Anecdotal Evidence Why Wes Clark '08

[xkenx]

Last night we saw this year's "Capitol Steps" annual visit to Pasadena. For those unfamiliar with them, they are a political satire group (former Capitol Hill staffers) who do impersonations, rewrite the lyrics to well-known songs, and letter reversals (war hero becomes "whore weiro"). Needless to say, they had plenty material to skewer Bushco this trip.
We went with friends. The husband, who tends to vote Republican, was really going on about his dismay with Bush, Cheney, RWers, trampling the Constitution, religious nutcases, etc. I asked him, "Didn't you vote for Bush last time? Didn't you know by then what a disaster he was?" He replied, "Yes, but I didn't like Kerry's politics and policies, all that liberalism stuff." So, pointing to my Clark '08 button, which I wear most of the time, I said that he should consider Wes Clark in '08, that I've been a supporter of this great American from day one. The friend shocked me by saying that Clark is one Democrat that he could support. CLARK, who is pro-choice, appeared on the cover of the Advocate (gay magazine) to show support, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-affirmative action, pro-public education, pro-single payer health plan. Well he applied the typical moderate Republican stereotype to Clark--the 34 year military man, Vietnam hero, 4-star general, NATO commander must be okay.
2008 is all about flipping red states. Who better to do it than the man with the American Dream/American Hero story?
But this is a story you hear so much about Clark, it goes beyond anecdotal evidence. You can take it to the 2009 Democratic White House.

[acmavm]

1. And I totally agree.

[democrank]

2. Wes is the one.

I so hope he runs.

[Totally Committed]

3. I'm with you all the way...

Wes had my entire family united behind him in the last election -- 1 Republican, 2 Greens, and the rest Democrats of varying degrees. EVERY ONE OF THEM (first time in our family's history) voted for him in the primaries.

He is the only candidate that can do this for us. That's one reason why I still support him for '08!

Wes is the one!

TC

[high density]

19. Same here.

In January 2004 Wes Clark caused me to change my registration from independent to Democrat and my parents changed from Republicans to Democrats (they were Republicans in registration only) so that we could all caucus for Clark.

[AtomicKitten]

4. If GORE doesn't run, I'll wholeheartedly support Wes Clark

as I did in the 2004 primary.

On edit: He showed a new-found savvy on Real Time, much more comfortable and articulate.

[xkenx]

6. Yes, Wes has developed a political savvy, while

retaining his integrity and down-to earth demeanor. If only, the next time around, he can avoid "Loser advisors," the ones who cannot advise a move without taking a poll or putting the wet finger in the wind. I'll never forget the campaign event in early '04 when he got picked up by the camera responding to a question about dealing with Rethug attacks, "I'll beat the shit out of them." While the media tut-tutted about Clark's blunder, Clark's contributions spiked from Dems. sick of Dems. who were wimps. When the media then asked if he really meant to say that, the reply from Clark's spokesman was, "No he didn't mean to say that; he meant to say he'll beat the LIVING shit out of them. Contributions spiked again.

[blm]

5. So, he likes that Clark is aligned with Kerry on all those same liberal

policies he dislikes Kerry for?

There's a disconnect with reality. Or is it because he doesn't KNOW that Clark has all those same positions?

[AtomicKitten]

7. Well, at least Clark didn't vote "yes" on the IWR.

In my eyes, that's a biggie.

[blm]

9. That's not the point is it? The point is that Kerry was too liberal on

policy issues. The man said he'd vote for Clark, though. Did the man know that Clark aligned himself on almost every issue with Kerry?

And, as far as te IWR is concerned, the only way IWR would matter is if it actually was the reason Bush went to war. It wasn't. Blame the IWR and you let Bush off the hook for going to war in VIOLATION of the IWR that sought weapons inspectionas and diplomatic efforts before any determination could be made that war was necessary.

[AtomicKitten]

11. of course * and his regime are to blame

However, I really feel our lawmakers failed miserably by going along with it, and I can back that up by pointing to the MANY who had the integrity to vote "no" when pressed with virtually no debate.

But that's me. It's just something I can't move beyond and let slide. My remedy? Shutting my mouth when a Democrat opposes them in their primaries. I will, however, wholeheartedly support whomever the consensus of Dems choose in the primaries regardless.

I'm not saying my no-mercy attitude is right; it's just how I feel. I strongly prefer a candidate who doesn't have the stink of this immoral war on them.

[blm]

13. What about the stink of ANY war of the last 35 yrs that has been proven

immoral, like the illegal wars in Central America? Would supporters of that policy get mercy from you, or is it just THIS Iraq war?

I mean, if you're going to set yourself as judge that way, I wonder if you see yourself as a fair judge?

[AtomicKitten]

15. No, they didn't.

That was then, this is now. Rationalization works for some, but I just can't let this slide. I mean no offense if that is offensive to you; it's just one vote - mine. This war was particularly egregious because its conception was based on such blatant BS.

This is a shameful point in our history and, yes, we have had many. Comparative analysis just doesn't make this episode any less horrible in my eyes.

I'm just telling you how I feel. I don't expect to change hearts and minds based on how I feel. It affects my vote and mine alone.

[blm]

16. I spent almost 20yrs in California and heard alot of horror stories from

people who fled what was happening in Central America at the time. That's why it's never been far away from my overall viewpoint.

But, it IS a fact that IWR or Biden-Lugar or ANY version of a resolution was not what led to war. The IWR should have prevented war had it been administered honestly. That's a fact and not a rationalization.

That's why it is harmful in my view that people choose to blame IWR which automatically lets Bush off the hook whether they realize it or not.

[Totally Committed]

23. As I said down-thread...

my son is a Republican who supported Wes, and he knew that Wes was close to Kerry on most policy issues, and he still wouldn't vote for Kerry. There are some people on the other side of the aisle, like it or not, that absolutely despise Kerry and wouldn't walk across the street with a bucket of water if he was on fire, let alone vote for him. That is the reality of the situation. YOu know it and so do I.

TC

[blm]

74. Yeah - the people who hated Kerry for exposing St. Ronnie Reagan and Bush1

as corrupt administrations. Many Republicans will NEVER trust Kerry ..... ever. They sided WITH keeping IranContra and BCCI covered up. Kerry's record is that of an anti-corruption leader - many GOPs hate that.

