ,not the General Election. I don't think things will change for '08. If you notice the analyses of Hillary, it is mentioned that she sought Senate committees that would enhance her FP and NS credentials. having come from a campaign that ran on the economy, I find it telling that she sees this as the way.

[AP]

149. No, that is not reality. It is an interpretation of reality that is the...

...product of accepting the RW metaphors and framework.

Black voters in OH hung with Democrats. It was white women in the suburbs who abandoned the Dems in droves because they bought into the conservative framework and Democrats didn't give them a competing progressive framework which resonated with them.

[Sparkly]

155. Why are you framing this as "either/or?"

Why not reassure such voters that a Democratic ticket is indeed strong on security, AND provides a progressive framework? Are you saying being smart, strong, effective, diplomatic in the world is counter to progressive politics? Or that progressive politics means being inept at such things?

[yebrent]

157. If we run from foreign policy and national security...

than that is ALL that Republicans and MSM will talk about. Kerry and Edwards did talk about "competing progressive frameworks" just that no one listened. They were all too scared from the constant fear mongering by the Republicans. And when your average voter looked at Kerry and Edwards, their fears did not ease. Clark can ease those fears AND offer a "competing progressive framework".

[AP]

161. Nobody is talking about running from foreign policy. What Dems need to do

is to talk about foreign policy in a way that activates progressive models for voters so that fear isn't the motivation for making decisions.

Here's a good way to do that:

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

[Sparkly]

174. Oh please

First of all, the points about connecting with Islamic people are made frequently by Democrats and Republicans alike, in various ways. Republicans use this idea of compassion toward people as an excuse for our bombing and killing people (we're just "spreading freedom" -- as in, "don't you think everyone deserves freedom and democracy no matter their faith or race, or are you biased?" "Don't you see the problem is their leaders who establish those horrid conditions and inculcate hatred of the west through their schools -- it's not about our policies! Or are you part of the Blame America First crowd? Let's bring out that happy Iraqi woman who voted again...")

So the debate has been out there -- it's not a silver bullet. But it's a lot more powerful coming from a position of strength that assures voters compassion and defense aren't mutually exclusive. Without that, it isn't heard at all, like so many other legitimate issues and stances.

Second, the Republican response to this is simply "We can't win the war on terror by being sensitive to terrorists." Never mind the discussion is about Islam. Next time Al Qaeda attacks someplace, this is not going to be the message that resonates with people.

Finally, if Kerry/Edwards "activated the progressive model" -- key to winning, you contend -- then why didn't they win overwhelmingly? Why did suburban women 'defect,' the group you say was most important? Are you saying Kerry was not progressive enough?

Are you saying avoiding discussions about national security altogether will dupe people into being unconcerned about it? Are you saying we don't need to be concerned about it? Or that Democrats are hopelessly feeble about it, and Republicans own the military and foreign policy, so we should accept perceptions that we're wimps? :crazy:

[yebrent]

177. I don't think you have heard or read enough from the General.

The following are exerts from Clark's article last year in the Washington Monthly. It nicely outlines Clark's long term solution for the Middle East:

Broken Engagement

The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East-- if only the Bush hawks understood it.

(snip)

This dream of engineering events in the Middle East to follow those of the Soviet Union has led to an almost unprecedented geostrategic blunder. One crucial reason things went wrong, I believe, is that the neoconservatives misunderstood how and why the Soviet Union fell and what the West did to contribute to that fall. They radically overestimated the role of military assertiveness while underestimating the value of other, subtler measures. They then applied those theories to the Middle East, a region with very different political and cultural conditions. The truth is this: It took four decades of patient engagement to bring down the Iron Curtain, and 10 years of deft diplomacy to turn chaotic, post-Soviet states into stable, pro-Western democracies. To achieve the same in the Middle East will require similar engagement, patience, and luck.

(snip)

These subtler efforts mattered a great deal. The 1975 Helsinki Accords proved to be the crucial step in opening the way for the subsequent peaceful democratization of the Soviet bloc. The accords, signed by the Communist governments of the East, guaranteed individual human and political rights to all peoples and limited the authority of governments to act against their own citizens. However flimsy the human rights provisions seemed at the time, they provided a crucial platform for dissidents such as Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. These dissidents, though often jailed and exiled, built organizations that publicized their governments' many violations of the accords, garnering Western attention and support and inspiring their countrymen with the knowledge that it was possible to stand up to the political powers that be.

With the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, it became clear once more that it would be the demands of native peoples, not military intervention from the West, that would extend democracy's reach eastward. Step by step, the totalitarian governments and structures of the East lost legitimacy in the eyes of their own citizens and elites. The United States and Western Europe were engaged, of course, in assisting these indigenous political movements, both directly and indirectly. Western labor unions, encouraged by their governments, aided the emergence of a democratic trade union movement, especially in Poland. Western organizations provided training for a generation of human-rights workers. Western broadcast media pumped in culture and political thought, raising popular expectations and undercutting Communist state propaganda. And Western businesses and financial institutions entered the scene, too, ensnaring command economies in Western market pricing and credit practices. The Polish-born Pope John Paul II directed Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and around the world to encourage their congregants to lobby for democracy and liberal freedoms.

Such outreach had profound effects, but only over time. In his new book, Soft Power, the defense strategist Joseph Nye tells the story of the first batch of 50 elite exchange students the Soviet Union allowed to the United States in the 1950s. One was Aleksandr Yakovlev, who became a key advocate of glasnost under Gorbachev. Another, Oleg Kalugin, wound up as a top KGB official. Kalugin later said: "Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system...they kept infecting more and more people over the years."

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=articles/washingtonmonthly/2004-05-01

When the neocons use fear tactics, Clark can counter them and provide a sense of security, while at the same time offering solutions that activate progressive models.

[AP]

180. US foreign policy...

...has been about creating markets and marketplaces that deliver wealth up to the top, whether to American companies operating in, say, Poland, or to the oil Sheikhs throughout the ME who agree to help American oil companies profit. We should be talking about delivering wealth to people who work for a living all over the world, just like FDR and Truman believed would be the route to security and stability.

I don't see Clark talking about that explicitly (here or in Waging Modern War). Yet, that's what's at the core of Edwards argument to Jennings. What Edwards said is a more blunt criticism of neoliberalism despite it's relative simplicity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. Here you go

"Remarks On Twenty Year Vision For America"

An excerpt:
(As prepared for delivery)
Manchester, NH
January 10, 2004:

“Today, vast segments of the developing world's population are struggling, desperate for America's engagement, understanding and assistance. Right now, more than half the world's population is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day, and nearly 1 billion live in chronic hunger. More than one billion of the world's adults cannot read, three-quarters of them women. And half the children in the poorest countries are not in school. Malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea alone kill 8 million people a year under the age of 15. And already in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, half of all the 15-year-olds are expected to die of AIDS. We cannot - we must not - allow this to go on.

But that's just what we're doing. For too long now, America has failed to live up to its awesome responsibilities on the world stage. We are the richest nation in education, health care, science, and bottom line dollar wealth. Yet, more often than not, we turn a blind eye to developing nations around the world, those which desperately need our help. More often than not we put the bottom line first.

America's wealth, strength, and character provides us with great power -- but they also confer great obligations...

...We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe - but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere - rather than leading a race to the bottom. Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law - not the rule of force - governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again."

Wesley Clark

[yebrent]

187. Thank You Tom!

[AP]

257. I think that quote makes my point too.

That's from a speech Clark gave to students. It's supposed to be about education. How does he start the speech? He introduces it -- he frames his argument -- by reminding the students that we live in a post 9/11 world defined by terrorism and reminds the students that we're at code orange.

Granted, he then criticizes the government for scaring people into compromising American values. However, only at the very end of the speech he says these things that you quoted, and when he says them, they're in the context of making the argument that we need to educate Americans so that they can come up with the cure for AIDS for the third world. The context is not that the government itself should address these things as part of the core approach to foreign policy (in fact, this is not a foreign policy speech for Clark -- this is his speech for college students about valuing science, education, etc.).

I would be impressed if Clark made a more causal connection: ie, if he said the US gov't should be doing these things to help alleviate suffering around the world as a key part of our foreign policy, rather than something that will be a knock-on effect of globalization and of educating Americans.

[yebrent]

186. hmmm. I guess I didn't understand Edward's comments.

To me, it sounded like Clinton's "We feel your pain" with respect to the underprivileged Muslims, but his meetings were with the same Muslim leaders who keep the status quo going. He advocates communicating directly with the people, but he didn't say how. All he says is that he understands their suffering.

Clark does say how he would communicate directly with the people. He talks about the potential for trade unions to interact directly, and the training of human rights workers in Muslim countries. Both of these simple actions would give power and support to the underprivileged classes.

However, the real problem I see is that first, the American public needs to feel safe before they can feel compassionate. Compassion may be the solution to the problem, but without a feeling of security, the public will not endorse that solution, more matter how logical it is. Clark can make the American public feel safe, thus allowing a workable solution to be enacted. Edwards and Kerry failed miserably in this respect.

[AP]

191. ...by delivering wealth to people at the bottom and in the middle, rather

than to people at the top.

Investing in secular public education. Sound familiar? We do that in the US for the same reason. To deliver wealth and opportunity to people who aren't already wealthy.

The metaphor is incredibly simple, incredibly obvious, and it triggers recognition of other things progressives do and believe in. And not only that, it is the solution. It's the truth.

"Safety first, and then we address the other problems" is exactly the conservative framework that works to destroy progress. "Address the problems with real solutions/fear is the only thing you have to fear" is the progressive framework that gets America moving towards progress.

Even if FDR felt fear every second of his presidency, he was exactly right to go to the American people and tell them that the working class cannot put its interests behind big business and Wall St's interests just because they're afraid.

Not letting fear motivate your decision making is the best way to give the tree of progress incredibly firm roots. It took RW'ers 60 years to uproot FDR's tree because FDR's strategy was the best way to counter the RW'ers.

[yebrent]

196. um, even FDR knew balance was important.

WWII ring a bell?

"Safety first, and then we address the other problems" is exactly the conservative framework that works to destroy progress.

Unfortunately that is the framework that is in America and facts and reasoning alone will not change it. Only someone who's very appearance screams "safety" can move past security and safety as an issue and remake the US foreign policy framework into a progressive one.

The message Edward's is sending is the right one, it is just the wrong messenger to make any sort of real lasting impact. The calming words of a one-term senator with no foreign policy experience just doesn't cut it. At this time in America (post 9/11), only a strong military leader can break through to the masses with a message of peace. Everyone else will continue to be ignored just as they have been these last 4-years.

On edit: I thought of an analogy. Scientists and environmentalist keep warning about global warming, yet the US public awareness has barley increased in the last 4-years. What if the head of GM, Texaco, or other Companies that benefit from CO2 emissions came out and said, "Global Warming is a problem and here is what our Company is going to do differently..."? It would have a far greater impact coming from someone who has been part of the industry that was partially to blame. That is what Clark as President can do for the Democratic Party and America with respect to changing US foreign policy to a more progressive model.

[AP]

206. "There's nothing to fear."

I couldn't disagree more that only a democrat who screams "safety" can win. I think that if you run a candidate who clearly is meant to do that primarily, you're conceding that Republicans are right about the world -- that we should be afraid. I think you are activating conservative models for seeing the world.

I've said all along that I'm open to the possiblity that this might be the only way Democrats can win. But I still think that the Democrats can win by activating progressive models, and I think they can win more by doing so.

Think of Clinton. I love Clinton. However, I wonder if Clinton might be sort of the flip of Clark. Looking at Clinton, you saw a progressive. He excuded the progressive model from top to bottom. He did not look like the strict father. However, when he opened his mouth, he activated conservative models, but he did them for liberal ends, and his frame was generally progressive. It worked to get a lot of incremental progress. But it didn't work well enough to convince people to vote for Democrats in 1994 or in 2000. The Senate and the House slipped out of the Democrats' fingers while Clinton was president.

Clark activates conservative models when you look at him, but he has a lot of progressive talk (about social issues, taxes, etc.) which comes through a conservative framing of the issues. Clark disarms people looking for the firm guidance and channels their energies towards things that lead towards liberalism. But, as with Clinton, can you really make long-term gains -- can you really change things -- when you don't explicitly activate progressive models?

I'm not saying I know the answer. However, presuming that there are candidates who represent the full spectrum of messages running, we'll find the answer in 2008.

I'll also say that I, personally, think, no matter how good a president Clark might be, that a big part of his persona is that he consciously activates conservative models, and that I think that that strategy (1) doesn't provide a great enough distincition between the parties, and (2) leaves a lot of progressive down-ballot candidates and measures in a weaker position -- especially the ones that don't work within the "masculinity" framework.

One more thing about (1) above: when you decide to fight the battle on the issues that Republicans consider the priority, you reduce your margin of error dramatically.

I would prefer to run a democratic prioritization of values (like FDR did, and like RFK looked like he was going to do) and then force a debate over which prioritization of values fits reality better, and the side debate would be, for example, does the Democratic/progressive prioritization mean that the world wouldn't be safe (the answer would obviously be no), and then Republicans would then have to answer the question, "why don't they care that they're making Americans suffer needlessly for "safety" in an environment which is obviously shifting suffering down to the middle and bottom, while making sure that people at the top aren't suffering at all.

[yebrent]

211. "appearance" screams safety. not literally.

On the rest, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. You think a candidate that can win back security and patriotism for the democrats will ultimately hurt the democratic party in the long run. And I think that it will strengthen the democratic party and allow progressive ideas to be at the adult table because they are accompanied with strong security. Were obviously not going to see eye to eye.

Best of luck with your candidate, and please remember that in the end we are trying to accomplish the same thing. However, if you are an Edward's backer, were not gonna take that Shelden crap again. Clark's active supporters are many in number and will expose Edward's cheap tactics. It was a blinding cheap shot that Clark and his supporters admittedly were not ready for last time. It will be different this time.

[AP]

215. I think that the Democrats need to win back security and patriotism by

articulating it within a progressive framework.

I don't think they can win it back by saying the Republicans are right -- it is a scarry world, and here is a better general for you because we need generals right now running America the way they successfully ran the army. But that's just my opinion. I totally accept that I might be wrong.

As for the "Shelden crap," I can't speak for Edwards or other Edwards supporters, but you know what I presume they didn't and won't take lightly? Announcing that you're going to run at the exact moment Edwards was holding his official anouncement in Robbins, SC.