I'd like to hear their reasons using ONLY FACTS.

[Jai4WKC08]

92. They have no facts, but it doesn't matter

Some of those who "hate" Kerry don't even know about what he did with regards to IranContra or BCCI, EVEN IF their hatred is directly related to both. They just have a feeling they got from talking to other Repubs, who maybe got it from still others, etc. Facts don't matter but the feeling does. And no one gets to give them a test before they are allowed to walk into the voting booth.

TC, and the OP, are just pointing out that there are a lot of Repubs who "hate" Kerry in a way they don't hate Clark (and by extention, quite a few of the other leading Dems). It doesn't matter one iota that the reason is something that you or I might respect him for. It's sort of like what I said above about his Vietnam protests, another thing that most of us Dems admire but which engender a lot of animosity among Repubs and indies (and actually, many Dems in the rank and file as well).

Umm... it occurs to me that you may have just proved a point here. For all the GOP attacks and the complicit media, a lot of anti-Kerry bias is grounded in things he actually did. I happen to think any senator who's worth a damn would be equally vulnerable. Probably any Dem, regardless of background, but senators even more so -- the longer they've been in Congress, the worse the vulnerability.

[Clarkie1]

54. Breaking: Red-neck conservatives will listen to a liberal General. nt

[wyldwolf]

67. Gore voted for the first Persian Gulf war

And it, too, was based on a certain level of bullshit.

I'm just saying...

[Jai4WKC08]

75. In fairness to Gore

The first Gulf War was not the same thing at all. Even if it was "based on a certain level of bullshit" (every war is, even the just ones), it is indisputable that Iraq had invaded our ally Kuwait. The way I remember it, Iraq also posed an imminent threat to our ally Saudi Arabia, but the fact that their army was in Kuwait was enough to justify military action to drive them out. It's also a fact that we were acting in concert with a legitimate coalition, which included nations from throughout the region, even some (like Syria) who have never been aligned with the US and cannot have been subject to US pressure to participate.

Gore had a DLC-conservative voting record as a senator. Perhaps the DLC, such as it was at the time (I don't remember whether it formally existed at the time, but there has always been that faction in Congress, with basically the same people making it up), influenced his vote for the earlier war. But I don't think you can compare that one vote to the IWR.

[wyldwolf]

113. Sure, in fairness to Gore, who I support...

The first Gulf War was not the same thing at all. Even if it was "based on a certain level of bullshit" (every war is, even the just ones), it is indisputable that Iraq had invaded our ally Kuwait.

Yes, but we essentially gave Saddam a greenlight to do so, then changed our tune after Saudi Arabia protested. We fought that war for Saudi Arabia, in a sense.

Gore had a DLC-conservative voting record as a senator. Perhaps the DLC, such as it was at the time (I don't remember whether it formally existed at the time, but there has always been that faction in Congress, with basically the same people making it up), influenced his vote for the earlier war.

Let's clear the record about Gore in this respect. Gore was practically a founding member of the DLC. He helped author a press release and arranged a press conference announcing the formation of the DLC. He was DLC as a Senator and as a VP, and no one was influencing him for it.

But I don't think you can compare that one vote to the IWR.

Right, because the IWR wasn't an authoriazation for war. Gore's vote was, though.

[FrenchieCat]

126. How can you say that the IWR wasn't an authorization for War? when

The title of the Resolution was....

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

First sentence of said Resolution is....

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The authorization to use force WAS an authorization for War.....and was clear about it!

It goes on....

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--


http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

[paulk]

132. it was an authorization under specific circumstances

and Bush violated those circumstances -



Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'; Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[wyldwolf]

134. thank you.

:)

[FrenchieCat]

136. I'm sorry....but I read the resolution.....

What "circumstances" required were violated?

Could you just highlight the parts that were conditions?

Posting the entire thing doesn't quite make your point, IMO.

Not trying to give you a hard time....but I'd like to see what language Bush violated...cause when I read the resolution, it appears that Bush could determine when and how he would attack......

[paulk]

137. the full title of the IWR is - "a joint resolution to authorize the use

of the United States armed forces against Iraq. It gives the President authorization to use armed force under the conditions outlined in the resolution -

these are the conditions listed that Bush, in my opinion, violated -

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

--- Bush's determination was two sentences long, stating that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the national security of the US. Clearly not true, known by Bush to not be true, and IMO, reason right there for impeachment.


also worth reading:
http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/04/08/tal04009.html

[blm]

138. EXACTLY - and those who blame the IWR are HELPING Bush to cover up

that he was in violation of the IWR. (Whether they realize it or not )

The MEDIA played it like the IWR was a vote FOR war and that it gave Bush everything he wanted - so they ignored the guidelines that were in it and downplayed any mention of them as if they did NOT exist.

[xkenx]

8. That was my point.

So many voters are casual observers of the political scene. Clark's military resume suggests certain things to many voters. I'm not going to be the one to point out to them that Clark has a truly progressive agenda. Let moderate Republicans vote for him based on their misconceptions if they want. Others will vote for him because he will be a refreshing change from that dunderhead Bush, and one who has genuine national security creds. I know politically neutral pro-choice women who voted for Bush because they thought he was a "Compassionate Conservative" who would "Never take away my right to choose." Well, now we have the ability to turn the tables, by electing a progressive wolf in a military uniform.

[blm]

10. YOU'RE not going to point to them that Clark is progressive, but the RNC

will spend HALF a BILLION dollars making sure to do exactly that.

Not to mention the certain 200 Generals and Commanders Against Clark campaign.

THAT is the reality. Clark will have an easier time BECAUSE the swift tactic rose its head and the Dems have a better grasp on what to prepare for. In fact, Kerry, Clark and other vets now have a fight back pac that they have been supporting, ready to counter any attacks on vets running for office.

[xkenx]

12. Clark's uniform is the teflon coat

against those attacks, just like Bush's good ol' boy demeanor and "Compassionate Conservative" mantra fool a lot of people. Clark also does a good job of framing his progressive agenda around famliy values, caring for people, and wrapping himself in the flag. He brought down the house at the Dem. Convention in '04 with his flag speech.

[blm]

14. I hope Clark's campaign doesn't operate under that level of naivete.

Actually, I know they don't. That's why the vets formed a pac to fight back charges.

Teflon comes from media, not from uniforms or good old boy demeanors. Had the media chosen to strip away the demeanor they could have easily informed the public that it was all a facade from an incompetent fratboy.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[blm]

80. So you disagree that media bestows Teflon? Then Clark won't NEED anyone

fighting for him from the vet pacs, because his uniform automatically gives him Teflon by your conclusions.

Because THAT was my point that you all want to dismiss and attack me fo making that point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. Teflon, to whatever extent present, is not bullet proof

It's better to have more of it than less, but it is foolish to not be prepared to deal with inevitable attacks. I can make a case for why this Democrat or that may have better "Teflon" to deal with certain attacks than another Democrat, and I think that IS relevant. "Teflon" gives a politician who is attacked an opportunity to defend themselves and get back on the offensive. That's because a politician who has some "Teflon" is afforded some courtesy by those who hear an attack on him or her. In other words the public has a predisposition to hear his or her side of the story before passing any final negative judgment, rather than immediately swallowing an attack hook line and sinker. But "Teflon" can be shredded, it would be the height of foolishness for any politician to "rest on their Teflon" and think they are invulnerable.

[blm]

89. See - you get the point I make - DNC expected Silver and Bronze Stars and

Three Purple Hearts and many lives saved heroically by Kerry would be Teflon from what the GOP would do. What they never factored in was that the current media is COMPLICIT now with the GOP - it's not the same media from the 80s or early 90s.

Dems did nothing to prepare for that reality the way Kerry, Cleland and Clark are now working to prepare for the next onslaught.

I appreciate that you take the time to comprehend my points.

[karynnj]

17. Don't you see that that was exactly what people

thought about Kerry's service - where he was a hero.

Clark's service being longer would not have protected him in 2004 and he was no more prepared for it than Kerry. If anything, Kerry had fought mud slinging in campaigns before, Clark hadn't.

The good thing for 2008 (and 2006) is that Kerry allies have set up a PAC (I don't remember the type- but it's not a 527), it's charter is to defend veterans attacked dishonestly. If Clark is the candidate in 2008, the very existance of this PAC that can and will respond will help. Clark will also likely benefit from the media's current embarrasment of what happened.

The quote from "Lapdogs" a new book on the media behavior in 2000 and 2004, ennumerates how enormous the media support was for the SBVT. The official records, which were on Kerry's web site, showed the charges were lies. Beyond that Kerry people proved people already home from VN claimed to witness things, some media stories actually said "the truth will never be known." Nice way to repay Kerry for risking his life.

Clark may also face mudslinging in the primaries, as started in 2008, if he is seen as a threat.

[FrenchieCat]

20. There is a difference between Clark and Kerry's uniform.....

Although I agree that they do share the fact that they were both heroic, have experienced battles, and both were wounded...but it really does end there.....

Kerry in Uniform never planned and led a successful war...in fact, the last one we fought just a short six years ago.

Kerry's uniform is 35 years old. That made a difference on how the facts were able to be twisted much more easily, without any current evidence.....as it was the word against one vs. the words against another in a memory lane.

You see, apart from having the same medals that Kerry had from 35 years ago.....Clark has a slew of NEW medals given to him from just about every country in Europe, as well as other parts of the world....all bestowed very recently....like six years ago. Is someone gonna say that 19 countries made a mistake in handing him those medals? Really....each one?

The man's been knighted, and has the Medal of Freedom Award for his work in Kosovo.

Clark and Kerry's military experience is just not the same at all.

Kerry's advantage was that he went to Iowa.....and that he had domestic experience...so he was perceived as most electable.

[karynnj]

24. That's not the point

First of all, being in the military is not the end all and be all of existance!

The points I was making are that ANY candidate would have been smeared and that things were learned because of 2004. In 2004, Clark had no more experience or skills to deal with smearing than Kerry did. Clark, if the candidate in 2008, would have the advantage of following Kerry's experience. The Democrats have a committee in place to deal with this smearing and there is some recognition in the media that it was wrong.

I was not, in any way equating Clark's and Kerry's military service - which would make as little sense as a Clarkie equating things that he has done to push legislation with things that Kerry did for years in his life. What I was saying is that things can be distorted - and I've seen Clarkie posts speaking of some really nasty (unfair) charges made. (I will not repeat for obvious reasons)

Kerry's service, like any, was documented and the medals he got were real. The facts weren't twisted they were disregarded. Oh, and Kerry's "domestic experience" included 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations. Although it was 35 years ago, Nixon people were on tape bemoaning the fact that Kerry's record was good and that he was squeaky clean - and that was 2 years after the fact.

Iowa alone didn't make Kerry the nominee. In NH, where Clark had a jump start because the others were in Iowa - Clark only got 12% of the vote. (Ok, NH is next to MA - the next week Kerry got around 50% of the MO vote, Clark got 4% and Arkansas borders on Missouri. Clark may very well do better in 2008, but it is neither honest or fair to diminish what Kerry did in 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

35. As you know, there is more to a candidate than their experience....

and so I submit that Kerry and Clark are just not the same people....they have different personalities, etc....

Clark did not have a "jump start" in New Hampshire. Clark was only in the race from Mid September till the first vote in January.....

While Kerry is from New England, and the campaign in New Hampshire had been going on long before Clark even declared his candidacy.

If you don't think that Iowa gave Kerry losta momentum and free publicity...which in fact did help a great deal in New Hampshire......and on from there, you are not being real.

[karynnj]

40. I think it did help Kerry to win NH

Look at any other year - the momentum changes. Clinton lost NH and Iowa, then won several Southern States. Both Edwards and Clark had a huge chance to take the lead. After NH and Iowa, there was a multi-state primary day. The states were: SC, OK, MO,DE, ND, NM, and AZ. Look at the list - these are not states that should have been easy for a NE Senator. Kerry won 5 of these states. Clark won OK with 30% of the vote (Edwards got 30% and Kerry 27% - not a wipe out), Kerry beat Clark by a minimum of 15 percentage points in all other states.