But you know what? There's enough shit that goes back and forth in campaigns. Nobody has to act like a baby just because they'd rather dish out the shit that take a little.

For example, Kerry said that Edwards was in diapers when he was fighting in Vietnam. That was pretty dirty and pretty low, and Edwards registered his objection with Kerry, and Kerry apologized and Kerry picked Edwards as his VP. They all acted like adults. Nobody held a grudge. That's how campaigns work.

[yebrent]

216. Official announcement about a year after he started running.

And like I said. The Country does think it is a scary world and no amount of logic or reason will change that if it comes from the wrong messenger. What will change the "scary world" meme is a General who says it isn't so scary.

Nobody held a grudge. That's how campaigns work.

Well maybe these dirty campaigns are complacent in the creation of the most dangerous frame of them all? The frame that leads to voter apathy.

[AP]

219. ...which you spend a lot of money on and the other candidate all agree

to clear their schedules so that you get one day all to yourself.

[CarolNYC]

221. Wow!

So Shelton's (it's Shelton, BTW, not Shelden) never explained, never clarified, attack on the General's character and integrity was payback for Clark stepping on Edwards' official announcement?!? Wow, good thing the Senator was running a "clean" campaign. Hate to see what the payback would have been had he been playing dirty.

[Sparkly]

222. Yet "nobody held a grudge."

Go figure. :shrug:

[AP]

223. If it was, it was Shelton's decision, and not Edwards's.

Shelton was at a tiny college in CA giving a talk and a student in the audience asked a question about Clark. Shelton anwered the question and then refused to clarify for weeks.

It's hard to imagine that the question was planted by Edwards, and it's hard to imagine that Edwards and Shelton planned this and then waited patiently until some student at some obscure event asked the question.

The media jumped on this because at the same time the neoliberal gang of four generals were going around the media saying nasty things about Clark ad nauseum. Shelton didn't jump on that bandwagon. He just shut up. But the media loved the idea that they had a corrroborating witness (no matter how silent) for the obviously biased bullshitting of the four generals.

Shelton later tacitly endorsed Kerry during the primaries after saying he wouldn't endorse anyone, which makes it hard to imagine that he and Edwards planned this whole thing. Unless someone was putting someon on double secret probation.

What Edwards didn't do was distance himself from Shelton after Shelton made the statement. But who could blame him? He and Shelton had been friends for something like 20 years -- they first met at alumni events at NC State. Long before Shelton made any comment about Clark, Shelton had been discussing FP matters with Edwards, and he continued to do so afterwards.

So Clark took the opportunity to bitch out Edwards about who his friends were. (Any opportunity to take down Edwards a notch, I guess -- announcing on Edwards official announcement day; not dropping out after Oklahoma, which took votes away from Edwards in the south, but dropping out before WI were Clark was taking votes from Kerry; and then ignoring the gang of four, but blaming Edwards for his association with Shelton).

[ZootSuitGringo]

225. Shelton never endorsed Kerry,

and why should Clark had dropped out after coming first in Oklahoma and 2nd in 3 other states? I don't even get that thought at all. Please enlighten us.

[AP]

229. No doubt Clark saw his poll numbers going down in the last few days

of all the primaries. He may have narrowly won OK, but I understand that he was up by a decent margin with a week to go. I bet that's what he was seeing everywhere. Apparently, he wanted to pull out after OK, but was talked into remaining in the race for the southern states, where he cut into Edwards's total, but then pulled out of WI, where he probably was cutting into Kerry's numbers.

[CarolNYC]

230. Your comments on this thread...

....are very revealing. (I especially like the one where you seem to suggest that somehow Shelton was doing an honorable thing by throwing that comment out there and not elaborating on it so that Clark couldn't even try to answer the unexplained charges. Perhaps our ideas of honor are different?) Thanks for posting them. They help me to...um, grasp and understand some things a little better.

[AP]

234. Where did I say he did anything honorable?

I don't think I said anything about honor. I don't have any idea what role honor plays in this.

As Clark himself said, they had personal problems, Shelton said something he felt, and he probably regretted it after he said it. That was Clark's interpretation. It was probably pretty accurate.

My point in this thread is that the circumstances of this thing do not suggest that Edwards had anything to do with what Shelton said. Shelton made this comment on September 11 or 12 at a tine community college in California. The question came from the audience. It wasn't part of his presentation. A reporter for a weekly newspaper in Los Altos reported on it. She didn't even report on it in time for the Sept 15 edition of the weekly. It was in the Los Altos Town Crier the week after that. Shelton never repeated the statement after that.

There were a bunch of generals who were going around as part of a bullshit propaganda effort to smear Clark. The other's displayed a bias that was so palpable that the press, (who were desperate to use this line of attack against Clark) picked Shelton's comment to repeat over and over again. Shelton's cryptic statement buttressed the testimony of other very unreliable witnesses. That was unfortunate, but I don't see how you could say this was calculated. Clark admits that he had personal problems with Shelton, but why go after Shelton when you had those others who were willing to repeat their charges over and over again? I guess, by all means, go after all of them, but the idea that Edwards coordinated it was so inappropriate that it made Clark look foolish when he attacked him.

Remember when Kerry's first campaign manager left and he wrote that long memo about the campaign that got leaked to the press? One of the things he said in that memo is that if you're feeling incompetent, remember how Clark attacked Edwards on Veterans Day about Shelton's quote -- that will remind me you that there's a campaign out there that's less competent.

He's right about that. Attacking Edwards for having friends who are unpaid adivsors when Shelton was obviously not speaking for Edwards, and who aren't fans of Clark was silly. Clark had a lot of ex-military people he could have attacked on this issue, but to pick Shelton (to whom even Clark was able to atribute a semi-reasonable explanation -- a policy dispute that became personal) in an effort to criticize Edwards was clumsy, at best.

[CarolNYC]

247. "I don't think I said anything about honor"

No, you didn't...but then, I didn't say you had.

Again, thanks for the illuminating conversation.

[AP]

256. I'll ask you more specifically:

What did I say that encouraged you to write "I especially like the one where you seem to suggest that somehow Shelton was doing an honorable thing.."?

[CarolNYC]

281. What you said that encouraged me to write that....

"Shelton didn't jump on that bandwagon. He just shut up."

Surely you can see where this could be read as if it was more honorable to shut up than to explain his remark. Whether it was intentional or not, only you can know.

Nothing anyone else said about Clark was comparable to the vague and unanswerable smear that Shelton made. After throwing something like that out, he had an obligation to explain why. But perhaps you think attacks on someone's "character and integrity" are no big deal.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject....Again, thanks.

[yebrent]

212. self delete

[Clark2008]

254. Edwards knows bupkus about foreign policy

and, what little he does know, he was taught by Clark.

Sorry - but as a Southern woman (who happens to be a soccer mom), I see complete and total failures in your argument in support of John Edwards.

For example, Clark's vision is not a Democratic version of a conservative model, it's about diplomacy, understanding foreign nations and learning how to best fit the United States into the fabric of foreign policy. Naturally, everyone in the United States wants our country to do well in the world arena, but we cannot just run roughshod over everyone else (which is the PNAC model).

If you don't think our domestic agenda is effected by our foreign policies, then you need to go back and study some civics. We have to learn to work with foreign leaders to A.) Protect our country, B.) Get what's best for the workers in this country and C.) Do so without either inflamming the world and/or becoming a door mat.

Edwards wouldn't even meet with the sizable contingency of Muslims in his home state after 9/11 (and no, I don't have a link. I know this because I have family there who are active in the Muslim community), which shows either utter comtempt or an utter lack of diplomacy.

[Sparkly]

142. I just don't agree with that.

The Republican party has spent decades honing a "message" to run on, but it's not about real national security at all. Before 9/11, I was called a "Scarocrat" for talking about terrorists (rightwingers insisted they were imaginary "bogeymen") and Social Security/Medicare solvency (rightwingers insisted they didn't exist anyway, shouldn't exist, and nobody needs a lockbox).

The fact is that we DO need national security, as well as to protect our allies and our (principled) interests abroad. The fact is we need to show clearly and state loudly that the Republican party has made us more vulnerable, not more secure; has acted recklessly in the world, not strategically; has squandered the goodwill and credibility we once had, and has shown Americans to be unprincipled in respect (or disrespect) to international law. We need a leader with a voice that gets these points across with weighty credibility.

But that's far from the only issue at hand. Republicans are also running on "moral values," "personal responsibility," "limited government," and other such slogans that bear no relationship whatsover to what they actually DO. And above all, they run and win on one key issue: "My opponent is unacceptable because..." We can't stop that no matter who we run, but we can consider what we've got to fight back with. We're up against a party that *excels* at inflaming and dividing, and we need someone whose very being, whose very biography, whose very Self unites disparate ideas and people, and shatters political stereotypes, imho.

Meanwhile, I contend we need General Clark out there in front speaking and strategizing, thinking and writing, traveling and discussing and planning and promoting and anything else he's willing to do whether or not he runs in 2008. He is definitely one of the most important Democrats we have, at the very least. That's my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Funny AP, but the last time I looked,

Edwards is the one that voted for the IWR, the Patriot Act, etc., etc.

Plus, I didn't see Edwards' picture on the cover of the Advocate.

Edwards is most likely more "Conservative" than Wes Clark. In fact, I didn't even hear Edwards denounce the Confederate Flag, or did he?

Please post something in reference to his words there on that subject, cause I am curious.

I think that Edwards' Foreign policy stance is closer to Bush and the NeoCons than Clark's ever was.

[AP]

115. The confederate flag? Are you kidding me? That's one of the reasons I...

...picked Edwards early on.

Edwards was respecting the SC boycott from the beginning.

It was one of the first things I read about him -- that he didnt' stay in hotels in SC. They asked the other campaigns what they were doing, and IIRC, Edwards was the only one who wasn't staying in hotels on trips to SC.

As for the rest of this, I think it's so obvious that Edwards activates progressive models through his persona and language, that, beyond correcting factual errors, I don't feel the need to say anything more about him in response to your post.

OK. One more thing. This, to me, is the definition of being anti-neoliberal (which is way more satisfying to me than Clark's argument in Waging Modern War that if they don't cary rifles and aren't wearing army boots than it isn't imperialism):

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

[FrenchieCat]

125. AP, Can I get a sourced Quote on Edwards' stance on the

Confederate Flag, please, cause this is what I found:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/5126661.htm
Edwards camp spending in S.C.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has backpedaled in his support for the NAACP's economic boycott of South Carolina to protest the flying of the Confederate battle flag on the State House grounds.

On a campaign swing through the state on Martin Luther King Jr. Day last month, the U.S. senator from North Carolina told reporters he would honor the boycott.

Now, however, Edwards' campaign will lease space in the state, and his staff will be free to eat at restaurants and stay in hotels, campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said.
snip
According to a year-end report filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Edwards PAC has spent more than $2,000 since last May on restaurants, gasoline, car rentals and lodging.
--------------
and also, I didn't realize that Edwards' voting for the IWR or the patriot act made him a progressive just because you say that "Edwards activates progressive models through his persona and language, that, beyond correcting factual errors, I don't feel the need to say anything more about him in response to your post."

I don't even know what that means....what you are said that I put in quotes. Can you clarify your meaning without a thousand word post?

Thanks.

[AP]

127. Frenchie, I'm not doing your research for you.

Articles about Edwards and SC are in the archives here. Althernatively, feel free to google.

I am so confident of my memory on this issue that I don't see the need to convince you that Edwards is solid gold when it comes to the confederate flag.

As for the rest:

If a Y vote on the patriot act was the sin qua non of progressivism, then Fiengold is the only progressive in the senate, and IIRC, Feingold voted no because he thought the PA should have been subject to state law. In other words, he didn't care if some states had narrow interpretations or broad interpretations of the PA's provisions, just so long as they had the option on a state-by-state basis to interpret it narrowly or broadly. Does that make him a super progressive?

As for the IWR, if we use the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as a model, then William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern were all neoliberals. Do you think they were?

Even Barbara Boxer said that she doesn't begrudge any Dem who voted Y on the IWR. She says it was nothing more than a political trap by Bush, putting Dems between a rock and hard place. I'd rather not help Bush destroy Democrats, so I'll take Boxer's advice on that issue.

[FrenchieCat]

138. I doing further research,

I will agree that Edwards' was sincere in attempting to uphold the NAACP confederate flag boycott....although his stance was later adjusted to allow him to campaign (reasonable conclusion, IMO).

I still say that voting on the IWR was not a progressive thing to do. Can't talk me out of that one.

[AP]

143. How was his stance adjusted? He stayed in private homes. The NAACP...

...said that they didn't want the boycott to stop Democrats from campaigning there so they said it was OK for everyone running to stay in hotels. Edwards still wouldn't stay in hotels in SC. (And Edwards still won SC!)

As for the IWR, George McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and later ran as an anti-war candidate. Democrats didn't hold that vote against him in '72.

[FrenchieCat]

150. His stance was adjusted as such...

Put in context....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2088208/
The Flip-Flops of John Edwards
What he said then. What he says now. What happened.
By William Saletan and Avi Zenilman

Flip: In January 2003, Edwards said he would honor the NAACP economic boycott of South Carolina to protest the flying of the Confederate flag on state grounds.

Flop: A month later, the Edwards campaign announced that it was leasing office space in South Carolina and allowing staff members to pay for hotels and restaurants.

Context: Fully joining the boycott meant that Edwards would not be able to spend money in the state, crippling his campaign there. Edwards has promised to stay with friends while in South Carolina rather than pay for hotels. That's the same position Carol Moseley Braun has taken.
-------------
In reference to the IWR, it was not the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Even I (just a citizen) knew that the IWR was timed to force the hands of Democrats during an election cycle, and right when primary campaigning was about to start. Those who voted for it either believed in it, or did it for political expediency. Take you pick.

It wasn't a progressive move....certainly.

[AP]

152. The NAACP said that everyone could stay in hotels and could campaign

fully. They said they didn't intend the boycott to hinder Democratic campaigning.

Edwards kept the boycott for himself. He and M-B were probably the only two who took it that far (I'm inferring from this article that the failure to mention other candidates means they didn't keep the boycott at all).

Incidentally, the Flip part of that article was from when all the candidates were asked the question. The others said they hadn't been keeping the boycott and that they'd evaluate the issue. I think Dean and one other (can't remeber) said right off the bat that they didn't plan to observe the boycott.

After that article appeared, IIRC, the NAACP clarified their position so that this wouldn't be used as a campaign issue -- they said all the candidates could stay in hotels.