Clark may very well do better in 2008, but there is absolutely no reason to diminish Kerry's accomplishments in 2004.


You may like Clark's personality better - I like Kerry's better. You can't convince me that Clark has a better personality. I know I can't convince you. I love Kerry's speeches.

I've said I will vote for Clark if he's the nominee and I will voluteer.

[FrenchieCat]

41. 2004 was a truncated primary.....

it was not quite the same.....

[Totally Committed]

22. Will someone please explain to me why these pro-Clark threads

becomes referendums on Kerry, Kerry's service, Kerry's uniform, Kerry's campaign.... this is not an anti-Kerry thread. But, some are not happy until it becomes one.

TC

[karynnj]

25. Read the OP - it says Clark, not Kerry

The OP is saying that Clark could have won when Kerry didn't - valid issue to discuss, but pro-Kerry people should be able to disagree. There have been Clarkies on almost every Kerry post- usually pointing out in some way that Clark is better. The idea that Clark would not have been smeared defies reason. Clark can only walk on water if the temperature has been significantly below 32 degrees for a period of days.

The OP brought up Kerry - BLM simply responded that the "liberal" Kerry positions are also the "liberal" Clark positions - in fact I have seen Clarkie posts that he is a true liberal unlike Kerry. Her point was that the RNC would make sure ANY LIBERAL positions Clark has are known.

I only answered to point out that the smearing of service is something that the Democrats are trying to proactively avoid - which will help Clark if he wins. It's not my fault, that a reader saw it as equating their service - which is ludicrous. I've reread my post and I absolutely fail to see what your point is. If the intent was to have this be a discussion that only agrees and praises Clark, why have it in GD-P. It would be reasonable to expect no disagreement in the Clark group.

By the way, when Kerry's NYT op-ed on Iraq came out, one Clark person came on the KERRY thread to first say that Kerry was wrong to have a plan beyond the Democratic one presented by ...Clark, then it was that Clark had already said the same thing (!), then that Clark said it earlier. All in all, there were at least 5 posts by this person. The thread was designed to communicate a plan from the Democrat who received a huge percent of the primary vote. He is ONE of the party leaders. None of the Kerry group said he/she was wrong to post.

[Totally Committed]

27. Well, point taken....

I just don't think anyone who is unwilling to see that there is a goodly amount of Republicans and Independents that -- right or wrong -- simply WILL NOT vote for Kerry should be calling us naive.

What the OP states is that there ARE a lot of people outside this Party who WOULD vote for Clark. Period. And it asked for anectodal evidence. I've given mine.

That's that. I'm done.

TC

[karynnj]

29. I live in a county where a large number

of Republicans voted for Kerry. I canvassed with a retired businessman, a life long Republican. From what he told me as we drove to our assigned area was that he never thought he would ever vote for a Democrat. He had in early 2004 known he would not vote Bush. He thought he wouldn't vote at all, but liked Kerry enough from the convention and the debates that he decided not only to vote for Kerry, but to canvass for him.

Would he have voted for Clark? I have no idea - I didn't ask.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Repubs in blue states...

Especially northeastern blue states, are not comparable to Repubs in the red and purple "fly-over" states. They tend to be more moderate, do not have the same prejudices, and are not exposed to as much right wing media. Mostly, they actually have friends and co-workers who are liberal Democrats, so they realize we don't breath fire -- there are people in the South and Midwest who go for weeks, maybe longer, and never meet a Democrat, or at least not that they know of.

[blm]

76. The OP used Kerry as the foil - as usual. As if all the Dems needed was

the top of the ticket changed. That's all - no corporate media manipulations - no DNC organizational problems - no left media weakness.

[xkenx]

82. My OP was reporting a statement of a friend,

not an attempt to knock Kerry. I merely offered a comment about the person who may be able, thru flipping red states, to bring us the White House again. Other threads can deal with DNC, media, and the like. And the top of the ticket IS very important. No one has the power of a POTUS. The people a president selects to run the government are a reflection of him (her). Witness Cheney, Rumsfeld, Brownie......ad nauseum.

[blm]

86. What the public LEARNS about a candidate comes 95% from corporate media.

Clark is NEVER my target. My replies deal always with what ANY Dem candidate will get - and that is HALF A BILLION DOLLARS used to define them and a noticeable absence of their most effective counters in the corporate media.

To think what happened to Kerry would NEVER have happened to Clark is just naive. The corporate media is NOT a friend to ANY Democrat - uniformed or not.

I believe I AM more protective of Clark on some of these threads with my attacks on media and their influence on the public view of ANY Dem candidate than some of you who adore Clark and think his uniform protects him from the reality of being a media target.

[xkenx]

88. I am NOT naive about Rethugs and corporate media.

All things are relative. Clark is the sum of his life's parts and accomplishments. The perceptions about Clark will take on many hues. If we can run a candidate (like Clark) who can have at least a bit of teflon, a bit of misconceptions among some Republicans about Clark's progressiveness, then even a relatively small % shift our way will be enough to tip the '08 election.

[blm]

90. That would be nice - But I expect the fight will come from the pacs now

formed by Kerry, Cleland and Clark to protect ANY vet and military man who opposes the regime.

Dem party expected that Kerry's array of medals for bravery and service would create teflon - The vets and their pacs WILL be prepared for the next time in ways that Dem party was not in 2002 and 2004.

But, then, the public certainly has opened their eyes more now since Katrina, and the impact of the next assault might not be as great. We'll see. Media and voting machine control can't be discounted - EVER.

[Jai4WKC08]

91. I don't see anyone here

Saying that Clark's uniform protects him from the reality of being a media target, or that the GOP won't spend as many dollars, and pull as many media strings to shoot him down. And I know most of us agree with you 100% that the media is not the friend of any Democrat. If anything, we tend to believe that the media went after Clark before the primaries precisely because they thought he'd be harder for Bush to beat. You don't have to agree with that (duh); I just offer it to support that we really do see eye to eye on the issue.

But I do think that that Repub smears stick better to some candidates than to others.

Based on your other comments here, I think you saw what I wrote in a different thread about how the GOP was behind a lot of the "Clark is a Republican" crap, directed at Democratic voters. It was a stickier charge precisely because Clark admited voting for Nixon and Reagan, because he'd belonged to neither party until a relatively short time before his run, and because there's an assumption on the part of a lot of people that all military are Repubs. If none of that were true, I don't know how much of an effect their efforts would have had.

In the same way, the swiftboating of Kerry was stickier because of his protesting Vietnam (however justified it was), because of his voting against defense appropriations and programs, because he voted against the first Gulf War and against the $87B (again, the latter being perfectly justified and explainable), and because of the underlying assumption that all liberals are anti-military.

Clark's uniform won't bullet-proof him. Already, I think I know the way it will go, because I've seen the GOP attacks, directed at Repubs and indies during the primaries, and used today wherever he is working for '06 candidates, that Clark was a political general with no tactical experience, who only got promoted because he was good buddies with Clinton, who was fired for incompetence or lack of integrity or worse -- all lies, easily disproved, but that doesn't stop them. And you (I think it was you, but whoever it was) are absolutely right that there will be a "200 Generals who hate Clark" campaign. Like with Kerry's swiftboaters, they won't all be generals, most of 'em won't have known Clark at all, some will have liked him fine before he spoke out as a Democrat, but again, they'll be used against him.

But that said, Clark simply has advantages that Kerry didn't. First and foremost, people don't hold those underlying assumptions about him that the GOP need only reinforce instead of create. If anything, they have to reverse the underlying assumptions, and that's much harder to do. And Clark has 38 years in the military, probably hundreds of thousands who know his military record, tens of thousands who saw his performace first-hand, whereas Kerry had 2 years in the navy, and 11 crewmates who could vouch for his courage in combat.

I don't think anyone, least of all Clark himself, thinks the GE will be a "cake-walk" for him. But I don't think you can assume the GOP and its media would be as successful at doing to Clark what they did to Kerry. Their backstories are just too different.

[blm]

94. In what way? Was Clark not a man who rooted out corruption in the military

where he found it? Just as Kerry took on the difficult duty of exposing corruption of both the Reagan and Bush1 White House?

Media will end up deciding what the front story is - and thankfully there will BE a vet squad in place to stay on alert for future battles - something both Kerry and Clark are working towards.

btw - media is the one who declared Kerry's campaign dead for months to dry up his fundraising and support. They UNDER-reported his ground strength for months to make sure of it, remember Kerry had to put up his own money to fund the last few months. Kerry took that battle head on in Iowa and won decisively there. The media was NO FRIEND to Kerry - they even stepped on his Iowa victory and the strength of his personal efforts to amplify and hype the scream from Dean - that way they could shift all the blame for the bad predictions and polls and report that Dean's campaign imploded. Conveniently letting themselves off the hook for their months of lying.

[Jai4WKC08]

96. Care to elaborate?

I don't understand which part of what I wrote you are directing your "In what way?" question.

I will say that Clark was instrumental in rebuilding the military after Vietnam. I don't know that it involved "rooting out corruption" in the way you mean. Perhaps that's just my prejudice, in that I don't see a lot of corruption, per se, within the uniformed military. Oh, there's crime, for sure. Good commanders try to control it as best they can. Some try harder than others; some have other priorities. But I don't think there are many military officers who would be offended because a fellow officer were tough on crime within his/her unit. Even if it were a buddy who got nailed. The military criminal justice system has some pretty good checks, or at least it used to.

If there is corruption within the military, it's primarily in the materiel development and purchasing departments, and MOSTLY involves the civilians. In any case, Clark never served in that community. With the exception of his tour at OMB as a White House Fellow (and then, not working military issues), he was always a tactical officer until he got to the level where he became a strategic planner, and then ultimately an operational-level commander. There's very little cross over between the dirty-boots officers and the guys who handle the Army-wide contracts (altho a commander does get money to spend on his own unit, and at the 4-star level, works with Congress for the appropriations).

The only other "corruption" I can think of is the willingness of too many senior officers (it doesn't usually go below the general officer level) to kowtow to what politicians and their partisan appointees want, to the detriment of their missions and troops. I do know that Clark made some enemies in that regard, by his resistance to the Pentagon in the Balkans, by his refusal to certify National Guard units for Desert Storm when the FORSCOM commander wanted him to (probably because it was what then-SecDef Cheney and Bush41 wanted), and as I related elsewhere, by choosing to protect the environment of the CA desert over his higher commander's development plan for the maneuver training area. But it's really not the same thing. People in the military are sort of used to the political struggles that general officers are subjected too and are not very likely to judge another officer based on them.

Please note that everything I said above relates to the pre-Bush43 military. Clark retired in 2000, so any corruption that Bush43/Rumsfeld has caused or contributed to is not relevant to Clark.

[blm]

97. You said their backstories are so different - I replied, In what way?

In what way are the men so different?

I always saw more similarities than differences. They both made enemies BECAUSE of the battles they chose.

Why the media could define one because of his backstory and not the other just doesn't sound realistic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

99. In reality their choices and values have much in common

But the starkest differences are in their career choices. Kerry honorably left the military after a few years and went on to be a leading protester of the War in Viet Nam. As a Kerry surrogate, Clark defended Kerry for his moral courage in fighting against that war (I wish Kerry had been more up front about that in his own campaign). But Clark stayed in the military and was never associated with anti Viet Nam protests (though he is associated with defending dissent in time of war) That is a huge difference in "backstories". One is no less honorable than the other, but Kerry's backstory helped him win the Democratic nomination because those who vote in Democratic primaries are left of center usually. Clark's backstory as a career Four Star General often worked to his disadvantage in the Primaries (it took me a lot of personal research before I was willing to trust Clark myself for example. I always loved what Kerry did with Viet Vets Against the War). The built in advantages get reversed though in a General Election campaign. And that doesn't even begin to speak to the fact that Republicans were able to dredge up dozens of Senate votes that Kerry made that they "claimed" proved he was weak on national security. Clark doesn't have that type of record. Clark led NATO to victory in a war. The backstories ARE different.

This does not prove that Kerry or someone like him can't win, or that Clark or someone like him can't lose, but there is a real difference.