I think it's pretty low of Saletan to use this against Edwards as a Flip-Flop (notwithstanding the little bit of context he gives). Edwards had been respecting the boycott before anyone asked and he continued to apply it to himself even after the NAACP said he didn't have to. He should get some credit for not having to think about it like most of the other candidates and for being on the good side of the issue from the start.

As for the IWR, just like the Gulf of Tonkin vote, a Y vote is not an indication of neoliberalism any more than a N vote was a sign of a progressive. It was a rock and a hard place. As Boxer said, it was a no-win vote for Democrats, and I'm not impressed with average democratic citizens who play into Bush's plan to use it to undermine Democrats who are good liberals.

[ollie3]

109. But Clark is a Progressive, not a conservative!

Geee....we could get a Democrat who has no security credentials....and what will that Democrat have to do? We can already see this! They have to show how conservative they are so they don't look too liberal or soft. Pretty soon they turn into a DINO. And then, to add insult to injury, the other side calls them a flip flopper and we lose anyway!

OR....we could get a Democrat with strong security, national defense credentials. Then he wouldn't have to prove he isn't soft. So he can be the liberal he really is unabashedly. And win.

So.....who do we want? A liberal who can actually win? Or a Dem turned DINO who will lose? Do we have to keep on making the same mistake over and over again?

Wes Clark is a progressive in every measure of the word. What is really neat is he is perceived as a moderate.

Wes Clark can usher in a broader definition of the term liberal. He is not ashamed to use the word liberal either. When people see someone like Clark espousing progressive ideas, they won't be so inclined to look down at people for being "liberal". Electing Wes Clark would dramatically change the political landscape of this country.

Problem is, the liberals are so used to losing that they are instinctively afraid of Wes Clark. Gees, if we actually won, they wouldn't have anything to complain about, and wouldn't that be too bad?

[AP]

118. Clinton was a progressive who activated conservative models (smaller gov't

for example), and I think Clinton activated conservative models to a smaller degree than Clark does. And we saw the consequences with Clinton: he didn't create a national mood which embraced progressivism as the philosophy of winning arguments.

I think there are Democrats out there who can be progressives and activate progressive models. I think that's how the Democrats are going to win. I don't think things are so bad that we have to find a Democrat who works according to what Republicans tell us is important.

[ollie3]

120. Clark was more progressive than Edwards....

Clark was more progressive than Kerry, Clark was more progressive than Dean.....if this is a conservative model, then liberals should jump for joy! Unless they really like losing.....

[AP]

122. By what measure?

By looking after the interests of people who work for a living? By trying to hold corporations to fair rules regarding responsiblity to people they injure? By trying to protect the value of an hour of ones labor? By making sure that people who create wealth in America get to keep a fair percentage of the wealth they create? By talking about hope, prosperity and opportunity? By putting these things at the top of your list of priorities?

[dogman]

129. Did you miss the last election?

These people voted against their interests. Have you checked out "What's The Matter With Kansas?"? This is not the America that elected Bill Clinton.

[AP]

134. Did YOU miss the last election?

The progressive model wasn't activated for the voters.

We spent August talking about Vietnam, and we spent the last ten days talking about how frightening it was that OBL was still on the loose and that we lost a whole lot of explosives in Iraq.

The Democrats didn't provide a framework that prioritized these (and other more important) issues raised by inevitable Republican strategies in way that still would have convinced voters to vote Democratic. It wasn't impossible. We simply didn't do it well enough.

By the way, people are always voting against their best interests. They vote according to the way they structure the world through metaphors and the democrats have given Republicans free reign to superimpose their very consistent system of values via metaphor on just about every aspect of life in America. I think, in some respects, that people see Clark as agreat presidential candidate is because of the effectiveness of those Republican metaphors and value system.

Like I said above, I'm willing to consider the possibility that Clark is the only hope (due to total Republican cultural domination) but I still think there are democrats who can very effectively activate progressive models.

[dogman]

141. I don't believe any one could have inspired a larger turnout.

I think the only way to win is to convince enough people in the middle that we have a better candidate. A candidate that they can trust to ensure a quality of life that will enhance their future, and the future of their children. If a progressive message alone were enough, Kucinich would have been a contender.

[AP]

145. The best way to win is to articulate a progressive model that people in...

the middle recognize as one that works to explain the world around them.

Kucinich's problem wasn't the message, is that he didn't articulate it well enough.

[Sparkly]

147. I completely disagree

I love Kucinich, but the reason he couldn't win has nothing to do with his ability to articulate well.

[CarolNYC]

124. I think you misread Clark...

or maybe I misread you.

In any event, why don't you read this column if you get the chance?

http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php

[AP]

128. I generally don't click through links I don't recognize.

Do you mind summarizing the article?

[CarolNYC]

131. Is it bad form to post the whole thing here?

No time to go through and summarize it...It's a column by Andrew Sabl who teaches political philosophy in the Department of Policy Studies at UCLA on the Open Source Politics blog....about how he became a Clark supporter after reading Clark's book.

[CarolNYC]

132. Here's just a little snippet...

The Army has people with low incomes, but ensures basic living standards and adequate opportunities for all. Clark's book convincingly articulates a case for making the rest of the country like that. Clark's long-running blindness to what Reaganism wrought is a flaw -- a big one. But now that he's emerged into the Brave New World (new to him), I think he gets it.

It's been said that Clark wants America to be strong at home so it can be strong abroad, not the other way around. It's true, and a bit jarring. But given Clark's clear conviction that Republican policies are undermining our economic security and the culture of opportunity that makes us so attractive abroad, this actually works better than I initially thought it could. (Look for Clark to do very well among Latinos, and immigrants generally -- or kids of immigrants, like me. He understands the American Dream, and how Republicans are running it off the rails.)

[CarolNYC]

166. and here are the opening paragraphs to the column

My support for Clark has not come naturally. I'm a partisan and liberal Democrat, no great lover of old Clinton staffers and smug New Democrats. I'm prone to value experience in democratic politics over the hierarchical values of military service. And when I heard that Clark had voted for Reagan, praised Bush, spoken at a Lincoln Day dinner, and said that he'd have been a Republican had Karl Rove returned his calls (no, I don't believe that he was joking -- though he may have been trying for sarcasm), I judged him an amoral opportunist and borderline con artist. In angry e-mails to a pro-Clark friend, I called the general an "ambipartisan" and summarized the Lincoln Day revelation as "Game Over."

But I figured I owed the largely unknown candidate a chance. Being a professor, I decided to read his book, Winning Modern Wars. After finishing it, I figured out what Clark is about, and why his candidacy is both baffling and compelling.

[CarolNYC]

139. And then there's this that I like....

“The education you get,” Clark says, “depends on where you live.” He explains that in our country the quality of the education one receives is determined by the tax base of the town one lives in, meaning poorer children get a worse education than children in more wealthy neighborhoods. “This country cannot afford to leave students behind,” Clark emphasizes, “education is the key to the American Dream!”

The speech is delivered with strength and with passion; the general gives the impression that what he says is what he believes. Fifteen minutes into the speech, the adults remain attentive, but the high school students, being high school students, have glazed-over eyes. Fifteen minutes can be a long time.

“We are in this together,” a theme Clark would return to several times, as he attacks Bush’s tax cut. “I’m going to put our children at the top of the list. They are going to be my first priority.”

What education is really about is money, funding education programs, funding teachers, funding the repair of school buildings. Clark is not discussing tax cuts for individuals, not the American Dream as a new SUV. For him all Americans must sacrifice for the good of this country, a good that cannot happen without our sacrifice.

“There is plenty of money; it’s just not in the right places. The wealthy need to be patriotic and to give some money back!”

For Wesley Clark, then, redistribution of income is not a dirty idea, not unpatriotic as it is for George Bush, and even for some of the skittish other Democratic candidates. For Clark it is the essence of patriotism.

Although Clark’s speech was on education in rural areas, it was also about his overall views. The candidate kept returning to the venerable liberal theme that we are a community of people and as a community all of us must contribute to the solution of our problems. The military is not an individualist institution, regardless of the "Army of One" ads, nor one that emphasizes materialism. Clark’s three decades in this institution does not have him today singing the glories of individualism and the dream of financial enrichment, he is more comfortable with sacrifice for the common good.

While the national media carries the Republican message that Howard Dean is a liberal, Wesley Clark, under the media’s radar screen, speaks like a Kennedy-Johnson -- dare I say the word? -- liberal. Dean, being slammed hard, would never talk straightforward about taxing the rich to pay for programs for the poor. Wesley Clark is doing exactly that.

It took a Cold War politician, Richard Nixon, to go to communist China. Will it take a retired military general to rehabilitate liberalism?

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=615&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=9091f9cbeef1ce5a4f09bcd51ac0f217

[Texas_Kat]

160. Sorry, I'm afraid that your presumptions are flawed.

Here are a couple of examples....Texas and Tennessee

Democrats in THIS reddest state (Texas) most of the elected Democratic officials in the State House and Congress endorsed Wes. These are the same democrats that did everything they could to foil Delay's redistricing plans

In Tennessee, 129 elected officials endorsed him,

Kinsey, Lloyd On Clark Endorsement List (Tenneesse)
posted January 12, 2004

“The people on this list are from all areas of the state, illustrating that General Clark shares our core values as Tennesseans – patriotism, faith, families, hard work and inclusiveness,” Davis said.

Added Sen. Harper, “These endorsers, who are from all walks, agree that General Clark is the person who can win Tennessee, who can win the South and who can take our values with him to the White House. He represents a higher standard of leadership we need back

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_45433.asp

Democrats in the South looked forward to running WITH Wes. Edwards used Texas as a checkbook and Kerry couldn't get most elected officials in Texas to campaign with him.

It takes more than nice words to win here. The Republicans play nasty and nobody knows better than Democrats in red states.

Democrats want a fighter, not a talker

[AP]

162. I'm not sure how that's a refutation, however I'll note that...

...Edwards did decently in the TX primary after dropping out. He got about 20% of the votes that Kerry got 3 times more than Dean, who came in third place, and almost 7 times more votes than Clark.

So, not only did he raise more money than all the other candidates combined in TX, but a lot of Texans liked him enough to make a symbolic vote in his favor even though he was out of the race.

I think a lot of TX'ans have been screwed over by negligent corporations, insane lending laws, and a government that sees them as cogs in a machine that makes the wealthy wealthier, and they liked Edwards's candidacy as a result.

In TN, Edwards beat Clark by almost 13,000 votes despite those endorsements.

I don't know what can be gained by comparing candidates now, but you started it and you picked two states where people were more interested in Edwards than Kerry, so I guess it's worth making the full comparison.

[Texas_Kat]

164. Duh......

Clark had dropped out of the race a month before the Texas Primary.......

Edwards was NOT out of the race during the Texas primary. But it was virtually his last stand.

Edwards never came to Texas until a week before the primary except to pick up checks (from the trial lawyers). I'd dig up the links for you but it's so well known that I'm not going to bother. Edwards had NO grassroots organization here (and never seemed to want one). But that is all beside the point.

Your point was that Wes couldn't help downballot Democrats in red states. But you couldn't be more incorrect.

I quote you " Well, one thing to consider is, if Clark is at the top of the ticket in 2008, where does that leave Democrats in other races at the bottom of the ballot?"

and

"...he might actually be helping to undermine the races of down-ballot races where there is no way in the world that Democrats will find a candidate to run who works within the model Clark establishes -- and that's presuming that people would even be convinced to vote for Clark once they've been convinced that Republican priorities are, essentially, correct."

There is no one more protective of their seat or cautious of 'endorsing' a primary candidate than an office holder in a red state. Self-preservation is a powerful force in election politics.

I've challenged your assumptions about Wes being able to help down ballot candidates and presented evidence that elected officials signed on with Wes early and often (and in large numbers). Politicians don't do that out of altruism. Apparently THEY were convinced he'd help them win re-election.

A simple point that challenges your underlying assumptions.

[CarolNYC]

167. No worries, T-Kat

I think your refutation makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight into Texas politics.

[AP]

170. Pssst.

Edwards dropped out on March 2. Texas was on March 9. Everyone but Kerry had dropped out.

Edwards got 3 times more votes than Dean and 7 times more than Clark. He got 20% the votes that Kerry got.

All I'm saying is if you want to compare candidates in TX and TN, of the only concrete measures we have (money raised, stickiness of support even after dropping out in TX, and actual votes in states in which they competed - TN) Edwards does pretty well. I don't know how many endorsments -- your measure -- Edwards got in TX or TN, but since he did pretty well by the other measures, they're worth noting.

As for downballot races, endorsements in TX and TN notwithstanding, I still ask, where does a Clark nomination leave candidates like Stabenow, Granholm and others for whom Clark's argument about who makes a good president is almost an argument that they don't make good Senators and governors? As for TX and TN, I think they'll be pretty happy to have a popular southerner whose message about opportunity and hope is consistent with their own. We'll see who they endorse in 2008, especially now that they know whom their voters liked in 2004.

[Texas_Kat]

171. What?

"Clark's argument about who makes a good president is almost an argument that they don't make good Senators and governors". How did you come to that conclusion?

One has nothing to do with another.....

AND I thought we were talking about a Presidential candidate's effect on downballot races in RED states. Stabenow and Granholm are both from a BLUE state (Michigan) and comfortably (and eventually endorsed Kerry).

I admire the thought you have put into analyzing the political landscape, but frankly you speak as though you have little experience in politics itself. They are not the same thing.

FWIW, that Edwards got 20% of the vote in Texas speaks more to Kerry's disabilities here than it did for anything that Edwards brought to the table.

Wes Clark also brings a message of 'hope 'and "opportunity" that you speak of . The difference being that he also frames the discussion in terms that ticket splitters in red states can understand.

[AP]

179. I wasn't talking about down-ballot races in Red states. I was talking...

...about races everywhere. (I even used Michigan in my example -- where'd you get the impression I was exclusively talking about Red states?)

However, Democrats in swing states are definitely on the bubble -- they're more precarious than anyone, and I am worried about them the most. And, using your measure -- endorsements -- perhaps I'm right about this.

Frenchie gave me a heads up for this site: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088542/

According to Saletan, here's the subtext of Clark's campaign:

"Subtext: I'm the only real man in this race."
"Subtext: Running social programs is just like running the military."
"Subtext: I'm running for president because all the other candidates are sissies."

That sort of subtext doesn't work for a lot of down-ballot races, and it doesn't work for candidates like Granholm, Stabenow, Cantwell, etc.

That's why it's important to build presidential candidates on progressive models that work for everyone. Of course, if you don't think you can win the presidency that way, you make sacrifices.

[Texas_Kat]

193. I guess you've made my point....

In politics, coattails are effective in swing and red states. In blue states, they hardly matter. Michigan is not a 'swing' state, Neither is Washington state, (You may be surprised from your own list who likes Clark... but then, you'd have had to have been there, I guess)

BTW, if you've just discovered Slate, perhaps you don't know that Salentan said similar things about lots of the candidates. He was particularly harsh about your favorite candidate.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2084607

According to Salentan, here's the subtext of Edward's campaign:

Subtext: My inexperience is a virtue
Subtext: Vote for the prettiest face
Subtext: Bush has been given everything and has earned nothing
Subtext: My meager career as a senator is just the latest phase of my substantial career as an advocate.

THIS sort of subtext doesn't convince anyone that a candidate has what it takes to be a leader.

If all we are concerned about is the impact of a Democratic presidential candidate on downballot races in 'safe' blue states, then we'll lose everytime. The way real politics work, in safe districts, the downballot candidate helps "GOTV' for the Presidential candidate. In red and swing states, the Presidential candidate can make or break the downballot candidates' chances.


We either broaden the message and address the concerns of independents (that's independent with a little 'i') in swing and red states, or we might as well stop trying.

[AP]

200. Kerry won MI by 2.4%. Stabenow barely won in 2000 (1%). Granholm's

race was tighter than expected (she won by less than 5% IIRC).

Stabenow and Granholm don't run in 08, so the point is moot. But it's still an important issue. I'm not sure why you don't care whether the person on the top of the ticket is articulating a message that works for everyone running.

As for Slate's criticism of Edwards, when was the last time the American public picked a compllicated guy with a long resume over and easy-to-understand politician with values Americans like? When they picked Bush 2 over Kerry? When the picked Clinton over Bush 1? When they picked Kennedy over Nixon?

I think Saletan's right about the subtext -- Edwards was addressing experience. But I also think Edwards has the answers to those questions. I think somewhere on that site Saletan says, "Do you even know anybody who knows anybody who's hungry for leadership?" He's right about that -- Americans aren't looking for someone they think will lead them, like they're scared and need someone to tell them what to do.

Americans I know are basically just looking for someone who shares their values so that they know that when that person makes decisions that effect their lives, the president will take the right things into consideration. So, I'll accept Saletan's interpretation of the subtext, but I'll also say that I'll take Edwards's "weakness" any day over someone who's running on the idea that masculinity will save the day and that America would be better off it were run like the military -- and it's not because I think Clark is neccessarily wrong about what he wants to do. It's because I think that activating conservative frames like those ultimately will not result in significant advances for Demcorats. And even if it worked at the presidential level, I think it would cause problems elsewhere -- even for politicians who endorsed Clark, unless they're managing to win on the same masculinity themes.

[Sparkly]

201. "Masculinity themes?"

:wtf:

I completely disagree with your fiction about what Clark's "message" is or what his "idea" is or how he thinks America should "be run" or what he "wants to do." It's utter nonsense with nothing to back it up.

The military, foreign policy, international diplomacy, etc. are NOT the sole purview of Republicans OR men!!

[Texas_Kat]

217. Thanks Sparkly!

There is a huge difference between political philosophy and real politics.

I've never found a way to say "Get real" to people who don't know the difference.

Bush won because he had a machine, Democrats have committees. We NEED a leader for a change.

[cosmokramer]

104. Amen.

You speak the truth and you speak it loud and proud!


RIGHT ON!

[cajones_II]

112. I'll only add

Hell Yeah!
nicely done.
everyone.

[no name no slogan]

123. All we need is US

I just don't get why so many Democrats think that we need to be 'saved' by some knight in shining armor on horseback. No cult of personality will save this country, or our party.

The only thing that will save this country is ALL OF US-- working together-- to put Democrats in power at EVERY level of government.

Even if we win the presidency in 2008, it won't make much difference. The GOP will still control both houses of congress, more governorships, more state assemblies.

The party needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up, NOT the top down. As Rev. Jesse Jackson said at the launch of the Progressive Democrats of America last summer: fires don't spread from the top, it starts from the bottom and works its way up.

I don't put my faith in ANY ONE Democrat. I put it in US, the activists on the ground.

[dogman]

133. We are US.

We are grassroots that have chosen to play our strongest hand. You are already surrendering the House? We have picked up Governors in red states as well as state assemblies. A strong ticket would most likely have some coat tails. I and many others have become active in our local Party because of the hope a leader like Clark gives us that there can be a future for our Party.

[Jai4WKC08]

135. Self-deleted

Double post. Sorry.

[Jai4WKC08]

136. You're right that "working together"

Is what we need.

But to get us working together, we need some REAL leadership. Someone with a vision of where we need to go, how to get there, and the ability to show us the way. Not a bunch of self-serving politicians who only have an eye to their next election.

I don't disagree that we need to win elections at every level. I do disagree that the guy (or gal) at the top has no influence on our capability to do so. Ever heard of coattails? It's a real phenomenon. It's also true that the president can veto legislation, and picks judges who serve for life. So don't tell me putting a Democrat in that office "won't make much difference."

It ain't about a savior, a knight in shining armor, or a cult of personality. And it is really insulting for you to presume that it is.

But it is about leadership. And vision. And integrity. And an inherent goodness we can trust to do the right thing. Maybe it's been so long since we've had any, you've forgotten what they're like.

[FrenchieCat]

137. No one said that Clark will be the Savior of us all,

although that is what you may have interpreted.

I agree with the rest of your message, although I don't know what the GOP will control by 2008, or thereafter. It appears that only you know that.

But yeah, absolutely right you are.....we must change things from the bottom up, i.e., grassroots. Clark's grassroots is starting up now (as you can see), so that come the primaries, we'll have a choice instead of some forgone Corporate media conclusion as who will be our nominee.

Plus, I certainly think that we can do make reforms actually happen a lot faster if we work from the bottom up....while at the same time, working from the top down. You end up with a way of fighting the fire at both ends. That sounds great to me.

[Clarkie1]

159. I agree with you. Are you surprised?

Except with your assumption that the GOP will still control both houses of congress, more governorships, and more state assemblies in 08'. I think that is unnecessarily pessimistic.

This party does need to be built from the bottom up, with all of us working together.

[no name no slogan]

207. Not suprised at all, actually

It's just that, in desperate times, people have a tendency to look for a 'messiah' to save them. In the process, they ignore what they, themselves and others in their community can do to make things better.

Like it or not, there are some people in every camp who believe that the only way is to follow their leader-- all others of like mind be damned. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot more of that going on since Nov 2004, believe it or not. In fact, it almost verges on cultlike behavior, which is very frightening.

Leaders are nice, but we don't need a leader-- we've got the power ourselves. Nor should we be ready to bow down and follow ANY leader without questioning him/her at every turn.

[Sparkly]

220. It doesn't have to be either/or

Most Clark supporters on DU do more than "follow their leader" (although even in that, Clark urges action on a range of issues important to us all). Many of us campaigned, contributed, wrote, phoned, fundraised, etc. for Kerry, too, because we want a change in leadership as all DUers do. Please don't characterize our belief that General Clark can take us there as "all others of like mind be damned" or "cultlike."

Clark is not a Larouche or a Nader or any other sort of separatist, and both he and those who support him have and will act on behalf of Democrats and Democratic causes.

[kevsand]

275. That's exactly why we WILL take back Congress in 2006.

Because we are rebuilding from the ground up. As far as I can tell, Dean and Clark have done more since the election that the rest of the candidates put together. I think they're both on the same page right now in regards to what's best for the party, and their efforts in that regard are the truest indication of Democratic credentials I can imagine.

I think you're right that Clark and his supporters have worked as hard (and maybe harder) as anyone to support the progressive agenda and the rebuilding of the party.

[yebrent]

154. Clark can re-frame the Democratic Party for the average Jane and Joe..

The Republicans have effectively framed the Democratic Party into something we are not. We are labeled weak, reactionary, big spenders, immoral, elitist, pacifists, etc. Despite the facts contrary to this frame, the average Jane and Joe believe these labels without question. We need someone who will not just cause some cracks in this damaging frame, but someone who will break through it, shattering it to pieces.

The Republicans have done this successfully in the past, and we can learn something from it. From the mid 70's up until Reagan was elected, when one thought "Republican" immediately one extremely damaging frame came though loud and clear: CROOK! Reagan shattered that frame for the Republicans and successfully created a new frame of optimism and patriotism. This was so successful, that when Reagan was actually shown to be a crook with the Iran/Contra scandal, the general public easily forgave him and his party.

Clark can do this for the democrats, and I don't think there is anyone else out there who can. One viewing of Clark will shatter the misguided frame of weak and pacifists. One listen to Clark will shatter the rest of the frames to dust. Once the dust clears, the Democratic Party will look new and fresh to the average voter, even if the positions and actions are the same as held by many progressives that came before him.

We don't need new ideas as much as we need a new image.

[ZootSuitGringo]

156. I agree.

The voters vote for an image these days. It's really about not much more than that.

Good News: General Clark is not only a positive image to combat the (since Reagan) negative framing of Democrats, but he is much more than just an image. That's why I like him so well. He does really give me hope for the future.

[Totally Committed]

262. Beautiful! --

"General Clark is not only a positive image to combat the (since Reagan) negative framing of Democrats, but he is much more than just an image. That's why I like him so well. He does really give me hope for the future."

What an elegant statement! I love it!

TC

[nascarblue]

163. You must be kidding...

Look, I like Clark ok. But the fact is, the guy is right-wing. Let's not be fooled. A military lifer is the last person you want running the country.

What we need is another true liberal like John F. Kennedy who puts the people before anything else. Everytime this country has been in the shitter, it's been due to heavy pressure from the military-industrial corporate structure.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. The Democratic party has strayed so far to the right that there are hardly any true Democrats anymore. The last true liberal was Paul Wellstone. Kennedy and Leahy too, but theyre too old.

[CarolNYC]

165. You might want to read up a little on Clark.

It seems you know very little about him other than that he was in the military for 34 years. You might be surpirsed at what you'll find. I was. ;)

[Jai4WKC08]

168. Funny you should mention Wellstone

As the "last true liberal." He loved Wes Clark. Called him "my general." Even quoted him on several occassiona.

[ollie3]

169. Clark is a Democrat's Democrat.....

Well, don't take my words for it. These are George McGovern's words. Is George McGovern liberal enough for you?

Is Michael Moore liberal enough? Clark was Moore's choice as well.

Funny how some of the same people complain about the "chickenhawks" in power....but when we see someone who has tasted war, knows first hand how awful it is, only wants war as a last resort and does not have to "act tough" to avoid looking "weak"....there is some objection to him simply because he is in a position to know even more than us how awful war is? Come on. Give the guy a break! I am a Wellstone Democrat. Clark has guts. And a heart. And a brain. And a progressive outlook that is genuine. He would be another Roosevelt.

[Sparkly]

175. Nonsense.

Why do you assume all things and all people related to the military are "rightwing?" Republicans have worked for 30 years to get that meme out there. Why do so many Democrats accept it?!?

[FrenchieCat]

185. JFK was a true liberal? I think that JFK was a hawk for the most part

and by today's standard, would not conclusively be labeled "Liberal".

You say "Everytime this country has been in the shitter, it's been due to heavy pressure from the military-industrial corporate structure." Heavy pressure on whom, I might ask? Pressure on the civilian leadership, that's who. And it is civilian leadership that make the laws, pass the defense budget, etc.

I believe that Clark would not allow "heavy pressure from the military-industrial corporate structure". It will take someone like the General to be able to say "NO" to the military-industrial complex. He, unlike most Democrats, would not be cowed by Republican pressure, as they would not be able to threatened to label him "weak of defense".

It's the civilian leadership that tends to start wars. President Eisenhower ended the Korean war, which he did not start. He was also the one that warned America about the military-industrial complex.

You should do some reading, and not so much "declaring" opinions that have no basis for fact.

[MollyStark]

190. How was Kennedy a hawk?

He resisted pressure to bomb Cuba (and paid for it with his life IMO) he was going to pull out of Viet Nam, so how was he a hawk?

[FrenchieCat]

197. During the 1960 election, John Kennedy portrayed himself as

a military hero (which he was) that would not allow communism to win over capitalism. Please note that Kennedy as President, was initially responsible for the beginning escalations of the Vietnam war.

Also remember that JFK chose as Secretary of Defense, Hawkish Republican McNamara.

LESSON IN HISTORY 101: JFK Foreign policy stance
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm
Throughout his pre-presidential career, JFK was an active Cold Warrior. As noted, his first Congressional campaign boasted of taking on the anti-Cold War faction of the Democratic party led by Henry Wallace, and as a congressman he aligned himself with those who said the Truman Administration wasn't being tough enough, when he willingly attached his name to the chorus demanding "Who Lost China?"

One does not even have to rehash his relationship with Joseph McCarthy to show how JFK willingly played the "tough on communism" issue in all his campaigns. In 1952, while running for the Senate, he proudly trumpeted the fact that during his first term in the House, even before Nixon had won fame for the exposure of Alger Hiss, JFK's work on a labor committee led to the conviction of a communist union official. While in Congress, he supported all of America's overseas activities in waging the Cold War.

Even while running for President in 1960, JFK appealed to the "tough on the Soviets" issue by consistently hammering at Eisenhower for America's supposed lack of leadership, and America "falling behind the Soviets." It was JFK, promising more money for defense spending and American readiness when he charged Eisenhower for allowing a non-existent "missile gap" to develop between the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals. And it was JFK, who during the debates with Nixon, charged that Eisenhower policy had resulted in the loss of Cuba.

Upon assuming the Presidency, JFK's Inaugural Address was as hawkish as one could ever get. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

As President, JFK, in order to credibly claim he had taken action against the "missile gap," ordered an increase in spending on nuclear missiles that set off an arms race that resulted in America losing its nuclear superiority by the end of the decade. Those who point to the Limited Test Ban Treaty as proof of JFK wanting to begin the first step toward disarmament, should remember that JFK wanted a ban chiefly for environmental reasons, and not because he envisioned the long-term elimination of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was JFK's own Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara who came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) principle that was dependent entirely on the maintenance of a sizable nuclear arsenal. More....