[blm]

103. Nothing so different that CAN'T be spun is my basic point.

In fact, the similarities will take center stage at any point where the GOP and their media allies decide he is the target. He'll become more liberal than Bill Clinton on gays in the military - in fact, that is where I first took notice of Wes, and appreciated him - he gave Kerry full back up on that issue when many stayed silent and avoided it like the plague.

I used that fact to battle back against Clark detractors here during the primary.

But everything good and decent will become fodder for spinning against the man.

[Jai4WKC08]

107. What Tom said, and this...

The enemies Kerry made by fighting corruption and protesting the Vietnam war are of a type that spreads easily to the general population. In fact, the protesting didn't even need to spread further--it's was already comparatively well known, and just needed a little tweaking ("Hanoi John," for example) to remind everyone. The enemies Clark made by fighting the policies of his senior officers are pretty much limited to a handful of other generals and will not as easily spread outside the professional military, and only a very limited segment of that.

Also (and again, in addition to what Tom wrote) the reason I said the backstory would help Clark in a way it didn't help Kerry is a matter of numbers. Whatever the Repubs and their media throw at him, there are so very many people who know different, and from first-hand knowledge. I frequent RW blogs all the time. Even there, when I point out what a great commander Clark was, pretty much anyone who knew him in the military (most by reputation, but occassionally more directly) has to agree with me. Kerry only had those 11 crewmates. It was all but one of the still-living -- it should have been enough. But somehow it wasn't. People aren't too smart. When confronted with "250 Swiftboat Vets" (most of whom never even saw a swiftboat), they were overwhelmed. Like I said, Clark has tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands to back him up. He also has a 38 year record of military service, as opposed to two, of which only 4 months were in combat. He can point to the "hungry" years, when his wife was raising a kid in a one bedroom apartment with cracked linoleum flours while he was a thousand miles away on some deployment and no scheduled date of return, and there's a helluva lot of people who can relate.

Like I said... who knows what the media will be able to pull off in the "swiftboating" of Clark? He's certainly not bullet-proof, or even outside the crosshairs. But he does have some advantages that Kerry did not. And I don't think you're being realistic not to admit that.

[blm]

108. The biggest advantage is the tactic itself being OVERLOADED on Kerry in

2004 to the point that it became an obvious political ploy.

I believe the backlash on the tactic will be become a story at some point. Probably in the fall campaign cycle.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. I have my fingers crossed

I honestly hope that the tactic will begin to fail, that people will begin to see thru it, and learn to ignore it or, even better, that it will create that backlash. If it does, it will be an advantage to Clark, but also to Kerry and pretty much all of the rest of 'em.

But I'm not optimistic. I would have thought what they did to Gore in 2000 would have taught people, but it didn't.

I do admit that Clark has the advantage of having seen what was done to Kerry's military record, and the time to try to come up with a plan to combat it. And yes, that's why he's backing IAVA, and helped Eric Massa put together the Fighting Dems (which the DNC has now taken under their wing, and that can only be for the good). Not for his 2008 chances as much as to get those Fighting Dems elected, but it will of course help him (and Kerry etc) in 2008.

But I know you would agree that it's a bigger problem than swiftboating vets, which is what those groups are designed to combat. It's the whole media control of our message and our messengers. Clark sees that. I assume Kerry does too, or at least I hope so. Clark tried to make that very point on Bill Maher Friday nite (altho it seems to have gone over Maher's head) and also on Franken's show. I know Clark spoke out during his campaign against corporate media consolidation, and for the reinstatement of some sort of Fair Practices legislation. So he must have seen it then too. He has spoken to us in his base on a number of occasions of the need to support what little liberal media there is (AAR specifically), and to not be afraid to challenge the right-wing media, to call in to their talk shows, to speak out on the facts. And last time I heard him talk in person (in OK, where it's very hard for Democrats to get good media), he was telling the assemblage that we need to get around the media by taking our case to the people one-to-one, to our neighbors and co-workers, and thru our local activism.

Clark has said, repeatedly, that we need a Democratic House to provide checks and balances. He means on the White House, of course, but I think he also means in the voting booths and in the media. I think that's part of what he meant about how controlling the House is necessary to finding the facts and getting them out to the American people. And I don't believe he thinks it's gonna happen magically. He's looking for investigations, with subpoena power, but he also wants some sort of legislative action. How much he can influence that process remains to be seen, but he hasn't been working closely with Pelosi because he likes her smile.

[Totally Committed]

115. Not a "foil", a "standard"...

Kerry was our candidate last time out. Like it or not, that makes him the standard by which others are measured. That can't be done without ever saying his name, making a comparison, or referring to him -- even obliquely. This was never meant to be an anti-Kerry thread, but your defensiveness and combativeness made it one, nevertheless. We need to find a way to talk to each other without this bitterness and recrimination, and not taking offense to every mention of Kerry's name in releation to another candidate would be a start.

TC

[Totally Committed]

21. My son, the Republican,

was all for Wes, but when Kerry was nominated, absolutely would not vote for him. Wouldn't even consider it. So, disconnect or not, we have this Liberal, articulate, wise candidate that still attracts those in other Parties to vote for him. We need to definitely exploit that to win.

And, blm, this isn't an anti-Kerry thread, but a pro-Clark thread. All I was saying was for whatever reason, Wes has an appeal that crosses Party lines, and I don't believe Kerry does. Let's not make it anything more or less than that.

TC

[karynnj]

28. Given his MOTHER's oft posted opinion of Kerry,

this example really seems rather lame. I can't imagine why he didn't have a great opinion of Kerry.

[Totally Committed]

104. Actually, we in this house always loved Kerry -- me, especially...

My disaffection came later -- much later -- and well after my son finished his military service, moved to a Red State and took up with Satan's minion. It was after he went Republican that he decided he hated Kerry and it had nothing to do with my feelings about him at all. To be very honest, I tried valiantly to get him to vote for Kerry last time. I don't (belive it or not) push my opinions on my kids, and if you knew them at all, would know what a waste of time it would be, even if I did. They are, each and every one, their own person. (It's how I raised them... right or wrong, be who you are, believe what you believe, and never let anyone sway you away from your true self.)