[AP]

208. IMO, JFK ran as a bigger anti-communist than Nixon in order to remove

that volatile issue from the campaign. Once he portayed himself as an anti-communist, he moved the debate to the issues that mattered to most Americans, and they were about liberalism, and about opportunity and about class.

I know that Chomsky thinks that JFK was responsible for starting the neoliberal crusade in South and Central America. Chomsky puts a huge amount of blame on JFK. However, I think the situation isn't so black and white.

In the book The Pinochet Files, there's a summary of the shift in foreign policy between Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in South America.

The Eisenhower administration basically supported the fascists. When Kennedy came along, he didn't pull out the CIA, State Department and DoD completely from intervening in South American politics, which is probably what Chomsky would have preferred. But he did dramatically change the policies. He said that it was destabilizing to support fascits and that the US should support moderates, like the Christian Democrats in Chile. He thought that government which delivered wealth to their citizens were the key to stability, peace and to American profits.

IIRC, the CIA even channeled money to far left groups during that time in order to make the moderates seem less like the far left. And Kennedy was right about this. The successor to the Christian Democrats was Allende's socialist party, and Chileans were happy with things. In some ways, Kennedy was the architect of a policy that led to the peaceful transition to a socialist government. And if Allende had lived and Nixon had not been president, Chile probably would have peacefully traded power between Christian Democrats and Socialists for the rest of their history without the US havign to engage in expensive covert intervention, and as Chileans grew a middle class which amassed wealth, bought Apple Computers and Toyota Priuses, to the great profit of capital markets which competed fairly for investment dollars. And life would have been grand for everyone, from working class Chileans to 401k holders in the US.

Instead, Nixon came along, and the US reveresed Kennedy's policy and went back to supporting fascists. What a mess that made!

Another thing to keep in mind about Kennedy: a book came out in 2003 which said that Kennedy's entire cabinet advised him to attack Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy said no. Later, it turned out that Russia would have bombed the US had it invaded Cuba. How hawkish is Kennedy if he was the only person in a room full of Democrats who refused to invade Cuba?

A third piece of insight into Kennedy's politics: In Errol Morris's documentary Fog of War, Robert McNamara cries in one scene saying, basically, that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam. How true this is, I don't know. But the impression is that McNamara felt that if Kennedy had lived, all the awful things that happened in Vietnam, and the terrible life that he ended up having to endure never would have happened. Maybe it was regret plus wishful thinking. Or maybe it was true.

[CarolNYC]

282. So you think running as anti-Communist

worked to take the volatile issue from the campaign?

I've seen people argue that Clark, by running, could take the national security issue out of the campaign so we can focus on the other issues...Let the Republicans try to win on issues other than national security. Sounds good to me.

To a lot of people it IS a scary world out there. I think it is a scary world. After 9/11, I must admit that I went through a period where I really just felt like there was no reason to go on, that things would never be good again so what was the use. Then I began to think that maybe somehow, this horror would spur us to correct some of the mess in the world that caused things to get so out of hand. As I watched Bush operate, and seem to make things worse, not better, I began to lose all hope of that.

Then the Iraq War came, and I watched the elected Democrats who were supposed to represent me, go along with just about everything Bush said, as if they were afraid to dissent for fear of being labeled unpatriotic and first, it made me so angry I nearly busted a gut. Then I fell into something akin to despair.

And, then, along comes General Clark, saying what I believed, with ideas for dealing with the world to eliminate the causes of terrorism that I was thinking all along, speaking out agaisnt the President and delcaring that that speaking out was patriotic. For the first time in a long time, I saw hope again.

I'm glad you seem so unaffected by the events of 9/11. And I know that I'm probably falling prey to the scare tactics of the Administration at times, but I can't help but remember watching those Towers burn when I look out the window and see blue sky where it's not supposed to be. I can't help but feel a twinge of fright when I see someone on the subway looking suspcious and carrying something weird. I can't help but feel that I don't want to have to live in a world where National Guardsmen with rifles patrol Grand Central as I make my way through there on the way to work. I can't help but still feel a bit of fear and sorrow when I see something that reminds me of the long long confused and dazed walk home that beautiful September morning when everything changed and want someone to get rid of that fear for me, want someone to fix the problems, not just kill those who we fear.

If that makes me weak, or less of a progressive than others, so be it. I can't help it and I'm sure there are many others who feel that way too. Much as I would like to ignore all that is wrong in the world and just focus on what is wrong in the US, I don't think we can.

I don't think that national security is the only thing we need to focus on but I do think it is an issue that can't be ignored.

[MollyStark]

173. What whole mess is he going to save us from?

Which mess are you talking about? Could you explain that part to me a little bit?

[Sparkly]

176. Did you read the original post?

It describes a foreign policy mess, including overextended military and strained relations with Europe.

[MollyStark]

178. Yes I read it

I was asking for specifics about what mess Clark will clean up. I'd like to know how also.

[Sparkly]

182. Okay

The specifics include, again, being stuck in the middle east, having lost credibility and respect from our allies, with a severely weakened economy, overstretched military, trade debts to China, loose nukes from the former Soviet Union, continued dependence on foreign oil, reorganized terrorists groups, a strengthened EU whose people distrust us, nuclear development in Iran and North Korea, just to name a few issues.

If a Republican takes office again in 2008, these trends continue and grow worse, along with the social and political agenda of the rightwing here at home. The only hope, especially regarding foreign policy, is Democratic victory in 2008 and a Democratic cabinet in 2009.

So we need a Democrat who can win in a climate where foreign policy, national security, diplomatic relations, international cooperation, European alliances, military deployments, nuclear threats, trade issues, etc. are all very much at the forefront of voters' concerns.

In addition, we need a Democrat who can take all the divisive stereotypes and memes the Republicans have worked at for three decades and dismantle them without even saying a word, reclaiming our share of patriotism, faith, values, strength, etc. along with real compassion.

Most of our Democratic leaders would do a great job in office as president when it comes to restoring balance to our courts and sanity to our civil rights, fiscal discipline, education, healthcare, Medicare, SS, urban development, veterans' benefits, environmental policies, etc... But first they need to win. Moreover, Clark has unique skills and experiences in diplomacy, international relations, military strategy, and deep insight into the political issues at play in all regions of the world. He would make an extraordinary president especially at this time, in the circumstances we now find ourselves.

I hope that helps.

[MollyStark]

188. How often in our history has a general been that person?

One more question: Didn't John Kerry fit the qualifications you speak of much better then Bush? If people voted for Bush anyway, what makes you believe they will vote for Clark in 2008?

[FrenchieCat]

192. Although Kerry had much better qualifications then Bush,

the framing of John Kerry by the GOP led to a perception that he would be weak on defense. Please know that the GOP had plenty of material to work with, unfortunately.

You can start with the fact that John Kerry's protests of Vietnam were used to divide Veterans, with many choosing not to support one who had led protest against them.

Further, the fact that John Kerry's experience, in reference to the military, was related to an era over 30+ years ago....which was easily distorted, as it happened so long ago, until anybody could say just about anything, leaving John Kerry with the difficult task of refuting questionnable accusations with only his word and thin governmental records. It was a question of "he said, they said", and he was badly outnumbered.

To continue, John Kerry's senatorial voting record against defense bills also contributed to the GOP imagery that John Kerry would be weak on defense.

The fact that John Kerry voted for the IWR but against the 87 billion didn't help either. He really never totally explained in a coherent manner the disconnect or the connect between the two votes.

Clark's record is recent and his many medals earned and given by many countries (directly in reference to Kosovo and Bosnia) only confirm the fact that the guy most likely did "too good a job".

No matter what might be said about Clark, the events for which he is known for are recent and well documented (read...reported by a press, that for the most part, still works in the industry today).

Clark did not protest Vietnam, but rather stayed in the military and really was instrumental in rebuilding our armed forces after the devastation known as the Vietnam War.

Clark does not have a senatorial vote record to be attacked on.

Uniformed Voters, in many cases, chose Bush over Kerry, because they felt that if nothing else, Bush was a resolute "strong" leader who had dealt with recent security events (i.e., 9/11). Kerry was not able to compete with that label, and really gave no clear imagery of his accomplishments that would provide voters with the opinion that he was just as "strong" and "resolute".

In the end, the election was about image, perception and message. Unfortunately, John "I have a plan" Kerry was unable to generate the perception, image or message that the voters could hang their hats on. Voters chose not to change leaders in the middle of the stream...although the horse was drowning.

[MollyStark]

195. I wonder if the right won't just smear Clark.

What makes you think that they won't be sucessful smearing Clark? Won't they just bring up SOA and the fact that he was fired for being a hot head (their interpretation, not mine)?

[Sparkly]

198. Sure, but there's a big difference

Saying he's a "hothead" is contrary to their long-established meme that Democrats are "weak on defense." It doesn't work for them the way "weak" or "wimpy" or "hippie" or "appeaser" does.

In addition, there are some professions that voters tend to distrust -- lawyer, politician, used car salesman, for example. But, especially right now, the military is golden in people's minds.

With Clark, there's no long voting record to pick apart, no silver spoon upbringing, no "New England Liberal" stereotype, no "rich trial lawyer," no "anti-military" smears.

Sure, they'll find other smears no matter who runs. But why not prevent them from grabbing the ammunition they crave, and render their stereotypes meaningless from the start?

[ZootSuitGringo]

205. And of course,

He's also a Southern Red Stater. We know, in the current climate, that's also a help, rather than a hinder.

[Tom Rinaldo]

202. There are lines of attack against everyone.

Every human being has flaws or can be made to appear to have them. Some people are better at turning around attacks against them than others are. Ultimately that makes the difference. In War and in Politics no side is immune to attacks against them doing some damage. No one emerges unharmed, but usually someone wins.

Regarding Clark, part of it is a matter of specific personality characteristics, sometimes people refer to it as "toughness". The ability to take a blow and keep on fighting, effectively. That's the type of people you want on your side when the going gets tough. For me, Clark is one of those men.

By the way, some may try to use the SOA against Clark from the Left, but never the Right. All the worst shit took place under the direction of Reagan Bush, remember? A certain Republican pretty boy named Ollie North is still a big draw on their fund raising circuits. Clark received the Presidential Medal of Freedom after leaving his N.A.T.O. position. The facts are on his side, but sure, they will come at him around it. The Democrats in California came at Arnold Schwarzenegger with charges that he was a serial groper, and the facts were on their side and California is a very Blue State, but Arnold barely got bruised. Why? Because Arnold had a personal presence that clashed with those negative charges. He didn't come across as a serial groper to people so that charge did not stick. Wesley Clark does not come across as a deranged loose cannon hot head either, no matter how much the Republicans would like to paint him as such. It would not stick, but his accomplishments will.

[ZootSuitGringo]

203. There have been 12 Presidents who where Generals First.

That's 27%. That's over a quarter of Presidents. Not a rare occurence, obviously.

[ollie3]

218. No comparison!

Yes, Kerry fit this criteria better than Bush but Kerry was vulnerable because 1) his senate record had things that could paint Kerry as a flip flopper, 2) Kerry's medals were questioned and kerry did not respond for awhile.....Not that Kerry didn't earn his medals, but Clark has a chest full of medals and it would look sorta stupid for the Swifties to even try to dispute the most decorated officer since Eisenhower! So, although the Reps would no doubt TRY to smear ANY Democratic nominee, they would be less successful trashing Clark.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

183. Every empire needs a beloved general who's mastered PR...n/t

[FrenchieCat]

189. Wow,

What a statement!

Too bad it's based on nothing, as usual.

Always count on John'O to hit a Clark thread with either a few words statement backed by nothing, or a pile of "Clark is the enemy" Bullshit with plenty of almost ingeniously cut and pasted distortions based on opinions of either extremes.

John'O, you warned us in a prior thread that you will always be there to slam Clark. And with your mind squeezed shut (unlike that of a true liberal)full of grandiose conspiracy linked via 6 degrees of separation to all things Clark, I should say that I was waiting for you to leave your marker.

I will say, if nothing else, you do keep your promises!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

243. Quit red-baiting me. Here's just a tiny bit of my case against Clark.

Clarkies are now RED-BAITING me as a "Marxist radical" for wanting no part of another war criminal as savior from the current war criminals.
I'd expect that at freerepublic.com but not here.

(FrenchieCat, last time I put up refutations to YOUR points you ignored them, too. I've stayed up all night in debates over Clark. I'm not losing sleep over it anymore so don't whip me as as hit-and-run poster, ok?)

Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton violated the Posse Comitatus Act, War Powers Act, and Geneva Conventions.

I don't want Democrats to do that anymore than Republicans, GOT IT?

Slap a 'D' on his resume and deliver verbal flowers to the hopeful while ignoring the past evidence. That's how American Fascism has worked for decades and Clarkies prove it.

Clarkies, like Bushies, are so convinced of their guy's sainthood that his critics must be insane or the anti-christ, right?

Clarkies say: "But they're 'Democrats' so it doesn't count! They mean well, unlike Republicans."

Start here:
War Crimes Law Applies to U.S. Too, a letter from former Nuremberg War Crimes prosecutor Walter J. Rockler to the Chicago Tribune (5/23/99)
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/nurletter.htm

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Much more here:
http://www.fair.org/international/yugoslavia.html

Clark specialized in training and strategy and used this at the Waco Branch Davidian stand-off and massacre in 1993:


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/clark.htm
>snip<

"Early in the siege, "Operation Trojan Horse" became a popular destination for special forces officers both from around the United States and from its closest ally, the UK. They came to observe the effectiveness of various high tech devices and tactics that were being tested against the Branch Davidians. Source: London Sunday Times, March 21, 1993: "FBI brings out secret electronic weapons as Waco Siege drags on" You can see a photocopy of the original article at:

(This source leaves a hole here. Try a search engine-jom)

The raid was on February 28. The London Times article ran on March 21. It's noteworthy that Waco became a focus for US and UK special forces officers so quickly. The 3/21 London Times report states that "observer teams from the American Delta Force and British SAS have *already* visited Waco." (Emphasis mine.) Organizing groups of officers to make a field trip normally takes far more lead time than a couple of weeks. This is the military, not a group of freewheeling bohemians who can pile in a van and travel across the country, or the globe, on a whim. Yet, there they were, with plane and hotel reservations, briefings, tours and the like, all arranged. Such organization implies pre-planning or at least very strong pre-existing relationships with Delta Force and SAS on the part of the officer in charge. It would have taken an officer with unusual connections and motivations to pull off this level of "show and tell."

By the way, the notion that Delta Force and SAS officers would make such a trip to observe the *FBI* using various secret high tech warfare devices is laughable. Who in the FBI would know how to operate them? In any event, the equipment and tactics used came from the military, not any law enforcement agency. In reality, the FBI was not in charge of the Waco siege. Its role instead was twofold: 1) to keep up fruitless negotiations with the Branch Davidians and 2) to act as the front for the real operation which was under military command and therefore entirely illegal."

>snip<

Clark's brains and verbal skills got him into training and propaganda work for the military-industrial complex. He's still doing it.

Upon retiring, Clark ran with DARPA's John Poindexter, FEMA's James Lee Witt's corporate security consulting, and another company specializing in outsourcing industry (I've forgotten which one.)

So, FrenchieCat, you gonna whip out that lame Salon article saying that Clark isn't the problem, capitalism is?? HA HA HA. And you red-bait ME????

His Lincoln's Day speech for Arkansas Republicans is a classic- His admiration for "Reagan winning the Cold War" and other propaganda memes of American Virtue mythology that leaves out all the terror of death squads, torture, destabilization, coups, starvation. And that's just in the United States!

Now he's working with NEWT GINGRICH and the HOOVER INSTITUTE on how to neutralize the UN ("make it work for us...the values of liberty, democracy, and CAPITALISM") as the PNAC/corporateer plans for world hegemony are modified but not eliminated. He publicly criticizes the neocons mostly for being over ambitious and blowing the military-industrial complex's cover of 'spreading freedom.'

Some DU-ers think that his 'principles' of first buying dinner before bombing is 'liberal.' He knows how to put the bunting over the bodies to manipulate public opinion.

He still lies that Southern Command's task is 'the war on drugs.' And he STILL uses the 'few bad apples' method of promoting the School of the Americas. Unforgivable.

The only thing scarier than a stupid fascist is a smart one.

[ClarkUSA]

245. You are a terminal Clarkhater -- George McGovern disagrees with you.

So does the former four-term head of the Human RightsCommission, Marion Francis Berry, Pulitzer-Prize winning author about Rwandan genocide Samantha Powers and so many others.

Repeating GOP/Serbian talking points again? You have got an axe to grind or you've got a hidden agenda.

I am too busy responding to Congressmen to be replying to your patented Clark
character assassination.

[pkspiegel]

246. Red baiting

Is that a photograph of you? If so, it explains a lot.

[Jai4WKC08]

250. You're making shit up again

And I don't care how many websites you find to back up your claims. We all know perfectly well you can find a "source" for any damn thing you want on the internet someplace.

Wesley Clark and Bill Clinton violated the Posse Comitatus Act, War Powers Act, and Geneva Conventions.

No, they didn't.

Ref Posse Comitatus, any hardware from Clark's division that was used at Waco was detached from the 1st CAV, attached to the TX National Guard and employed by TX Governor Anne Richards. No active duty crews were involved. No violation of the law.

Ref War Powers, that one may be debatable about Clinton--I'm not really qualified to say. But if so, he's no more guilty than any other president who has employed military force since the law's inception. And no more guilty than the Congress that appropriated the funds. In any case, it has ZIP to do with Clark. Generals don't decide when and where to fight. Elected civilians do.

Ref the Geneva Conventions, there is an international court of law that investigates those things. The final authority, legally. Absolved Clark and the US completely of all charges.

All of your links are, as usual, irrelevant and pointless.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

252. Oh. "Zip to do with Clark."....Hm. Either he's a leader or a pawn. Which?

Clarkies want it both ways.

They sell him as Noble Leader but when his actions are brought up they revert to 'he just followed orders.'

So he's just another Good German? Yup. My point exactly.

AND either it's "you have nothing to back that up!" or "you can find anything on the internet to back up any claims!"

Your other dismissals were pathetic.

"He wasn't convicted so it didn't happen." Yikes. Do you then exonerate the neocons the same way? Destruction of civilian infrastructure and killing journalists, lying to the media the whole time for domestic propaganda about The Good War. Sound familar? Standard US military procedure.

What is he doing with Newt Gingrich, Hoover Institute, and Council on Foreign Relations? You didn't even touch that one, did you?

http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/intl_instit/latest_news/usip_task_force.html
New USIP Task Force on UN Reform headed by Mitchell
and Gingrich

"In the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill, the U.S. Congress mandated a task force to evaluate how the institution is fulfilling the goals set by the UN Charter, and to offer recommendations on how the United States can play a bigger role, taking into account primarily American interests and responsibilities. The U.S. Institute of Peace will support the task force by coordinating the participation of policy organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution."

In addition, the task force will comprise of ten more members: Gen. Charles Boyd (USA, Ret.), Business Executives for National Security; Gen. Wesley Clark (USA, Ret.), Wesley K. Clark and Associates; Edwin Feulner, The Heritage Foundation; Roderick Hills, Hills and Stern; Ambassador Donald McHenry, Georgetown University; Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Boeing Company; Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Princeton University; Dr. A. Michael Spence, Oak Hill Capital Partners; Senator Malcolm Wallop, Asian Studies Center; and J. Robinson West, PFC Energy."

>snip<

By the way, too many of you Clarkies are 'professional johnoneillsmemory haters.' Now I've been accused of "GOP/Serbian talking points." Getting personal only shows the weakness of your assertions.


I have no hate for Clark. But I want no part of him, his past, or his professed reverence for "capitalist values." What the fuck are "capitalist values"??!! Look around. There they are. Poverty and war.

Hmm...if I wanted to militarize the culture and eliminate any progressive policies, how would I do it? I know! Run a verbal general who specializes in PR, pretends to distance himself from militarism, and then load websites like democraticunderground.com with fan clubs who character-assassinates anyone who criticizes the general!

[Texas_Kat]

258. JOM.....

If "I want no part of him"... why do you keep showing up in Clark threads? Why do you insist that anyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of groupie? "Fan clubs' indeed!

I can't imagine what your motives are...?

Oh wait......

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZootSuitGringo]

255. I'm sorry John, but you are using sources such as world daily news

to defame General Clark. How could you do this and call yourself anything but a "hater"?

Here's the source for your Waco accusation via your link:
Clark tanks used in Waco siege
Democrat candidate's role in attack on Branch Davidians questioned
Posted: October 16, 2003 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35094

That's just too low AND creepy for me to waste my time with you! FrenchieCat mentioned that you cut and paste and will distort as required. I find that to be an understatement!

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZootSuitGringo]

264. The New Yorker piece is bullshit, and has been called just that by

and since you posted the entire bullshit article in full against DU rules, (edited to read) I will follow DU rules and post only 3 or 4 paragraphs. And I dare YOU to read all of this, and still consider Peter Boyer a reliable source of anything!
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/yglesias-m-11-14.html
Boyer Plate
Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark?
By Matthew Yglesias
Web Exclusive: 11.14.03
This week's New Yorker contains a profile of Wesley Clark with a striking thesis -- that the general's "military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability."
Author Peter Boyer argues initially that Clark's plans for a military campaign against Slobodan Milosevic during the 1999 Kosovo conflict were too aggressive; then Boyer argues that the target list of sites to be bombed by NATO jets was not ambitious enough; then he faults Clark for pushing too hard to draw up plans for a ground war against Milosevic. Clark critics, such as former Defense Secretary Bill Cohen and former generals Tommy Franks and Hugh Shelton, get plenty of space in the piece. Meanwhile, those members of Clinton's national-security team who supported Clark's conduct of the war, such as Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke, are not heard from at all. Perhaps most incredibly, after heaping derision on Clark's theory that the mere threat of ground forces would be enough to bring Milosevic back to the bargaining table, Boyer doesn't bother to note that Clark's plan worked. The New Yorker staff writer goes on to present Milosevic's eventual fall from power as a kind of coincidence, rather than a consequence of America's -- and Clark's -- successful campaign against the Serbian dictator.

Such schizophrenic charges about Clark's role in the Kosovo War -- he was too aggressive; no, he was too timid -- have been percolating in the conservative press for months. But while the charges are not surprising, it is surprising to see them appear in the level-headed, liberal New Yorker. Until, that is, one knows a little bit about the article's author, Peter Boyer.

Boyer appears to have made something of a career for himself as a conservative interloper at otherwise liberal media outlets. Back in 1992, his sympathetic profile of Rush Limbaugh for Vanity Fair drew praise from the conservative Media Research Center as being "fair." In 1997, as a Frontline correspondent, Boyer promoted one of the more obscure "scandals" of the Clinton years in a show (titled "The Fixers") based around an allegation that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown had been involved in a complicated scheme to convince a Hawaiian couple to buy an Oklahoma natural gas company. An independent counsel appointed to investigate the matter filed no charges against Brown.
Snip
Ideologically, the hour is tilted to the side of non-interventionism and is in no mood to say anything nice about the Clinton administration. And, for those who think that PBS and 'Frontline' are all-liberal all-the-time, Boyer et al. make little effort to hide the fact that they think more highly of practical military men like Smith than they do of the impulsive idealists like Holbrooke who order them into battles they cannot win.
Boyer, of course, is entitled to his isolationist views, and if The New Yorker wants to incorporate conservative perspectives into its editorial mix then it has every right do so. But neither Boyer nor his editors should pass off the Clark profile as the work of an unbiased journalist.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect writing fellow.

[ZootSuitGringo]

266. Here's more discussing the bullshit debunked article you posted....

As your ultimate "Proof" of Clark's ulterior motives and his questionable character. You really put your credibility on a limb with this one, and the branch just broke!

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 13, 2003, at 4:13 PM PT
Peter J. Boyer's profile in this week's New Yorker—which paints him as scarily unqualified—is an unfair portrait as well as a misleading, occasionally inaccurate précis of the 1999 Kosovo war and Clark's role in commanding it.

Boyer relies heavily on some of Clark's fellow retired Army generals who clearly despise him. The gist of their critique, as Boyer summarizes, is that Clark, while a brilliant analyst, "had a certainty about the rightness of his views which led to conflicts with his colleagues and, sometimes, his superiors." (read complete story)

Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly -
Blog:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2003_11/002653.php
Russert referring to the New Yorker article was actually pretty unfortunate for Russert, as 2 articles from prominent progressive publications have come out debunking both the contents of that article and it's author. See the American Prospect "Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why he is after Wesley Clark?", along with the Fred Kaplan Slate article "Defending the General"; both which totally deconstructs the New Yorker article by Peter Boyers. So for Russert to be using quotes from that article shows a lack of preparedness on Russert's part in his ever challenging "quest for the Truth".

I can only conclude, after watching the interview, that those who want an articulate candid and honest candidate who doesn't Drame-up like a typical politician will support Wes Clark.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

270. oops. too many paragraphs. but other material went, too. clever tactic.

[FrenchieCat]

272. Why don't you just link the bullshit and now debunked article again

and just not post all 23 paragraphs? Doh!
Guess cause it's debunked already?

[FrenchieCat]

259. I don't get the "Marxist" reference to you that I am accused of

making, but I will say that "there you go again" with your pile of Wes Clark Bullshit posts...:hurts:

You have the gall to post this trite? Clark specialized in training and strategy and used this at the Waco Branch Davidian stand-off and massacre in 1993:

This statement "out to lunch" statement of yours totally illustrates how off the deep end you truly are!:crazy:

To begin with, Waco is a right wing extreme issue. You bringing it up here is telling more about you than about General Clark.

Clark had no role at Waco, ex-commander says
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-clark29.ht...

Commanding officer says Clark had no direct role in Waco siege
Washington-AP -- Democratic presidential hopeful Wesley Clark is facing a flurry of questions over his role in the deadly 1993 siege in Waco, Texas.

His former commanding officer says the now-retired general had "no direct role" in the government's standoff with Branch Davidians -- and that the military didn't help plan it.
>snip
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0312/01/politics-3...

Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right
http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html

Glenn Reynolds on Clark and Waco: Nothing there
Glenn Reynolds isn't impressed with the attempt of some wing-nuts to implicate Wesley Clark in the Waco affair.
I seem to recall having criticized Glenn once or twice in the pastm, and my astrologer predicts I may do so again someday. But even though he and I often don't see things the same way, Glenn always calls 'em as he sees 'em. That's a virtue less common than it ought to be.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/200...

For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark's "involvement" in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark's role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality.
snip<
At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, but I believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a "non-issue." Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php
----------------------------------------
In reference to this statement of yours (FrenchieCat, last time I put up refutations to YOUR points you ignored them, too. I've stayed up all night in debates over Clark. I'm not losing sleep over it anymore so don't whip me as as hit-and-run poster, ok?)

Please help me out here. Can you provide a DU link to your refutations? Since you stayed up all night, I wouldn't want to have done so for naught. My MO is certainly not to leave unanswered or put up with the kind of bullshit you are posting.

[ZootSuitGringo]

267. You think John'O will respond

to the debunking of ALL of his Clark bullshit posted today, FrenchieCat?

I know that I will be waiting to hear from the mighty JohnOne.
------
On edit: Oops! John'O's posted slanted biased and refuted article against Wes Clark was deleted. Maybe it had something to do with his posting a 24 paragraph pile of bullshit which was quickly debunked!

There is justice after all!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

268. You link to the brass involved denying charges+a white wash! HA!

(Sorry, another post in the same batch as yours suggested that 'Marxist' criticisms were futile. My error, FrenchieCat.)

Firstly, most of your links don't work. I know, they time out and dissappear but I don't dump on you for that.

BUT your self-serving excerpts are of the brass involved denying there was any breach of Posse Comitatus to cover their own asses!! Consequently, they cover Clark's for the same reason. Well, that settles that, doesn't it. Good work, FrenchieCat. (sarcasm)

Clark's superior and assistant are implicated, but not him. Hmm.
Did he do anything for his paycheck or was he just an innocent bystander for his whole military career?

The link that did work to talkleft.com said what you don't want to admit but you only clipped what you wanted. Now where have I heard that accusation before? Clark hasn't been nailed with a smoking gun here and OPINIONS (only opinions and they are too cautious) are he doesn't seem to have a direct role BUT there is also evidence of a cover-up, Danforth Commission whitewash, and it all comes extremely close to Clark. Extremely.

His superior officer and assistant but not him. Right...

>snip<

"We agree with filmmaker Michael McNulty who says there are many unanswered questions about the deaths at Waco. We were fortunate to have worked with him some around that time (1997), and we've seen his award-winning movie, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." It was very persuasive to us.