So, it wasn't me who gave him his feelings of dislike for Kerry (I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I supported Kerry from the early 70's to the 90's... I worked on his campaigns, and gave him as much money over those years as I did any of my kids for college). Pretty much, he grew up in a very pro-Kerry/Pro-Kennedy household. Sorry, I know it would be easier to believe that it was I who poisoned him, but it simply isn't true.

TC

[blm]

78. It IS more - Your son APPROVED of Reagan-Bush1 policies that Kerry fought

for years to expose. So, of course he would dislike the man who FOUGHT THAT CORRUPTION the most.

I am PROUD that Kerry did that work, because St. Ronnie and Poppy Bush's history will be recorded more accurately, Some people still loathe it.

I think more Republicans SHOULD come down on the side of what was RIGHT for this nation and not turn away from those who spent their time doing the right thing for the country.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. He probably doesn't know, but

It's possible he doesn't care. Most people don't vote based on logic or facts. They go with what they FEEL about a candidate.

No matter that Clark tells people he's a liberal, that his views and positions are mostly liberal, people don't see Clark as liberal. Partly because he's a general, but also because they can tell he's tough. He exudes toughness. "Everybody knows" that libruls are all squishy and bleedin' heart and all that. We can't be tough.

This is anecdotal too, but a veteran friend of mine, somewhat conservative (altho no longer thrilled with Bush), never served with Clark and doesn't know that much about him personally, once told me back in '03 that if they put all the Democratic candidates on an island, like on Survivor, Clark would be the only one left standing within a week.

Another anecdote. When Clark met with the Out of Iraq Caucus, I sent the account to my Repub brother, telling him Clark was going into the lion's den. He wrote back that it was more like Clark was the lion among lambs. I laughed out loud to read that, thinking of Conyers, Lee, Waters etc as a bunch of lambs. But that's the way the typical conservative sees them. All of us. They don't know jack about what Conyers et al are really like, but they're "libruls" so they must be weak.

I think maybe that more than anything is why Democrats aren't trusted with national security, why Kerry had to push his war record, and why the GOP spent so much money tearing it down and making it look faked. Bush can be a former cheerleader and draft dodger, Kerry can play hockey and be a decorated war hero, but Bush is seen by people as strong and Kerry as weak because of the party brand more than anything factual about them as individuals.

It's nuts, but I think that for a lot of people, it's just the way it is. They don't think, they don't weigh facts. They believe what they believe because of stereotypes and advertising and who knows what cultural factors and it is very very hard to change those beliefs. Giving them facts won't do it, not by itself, because they just take the facts and shift them around to fit their preconceptions and prejudices. We'd better figure out a way to deal with it.

It's not just conservatives. I've seen a lot of Democrats do the same thing. I think it's just human nature.

[xkenx]

32. That was my point in the OP, but

you stated it eloquently.

[Clark2008]

36. Of course there is and disconnect.

That is why I constantly harp on this board that we cannot pick a New England liberal.

I'm married to a New England liberal - he's the love of my life - and I'm a Southerner, so it's quite obvious that I don't harbor any ill-will toward people from above the Mason-Dixon Line; however, that's not so true of the rest of my brethern in the Southern and mid-West, unfortunately.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether this is right, about whether we need to let the "yahoos" in the South and the mid-West pick our candidate, about how the South and the mid-West need to progress and "get with the program," but, for now, at least, the argument is moot because there IS this belief and bias.

Look, the last two Democratic presidents have been Southerners - the fact remains that Nixon's Southern Strategy has been working (and I question the racism part - I think it works because Republicans don't treat the fly-over states as fly-over states - they have welcomed rural cultures instead of looking down their noses at it).

The disconnect is very real and we have to work with it. Perhaps, someday, the Dems can put together some sort of Southern strategy that involves wiping out this bias, but, for now, it's what we have.

[karynnj]

42. So, you are very politely saying

that because the Southerners are prejudiced against us Northerns, we should reward them with all the nominations for President. Note - if the Ohio Democratic party would have done a decent job, Kerry would be President without any of the Southern states you say are too bigoted to vote for a Yankee. Maybe a President Kerry would have caused them to see that Northerners could be ok.

I live in the NY area, and I NEVER heard a single person say they couldn't vote for Carter or Clinton because they were from the South.

Of, all the reasons I have ever heard if I hear this again, I may decide to vote against Southerns because I seem to regularly hear people say, I have no problem, but all my neighbors will. Do you know that the question statisticians ask to really identify likely predjudice is would your friends vote for a ....?

[Clark2008]

59. See - you took it the damn wrong way AGAIN

If you "yankees" decide not to vote for a Southerner - it's over. Do you realize, it's over?

Stop being so damn petty. I can't help if the media worked down here. I can't help it if the old prejudices (against the North, not race) are still around.

Be BETTER than that. Stop it! You have better media. You have better schools. Fuck!

STOP SNOOTING YOUR NOSE DOWN AND WE'LL STOP BEING ASSES!

[karynnj]

64. I did NOT take it the wrong way

I think that it may be that what the South needs is an outstanding, caring Northern President who they could come to love over time to get over their own inferiority complex and prejudice. I also think that if the voting system is cleaned up, both Ohio and Florida are winnable by Democrats. There's also the Southwest and Colorado. Most of the South is the reddest part of the country.

As to better schools, there are plenty of very good schools in the South. I know because my kids and their friends considered and applied to some of them. As to media, the media is almost entirely national. The problem is NOT Northerns "snooting our noses down" - as I said we voted for Southerners without even really considering that they are Southerners. So, how do things change if we now vote for another Southerner. If having two Southern Presidents didn't help your self-esteem, how would three.

As to petty - I'm being told that "No Northern need apply" - some of my ancestors didn't appreciate that when it was "Irish". That this favors the man you really want seems to be the real reason for this. If I've got this wrong, tell me how this doesn't create a glass ceiling for every single person living above the Mason-Dixon line, unless they move early in their life to the South.

It is not snooting down my nose to say that I refuse to rule out half the country as the source for Presidents (especially if the reason is that the other half is prejudiced). There are good reasons to choose Clark or Edwards - as there were for Clinton and Carter - this one is maddenly, Unamerican. Accepting this is NOT "being better than that."