The film earned an Emmy award for investigative journalism and an Academy Award nomination for best documentary. In "Waco: A New Revelation", a 1999 film about Waco, McNulty presented evidence that federal agents used an explosive device to blast a huge hole in the roof of a bunker occupied by women and children. McNulty also alleged that on the final day of the siege, government agents fired bullets at the back of Mount Carmel as it burned, making it impossible for the residents to escape.

As a result of McNulty finding a spent incendiary device in the Waco evidence room, the FBI and Justice eventually recanted their long-standing claim that only nonincendiary tear gas was used. McNulty had been allowed into the Waco evidence room by one of the prosecutors where he discovered the spent pyrotechnics. The prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Johnston, was later indicted for obstruction of justice, making false statements, and allegedly withholding evidence from Danforth's probe. Johnston claimed the charges were retaliation for his whistle-blowing and assistance to McNulty.

As to the high-level meeting five days prior to the end, available information shows that an assistant to Clark, as opposed to Clark himself, met with Reno or others five days before the deadly fire: bq. Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire. Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position. bq. The Justice Department and the FBI requested Schoomaker and William Boykin "by name to meet with the attorney general," states one internal Army document created before the meeting. At the meeting with Reno, Schoomaker and Boykin refused an invitation to assess the plan to inject tear gas into the buildings, a move designed to force the Davidians to flee the compound, an internal Army document states. bq. "We can't grade your paper," one of the two Special Forces officers was quoted as telling the Justice Department and the FBI. The comment referred to the legal restrictions prohibiting direct participation in civilian law enforcement operations.

As to the military equipment, the FBI did request the Department of Defense to send in equipment. Some came from the Texas National Guard and some from the 1st Calvalry, which was headed by Clark: bq. It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. bq. However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

In our opinion, the blame for Waco rests with the Justice Department, the FBI and the ATF. We do think there were violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. But we haven't seen any evidence that Wesley Clark had any direct role. The far right has always blasted the Government over Waco (rightfully, in our view.)"

>snip<

Now, old battle responses in the past you blew off:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1582225
(see my post #143)

Here's a good topic, Clark helping write an intelligence document given to Congress urging them to 'stay the course' with an Iraq occupation FOR FIVE YEARS AND A QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1540262

[FrenchieCat]

271. So much bullshit, so little time!

Here's my answers to your considerable large mountain of bullshit posting. To have to waste my time with you when our country is being dismantled is pretty ridiculous.
You have lost all credibility with me .

Please replace the Kleiman link for this one:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/12/glenn_reynolds_on_clark_and_waco_nothing_there.php

Replace the Suntime link for this one http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-clark29.html

The only expired link in my WACO post is the Detroit news link. I think the others are more than enough to put your bullshit to rest.

Plus, your own post (the one without citing) says:
an assistant to Clark, as opposed to Clark himself, met with Reno or others five days before the deadly fire: bq. Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire. Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.

It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks. bq. However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

In our opinion, the blame for Waco rests with the Justice Department, the FBI and the ATF. We do think there were violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. But we haven't seen any evidence that Wesley Clark had any direct role. The far right has always blasted the Government over Waco (rightfully, in our view.)"
----------------
Now, in response to "the DU old battles"...where you say I "blew you off". See my links #56 and #73 posted on February 9th, 2005. Then please note that your response #143 was made on Feb 11th 2005. That would mean that my thread responses were not longer showing in "MY POSTS" as it lasts on 48 hours and you post was made shortly after that. So disingenious, it's almost sad.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
(see my post #143)

You say.....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I say, Skinner locked YOUR THREAD THAT YOU STARTED with his (the last) post #168 with this comment:
Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts)
Fri Jan-28-05 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
168. This is two years old.
I consider this highly disruptive. I see no reason to dig up a two-year old story, unless your intent is to deliberately re-ignite the primary wars.
Unbelievable.

Plus no document that you claimed Clark wrote was ever posted or showed up within that thread...by you or anyone else. You linked some blog board where one poster said something about it....and yet, we never heard about this issue again. Please note that you revealed who you really are in your post #103 (which is a mile long...at least and barely mentions Clark except thru some nutso extreme theory that all are out to get us!) . You can call it Red Baiting...I just call it Extreme to the point of no return. I'm sure if you would have found that imfamous document by now, there would be 23 threads just on that authored by you on DU today!

In reading that thread again, it is hillarious. John'O, your posts in particular are totally out to lunch in this thread.

Example: Your Post#137
I don't demean Clark anymore than Boxer demeans Condi. Read #103.
My interest is in stopping the neo-cons and those who help them. That is all. I don't care who it is that is with them or against them. I just want to figure out the players, hidden or overt.

If Dennis Kucinich were found out to be a war criminal, so be it.
I am not in love or hate with any of these people.

Your post #121
This is about the present and future. please read my post #103...
...This isn't about an old horse race. It is about learning who is who, how a game is played we don't even realize is being played, and what we are up against as the Neo-Con Empire of Disaster eats our young and our future.

I swear this is not petty, it is crucial to our survival.

Here's another one--LOL!
I want information. I will not be sidetracked by personalizations.
Please,please read my post #103.

I say, Please do not pass GO....

[Joe Chi Minh]

273. Talking about Trojan horses...

Clark has done so many 180 degree turns, recently, I wouldn't be surprised if he were a Trojan horse of the military-industrial complex. Just in case they bungled the fraud in the election.

A supporter of Nixon, Reagan, Papa Bush and the School of the Americas... Now there are some true-blue, progressive Democratic credentials for you! Who and what would he have to favour to make you suspicious, dumbos? He's actually too far to the right to be described even as a regressive Democrat. My questions are rhetorical. I don't expect to get any sense out of you Clarkies. I've seen plenty to convince me otherwise.

[FrenchieCat]

277. Whatever you "saw", let me tell you this:

You won't link anything here because you know it will be debunked and quickly. Your sources are probably fucked up sources not worth the time they were used to write. Your questions aren't rhetorical, they're just full of shit.

Here's some reading, because unlike you, I'm not so "rhetorical" as to not put up sources to back all that I say.

Here's Gene Lyon talking and he knows more than you. Actually you should read the whole interview, which you won't, cause you the kind who's mind is sealed tight.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html
LYONS: Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle.

You always hear it expressed as a TV metaphor -- is this guy ready for prime time? But then Bush gets in office, and it suddenly occurs to you, "Well, gee, he's not a game show host. He's supposed to run the country.

BUZZFLASH: One of the things that Clark stressed when he announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination was that criticizing George W. Bush is not unpatriotic. And he is in that unique position of being a decorated war hero and a general. It's hard to call someone like that unpatriotic. But nonetheless, if he gets the nomination or if he's asked to be a vice presidential candidate, the right wing is going to go after him.

LYONS: Absolutely.

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.

Clark gave a very interesting quote that I used in a column in a profile in Esquire. He said the whole question about running against George W. Bush boils down to how much pain can you take. So I think he has some idea of what's coming. I think he has some idea that it will be shrill, it will come from that side of the spectrum, and it will be harsh. I think they're going to try to portray him as a crackpot and as wildly ambitious, and therefore dangerous. The right-wing will definitely label him an opportunist and say he's switching parties simply to become President and he's power-mad.

I suspect that, given how good Clark is on his feet, and how clever he is, he may be tempted to think he can go this alone -- that he himself can fend this stuff off by addressing each smear one at a time and dealing with it. I don't know if that's possible because the volume of it is going to be beyond anything one person can cope with.

BUZZFLASH: Bush is no doubt going to run a two-sided campaign where he is the friendly Texan trying to stay above the fray, and all his minions such as Karl Rove will be doing the dirty work. There's no better example that what Bush's campaign did to John McCain, claiming he only received medals just to make him feel better for being a prisoner of war. Or, as you pointed out, that he was mentally unsafe or unstable.

LYONS: That's what the Bushes do. George W. Bush plays the affable back-slapper. And while he's slapping your back, Rove and company are preparing the shiv.

People like you and me and most BuzzFlash readers are always lamenting how people treat politics as if it is a TV show, and one that they watch with only passing attention. And so it does become a lot about symbolism. And Bush just seems like -- as my mother always used to say about Reagan -- too nice a fellow for that kind of thing.

BUZZFLASH: BuzzFlash is not going to endorse any of the Democratic candidates. And our position has always been, bottom line, whoever is the Democratic nominee to challenge Bush, in order to win, that candidate has to do four things: 1) Define the terms of the debate and the issues; 2) Defend themselves against the right-wing attacks, wherever they come from; 3) Be willing to go on the offensive and actually go after Bush's credibility on some very key issues such as Treasongate, the Iraq war, job losses, the deficit, etc.; and 4) Not apologize for standing up for Democratic positions and values, thereby activating the Democratic base. Are you impressed with how Clark's campaign is running? And do you foresee him being able to execute those four components against Bush?

LYONS: In a word, yes. I'm like BuzzFlash -- I don't really have a candidate. In fact, I sort of stayed away from the Democratic race because I felt like 10 candidates (now nine since Sen. Bob Graham dropped out) are too many to evaluate. I'm for the Democrat in this race. That's been my sort of default position. It's hard for me to imagine supporting Bush regardless who the wins the Democratic nomination. I mean, the record of failure to me is staggering. If Bush is a success, how you would define failure?

In American political terms, I think Clark is doing well or better than can be expected.

BUZZFLASH: If Wesley Clark gets the nomination, it upsets the Republican Southern strategy. Give our readers a little bit of context and history to what the Southern strategy is, and how Clark affects the geo-political landscape and culture war.

LYONS: I think that as a person and as a symbol, Clark has the potential to take all that away from the right-wing. I might add that I also think that there are an awful lot of genuine conservatives, in the classical sense, who are uneasy about where Bush is going. The conquer-the-world schemes, the giant sinkhole of the federal budget.

I think that in practical terms Clark puts several Southern states back in play. But I also think Clark does more than that. My subjective view was that culturally there was no way that Dean, for example, could win in the South -- he would be a complete non-starter. I'm just talking about pure symbolism now. I'm not talking about the candidates or their virtues or standards. The symbolism of Clark -- because we are talking about a television show, after all, if we're talking about a presidential campaign -- means you have trouble finding a way for the Republicans to win.

I think Clark would bring back a lot of military people. I think there's great disquiet among people of the old-fashioned style of patriotism right now, and it's looking for a place to go. And I think there's a very good chance it would go to Clark. I think that he would have a strong chance to unite that which has been divided.

The Republican campaigns in some parts of the South would make you think that everyone was a George Wallace supporter, or would be happy to vote for George Wallace, which isn't true.

We need someone in office who will defend American independence and freedom, and would defend us physically if it came to that, and who knows how to do that, but who doesn't think that we need an American imperium and don't have to conquer the world.

I think that Wesley Clark offers a tremendous opportunity for people to think clearly about foreign policy and re-think how important all kinds of symbolic and "lifestyle issues" are to them -- whether it doesn't make more sense to put some of those things in your back pocket for a time and work on them later after you've dealt with the big threat, which is a guy who is bankrupting the nation and getting us involved in foreign entanglements -- to use Gen. George Washington's words -- of a kind we're not likely to get out of very easily.

Let's just look at the situation like this: How much of a partisan do you have to be to look at George W. Bush and Wesley Clark standing side by side and say to yourself, "I'd pick George W. Bush to lead this country." How partisan do you have to be to decide that Bush is more qualified in a national emergency -- a guy who can scarcely speak in complete sentences -- to handle a crisis over a decorated war hero, a Rhodes Scholar, a retired four star general, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO?
Lots cut out, cause I couldn't post it all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

194. If you are Anti-Capitalist expect to have serious disagreements

with any Democratic Party candidate for President who has any remote chance of winning the nomination and getting elected. It is that simple. Using a Marxist or any other truly radical critique against National Democrats is like shooting fish in a barrel. None will survive your attack.

Progressives who back Clark do so because we believe that he is an honest and intelligent man who is intrinsically more independent from traditional monied special interests than almost all standard politicians tend to end up being. We back Clark because we are of the opinion that replacing a Republican Administration in Washington with a Democratic Administration has real advantages for the world and the vast majority of its citizens. We think Clark can be a very strong and winning candidate against the Republicans. We see Clark standing up for traditional Liberal Democratic policies, like a progressive income tax, while others have too often compromised. We do not see electing Clark as literally revolutionary, nor do we see it as the culmination of our life's work trying to advance Peace and Justice.

There are many ways to advance Peace and Justice and good luck to all those who attempt to do so. However when it comes to electing a President, I choose to play to win rather than using it as an opportunity to make a radical statement. Others decide otherwise and I can respect that also.

[Sparkly]

199. Let's try a distrusted politician who hasn't, then.

If a "beloved general who's mastered PR" is a problem, would the opposite be better? :eyes:

[ZootSuitGringo]

204. John O'neill

wants a world coup and a global revolution, and nothing less.

I've yet to see this poster come up with a constructive practical solution to any of the world problems that he constantly complaints about. It's easy to know what's wrong, much harder to know what can realistically be done about the problems in this very real world.

[kevsand]

276. LOL!

Thank you! I have to confess, when I first read that, I caught myself thinking "Hmmm... a beloved general who's mastered PR... actually, that sounds pretty good on a couple of different levels." Couldn't dare say that, of course, no matter how good an idea it might be. Might be taken out of context. Can't have that. Can't have anyone remotely competent or well-liked...

[lojasmo]

209. So he's the guy who can feed america bullshit, believably?

No thank you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

244. Bingo. Very well put. Brevity is the soul of wit....n/t

[FrenchieCat]

260. Who? John'O?

Apparently so.

Anyone bringing up WACO and Clark is certainly operating under the pressures of Desperation.

[CJCRANE]

210. Clark is about as close

to being the All-American Hero as you can get.

In the UK there was an advert for Foster's beer which showed a Lamborghini pulling up at a beach bar.

Guy sitting at bar to barman: "I bet he's not very good-looking..."
Driver steps out of car, is handsome with silver hair, looks like Richard Gere.
Guy at bar: "I bet he's stupid..."
Someone calls out "Hey, Professor".
Guy at bar: "Yeah, well I bet he's no good with the ladies.."
Cut back to shot of silver-haired guy with a woman on each arm.
Guy at bar: "Yeah, well, I bet he's no fun..."
Cut back to shot of silver-haired guy juggling, surrounded by smiling, laughing group of people.

This little story is to illustrate that if you've got all bases covered there's not much anyone can do to criticise you. For me, Clark pretty much covers all the bases.

[MollyStark]

213. Are those your bases?

Good looking, fun, good with the ladies and smart is all you want from a candidate for President?

[CJCRANE]

214. No, it's just an illustration

of a situation where some-one did their best to knock some-one down but in the end had nothing to go on. I'm implying that Clark is a master of many fields...soldier, economist, academic, leader etc. Very few candidates have such a wide range of skills nor have many excelled at them as Clark has.

[Discord]

224. Can we have this discussion again... say sometime in

'07???

[ZootSuitGringo]

226. Before or after

Hillary becomes the nominee?

Considering that the talk is currently 90% Hillary, 5% Kerry and 5% Edwards, I think discussing Clark now is just fine.

[Discord]

227. how about at least after they become...

... OFFICIAL NOMINATIONS?

[FrenchieCat]

228. Why wait?

Of course, you are free to wait if you want to. ;-)

[Discord]

235. because even these people...

Clark included have said that it distracts from the issues at hand.

Its not for 3 more years.

energy better spent of dealing with TODAYS issues, and not speculative ones years from now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

232. Sorry. I am done with letting insiders set up my choices for me

This is why we have a Democratic Underground in the first place. So that the base of the Party can increase our influence and not just be taken for granted cogs in the wheel. You are not honestly suggesting that National Democrats like John Kerry, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Evan Bayh and others are not already seriously doing pre planning for a possible 2008 run, are you? Or are you simply suggesting that the grass roots should have no role in supporting candidates of our choice until the Party insiders, fund raisers, and consultants have already agreed on their choice or choices to present to us? I'm sorry. Been there done that and never again. We all earned our say, all of us, not just Clark supporters but all grass roots activists who know what they want from a Presidential candidate.

Personally I think the reason why the National media is so hot to speculate about all the usual suspects for a 2008 run already is because they were taken off guard by Howard Dean's early grass roots organizing last year that made him an uninvited guest into the inner circle of legitimate contenders. This time they want to pre feed us our choices early. If you want to wait for insiders to screen your choices for you, by all means wait. I don't and I won't.

[Totally Committed]

233. Amen!

Look what happened last time. The "Insiders" were wrong.

I want to start winning elections again. It's the only way to make sure anywhere near a Preogressive agenda begins to be enacted again in this country!

The only way we turn around what's happening in this country today is to start winning elections, and that means we start nominating from "outside the box".

Wes Clark would be an outstanding POTUS!

TC

[Discord]

237. how are we winning elections?

how is posting about someone who may or may not be running three years from now winning elections? how is it helping? I only see bickering going on... yeah, thats gonna win lots of elections.

The Kerry people bashing Dean, the Dean people bashing Clark, the Clark people bashing Clinton, so on and so forth... yeah... thats gonna win lots of elections.

Its called the "circular firing squad".

Proven to be a devisive wedge inside of a party and known to cause more damage than it helps.

So, how come I see tons of threads being posted about this person or that person in '08. But barely see people paying much attention to the much more important elections being held NEXT YEAR! For without control of the House OR Senate... IT WONT MATTER who runs in '08 as they would be a nearly impotent President unable to do anything for our party.

So keep on wasting your time and ours that could be better spent working on turning some Red seats Blue in the Congressional elections in '06.

[Discord]

236. these threads in fact are the ones that are...

"pre-feeding" us our choices early.

The potential candidates being mentioned are not, and wont because they understand that it is all specualtive and there are much more important issues to be dealt with in the meantime.

You want to support your candidate?
Write them an email, send them a donation.

THIS... is accomplishing NOTHING but creating divisiveness when it has no bearing on what is going on in politics TODAY.

[Totally Committed]

239. What about all the pro-Kerry threads...

or the pro-Edwards threads?

Does the same go for them, too?

I feel a certain responsibility to get Wes Clark's name out there, because he is so maligned, disregarded, and all the other candidates (but for Lieberman) are not. (Or, at least that's how it seems to me.)

Democrats, I feel, need to know about Wes, and this is the only way I know of educating others about him.

So.... Is it only this thread or all candidate's threads that bother you?

TC

[Discord]

240. Yes, I have been all over alot of them too.

So don't think I'm just here picking on Clark supporters. For I am not.

I just keep trying to get people focused on the issues of today, and not the ones years down the road.

[Totally Committed]

241. Thank you, discord...

I appreciate the answer.

TC

[Discord]

242. anytime.

:)

[Totally Committed]

231. Plenty of info here!

Wes has a PAC , and it has a brand-new site:

http://securingamerica.com/

Learn about his life, his vision, his career, and the issues he cares about. Learn about upcoming appearances and events. Read his articles and speeches.

And...

Wes has a blog. For those of you who think you know the man or want to know him better, there is not better way to start the day than reading his own words about issues that effect America today, and what he's been up to.

Link to WesBlog:

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/9

Haiti trip recap

Excerpt:

"I just wanted to give you a quick update from my recent trip to Haiti. On Tuesday and Wednesday I visited the island nation as part of a Congressionally-mandated study group whose purpose is to recommend reforms of the UN.

Our purpose in Haiti was specifically to gain a closer look at UN peacekeeping operations, and Haiti is but one of the ongoing operations. But I also wanted to go to Haiti because I'd been there before, in conjunction with earlier military duties.

There are some two million Haitian-Americans, and they remit every year to their family members in Haiti perhaps a billion dollars -- far more than the Haitian budget. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Hemisphere, but I always found the Haitian people to be hard-working, ambitious and very family oriented -- rich talent in a poor third of an island devasted by environmental collapse and overpopulation.

As the Joint Staff J-5, I participated in planning for the 1994 US intervention that restored President Aristide to power. Among other things, I helped plan and work the creation of a new Haiti police force, the coordination of civil and military efforts in Washington, the eventual transition to a UN force, and the liaison with Aristide himself before the operation. Then former Undersecretary of Defense Walt Slocombe and I visited the island once US forces had arrived.

In 1997 I returned as Commander-in-Chief of the US Southern Command to assess the continuing efforts.

So, I had seen the hard work we put into the planning, the ground-breaking effort to devise a real exit strategy. I had seen the people of Haiti themselves, the real deprivation of the embargo we imposed, and the enthusiasm for a new start. And I had seen how quickly our government lost interest in the mission once the UN took over and we became more intensely engaged in the Balkans.

Returning this week was like a trip back in time. The capital of Port-au-Prince is struggling with gangs and thugs. Ex-armed forces members -- whom we threw out in 1994 -- are back, with new recruits and new guns, occupying some of the police stations. The streets are dangerous. The urban infrastructure remains broken and decayed. The government itself is strapped with a broken police force corrupted since our departure and with few options to bring in work and resources.

Entire Blog Entry:

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/109

----

Forging a New Vision for America

Excerpt:

America today is at a crossroads. Both at home and abroad, our security and values are being challenged. And while technology and the globalization of capital present many opportunities, we also face many threats. America needs a new vision for itself in order to deal with its challenges and make the most of its opportunities.

The evolving global economy is making it harder for America to maintain its economic preeminence in the world and threatens Americans' ability to compete for the best jobs. The threats to our physical safety and national security are greater now than they have been during any period since the end of the Second World War. We need a strategy to cope with these threats and to maximize our opportunities.

Poverty, ignorance and desperation are feeding the wellspring of hatred against America and the values for which we stand. Many people perceive Americans as rich, as arrogant and as uncaring. Unfortunately, this Administration has done more to feed in to that stereotype than to dispel it. As a nation, we must show the world the formula that will save them from their oppression and save the world from endless wars. It's an American formula. It's the formula of freedom, opportunity and equality. We need a new vision for ourselves and our place in the world for the 21st century.

Part of our new vision for America is new strategy for national defense. So far, this administration's strategy hasn't been productive.

Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the middle east remains unstable. These challenges demand a new vision for America.

My experience tells me there are three parts to resolving international tension and conflicts. First, we need to maximize diplomatic measures so that the world community speaks with one voice to represent the values of liberty, democracy and capitalism. Second, we need to commit to understanding the regional and local political situations, so we can walk a mile in the shoes of our adversaries and better understand the pressures they face. This understanding helps us arrive at the best solutions. Lastly, and only lastly, comes military force. The United States military is the best in the world and will accomplish whatever goals we set out for them -- but they are not equipped to do it all and do it alone. Nor should we be putting them in that position. They deserve better -- we all do.

Entire Blog Entry:

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/107

----

There is also a Blog on governemetal censorship, with a petition to sign:

Where’s the Real Indecency?

There is a battle going on today that is more compelling than any reality show on TV. It has drama, conflict, and an uncertain outcome. The television audience chooses the winner. The prize is freedom.
A small, but well-organized group of political operatives is denying our freedom to choose for ourselves what we watch in our own homes based on our personal standards and tastes. These people are stretching common sense to the breaking point and missing the fact that we can be trusted to make our own decisions.

During thirty four years in the U.S. Army, I have seen with my own eyes the courage of our soldiers under fire, and the horrors of the battlefield. D-Day was a pivotal moment in our nation's fight to liberate Europe from Nazi rule. Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks did our soldiers a great service by masterfully recreating the drama, heroism and heartbreak of that chapter of our history.

While "Saving Private Ryan" enjoyed an audience of millions, this professionally organized team of zealots has an audience of just one, but it is one that counts: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Here's what's happening:

This past Veterans Day the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), honored America's vets, for a third straight year, by airing "Saving Private Ryan." But this time, many ABC affiliates were denied the opportunity to share the story with millions of their viewers because of a few objections to the realistic violence and language in the film.

People may not realize that local stations are small businesses, and because FCC fines range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, they must take precautions or risk being forced out of business. Accordingly, theses stations asked the FCC for a ruling.

How did the FCC respond?

Silence. They didn’t say anything. They left the stations hanging out to dry.

Entire Blog Entry:

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=articles/military/2005-03-18

Petition Info, and link:

Respect the Sacrifice -- Protect the Freedom -- Stop Government Censorship Today

This past Veterans Day, ABC honored America's vets for a third straight year by airing "Saving Private Ryan."

But 66 local ABC affiliates, bullied by a small group of right-wing zealots who objected to the realistic violence and language in the film, asked the Federal Communications Commission for a ruling to protect themselves before proceeding.

How did the FCC respond? Silence. They left the stations hanging out to dry. And these 66 affiliates, fearing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, chose not to air "Saving Private Ryan," depriving one-third of the country from watching it.

I urge you to email FCC Chairman Kevin Martin by signing my petition and demand that he end this de facto censorship. We will not stand idly by as the government enables the erosion of one of our most precious freedoms.

Petition link, and automatic E-mail to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin:

http://ga4.org/campaign/fcc?source=home_fcc


If you are going to support Wes, there is plenty of reason here. If you are going to criticize him, best to read what he has to say for himself before-hand instead of spouting Regressive RW trash about him. All you need to know is right here.

TC

[Langley85]

249. I don't like Clark

He made that stupid "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" joke to Chris Matthews on Hardball.

[jen4clark]

251. Excellent reason

It doesn't sound like you'd care to know General Clark's stand on gay and lesbian issues, but if anyone's interested:

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/907/907_clark.asp

[Totally Committed]

253. Now, you are grasping at straws...

Matthews cut him off mid-sentence before he could finsih his thought. Those of us who know General Clark, have heard the story before, and if he had been allowed to finish, he would have said that this was the mindset of most of middle-America, not him. He was going there, but Matthews cut him off.

If this is all it will take to turn you off to a man who was the only candidate in the Primaries to appear on the cover of the Advocate, I have to wonder if you were open to him at all in the first place!

Geeeeeeeez......

TC

[FrenchieCat]

261. Is this a joke?

Wes Clark was endorsed by the Washington Blade and was featured on the cover of the Advocate.

Please find another reason to "hate" Clark. This one is just full of doo-doo! :hurts:
---------
http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2004/WB040109.html
Endorsement: Clark for president
Washington Blade - January 23, 2004
Of the four, John Edwards is the least viable and among the least supportive on gay issues. His record, after only one term in the Senate, is spartan, and he is the only one of the four who has failed to embrace civil unions for same-sex couples.
snip
John Kerry was the big winner in Iowa and is enjoying a bounce in New Hampshire. But the senator with the long face has a mixed record on gay issues and has done nothing to suggest he will show leadership on our issues.
snip
...Clark talks with what appears to be complete comfort about gay issues and has been accessible to the gay press, including not just this newspaper but the Advocate, and Sirius Satellite Radio's OutQ network. In each of those interviews, he has not just taken positions but promised "leadership. "
snip
As a centrist, Clark has managed to sharply criticize the Bush administration while not dividing up the country into "us vs. them.
snip
After four years of a president who has been a divider, not a uniter, despite his claims to the contrary, the Democrats need a nominee, and this country needs a president, who knows how to bring us together, while still doing right by gay and lesbian Americans. Wes Clark is that candidate.
-------------
the facts and nothing but the facts about your statement:
Wesley Clark on Hardball (9.77 MB)
www.yellowdogdem.com/Hardball11112004.WMV
Here are some links regarding "God Created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" -- about WES! lol!

http://tinyurl.com/5sx2n
<SNIP>
Earlier Monday, at a commemorative service at Zion Baptist Church in Columbia, the Rev. Dr. Sheila B. Koger delivered a fiery sermon about equal rights and Dr. King -- and also took a shot at homosexuality. "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," Dr. Koger said to applause from some of the several hundred people attending.

General Clark, who sat through the sermon, later told reporters: "I don't support those views. I believe we have to have equal rights for every American regardless of race, color, gender, sexual orientation or any other discrimination."<SNIP>

And this article........
Must not turned Wes off!!!! READ:
http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/2004/02/warn...

AND MORE ABOUT IT HERE........
https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/...
At the start of Dr. Koger's sermon Clark set his face in the rictal smile that is traditional for white politicians who find themselves in black churches. But as she took her detour into gay marriage the candidate turned to a man next to him and appeared to make small talk--here I am, just another four-star general trying to mind my own business. . . .

[Totally Committed]

274. Frenchie, this is just another stupid excuse...

trumped-up to make the Clark detractors feel superior and correct.

We can give them facts and links until we are blue in the face, but it won't matter. As I have said before: "There are none so blind as they who will not see."

TC

[Clark2008]

265. He didn't make the joke, he was talking about a PREACHER

who made the joke and he didn't get a chance to say how he would rebut that before Tweety cut him off. In fact, on the tape, Clark SAYS to Tweety as he's going out for commercial, "Is that all?"