[Clark2008]

85. Yeah - you did.

You're simply not willing to accept reality.

I can't help it that things are the way they are - and until we get a grip on the media, it's not going to change.

[Cosmocat]

48. Like a lot of people said ...

My father in law is a rural PA guy ... Good man, no doubt, but a rural man ...

Going into 2004 the topic came up, Bushco or Kerry ... He said, "there just is something about Kerry I don't trust ..."

This took me back ... I had saw the petulent prince for what he was before 2000, I knew he was a worthless piece of garbage, and we were just flat screwed the evening he "won" the election ... I knew he was so horrifically inadequate to be the POTUS, and that he was a swarmy puke ...

Likewise, I knew that Kerry was an intelligent, capable and decent man ... So, when my father in law said there was something about him that he didn't trust, after four years of the scumbag ... It just stunned me that anyone would think that way ... He is not the most sophisicated man, but again, a good hardworking, decent man ... Representative of a lot of rural people ...

Bottom line, while we might know what he is about, there is something about Kerry that just does not translate culturally with a good portion of the public ... People like that really are not that concerned about "policy" with these guys ... They just get a feel for them ... he might say he thinks Kerry is too liberal, but it is not about the text of his policies ... It is more personal ...

[xkenx]

52. I think you've hit upon it. Here's my experience.

I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Maybe it's about failure to connect with people. Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

[Cosmocat]

65. Yep ...

Again ... I think Kerry would have been a VERY fine president ... And, I see his character ...

But other people just had a hard time seeing it ...

I think Wes has ALL KINDS of cross over appeal ... His interview with Al Franken the other week ... He talked about how people in the south think, and for the first time I understood the mentality a bit ... I also thought, THIS man has a chance to reach those people ...

[union_maid]

18. It'd be great with me

I supported Clark in '04 and I still think he'd be the best person for the job in '08.

[madfloridian]

30. A uniform is not everything.

I would be on board if there were honesty about things. Recently a post was removed from Securing America, his website. It was by his communications director. Openness and honesty in what one says in public and advice one gives to Democrats in private are crucial in my mind.

[FrenchieCat]

33. You're right....it isn't,

but winning a war is quite a bit!

[karynnj]

38. Ok, but if this war is not winnable,

we need someone with the courage to leave. It may go against the American macho culture - but half the lives on the VN wall were after we knew we couldn't win.

The type of experience needed may not be having been in charge in another war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. I am careful to not engage in Kerry vs Clark type posts

They are not useful to us now when 2006 still lies in front of us. Kerry and Clark agree on far more than they disagree on in virtually all areas, and Clark was comfortable campaigning for Kerry in 2004. I know Kerry takes a lot of hits on DU, from some with primary allegiance to other Democrats, including Clark.

Having said that I think you are skating on some dangerously thin ice with the post that I am responding to. I can not find any way to read it other than you implying Clark's prior experience with Kosovo in war makes gives him less courage to say that we need to leave Iraq than someone like Kerry. No it's not explicitly stated, it is just a possible inference, but really not that much of a stretch to read that as the intended message, even if it wasn't.

Let's just not go there, OK? I think we both will feel better if we don't. I will stop at pointing out what I perceive to be a negative inference that I read in your post, but I am not responding in kind. If I wanted to say thoughtful yet unflattering things about Kerry, I would not have trouble doing so. I also could find negative things to say about any number of Democrats if I felt it would be useful to take that road, but I'm not doing that either.

[karynnj]

43. Tony, look at my first post (17)

I was not trying to set up a Kerry/Clark fight. I was essentially answering that the smearing will likely be countered better because of what happened in 2004. Because some oneread something into it that was not there, it became a fight.

By the way, I did NOT intend to say that he couldn't see that a war was unwinnable and leave. It was, in fact, a parallel statement to FC's that implies 1) the war was winnable and 2) Clark not Kerry could do this. I notice you have no problem with FC's comment. Also, Kerry is taking a stand now that Clark isn't.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Actually my argument was based on what each had done in real life.....

One has won a led and won a war; the other one hasn't.

Just like you give Kerry credit for his legislative experience; I give Clark credit for his experience as a General and what he did as such. why wouldn't I?

What Kerry has "Proposed" on Iraq is not "Experience"...it is a proposal, i.e., words that says that by May 15th if the Government of Iraq hasn't gotten it's act together we should threaten to leave.

....so, no, I wasn't talking Iraq.

[karynnj]

49. Do you think the war can be won militarily then?

I know Kerry's proposal is a proposal. I happen to think that this proposal and his October one make sense. I have never been in the military or had a diplomatic position. You may like Clark's positon better. Kerry has said he has consulted with diplomats and generals - and if President he would continue to do this - it's how he operates.

Kerry was a top foreign policy person for years. We have civilain leadership of the military in this country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Wrong question. What policy will result in the least

catastrophic ultimate result is the only valid question remaining, and there are sincere differences in opinion among Democrats regarding that. Bush is the one who still thinks the war can be "won". How much ultimately will be lost as a result of the Iraq invasion is still in play, and Kerry agrees that the answer to that question remains in play. That's why he envisions different U.S. responses according to whether a unity government is created in Iraq or not. Kerry would simply call for complete withdrawal now regardless if he felt there was no hope left of containing some of the damage concerning Iraq. Why leave any U.S. soldiers there a day longer if they can't do any good by being there?

[Donna Zen]

57. No wars can be won militarily

Wars can be lost militarily, but ultimately wars are won politically. People go to war because of political reasons, and thus your basic Clauswitz.

Clark's position and Kerry's are but a hairs breath away. Kerry openly called for a Unity Gov. by a date certain. We are walking a fine line here, and I have no idea what Clark thinks about making that public call. He has not and in all probability will not, give his opinion about what Kerry had to say. I think.... my thoughts only is that 1) bush is still in charge and will do whatever a brainless asshat does 2) that publically threatening this or that, adds to the Arab grievance that the unity government is a puppet and thus lacks legitimacy 3) is too specific to match the fluid situation on the ground. But if it works--then good for Kerry. I want out.

Kerry has also called for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq. So has General Clark. And yes, he is a general. It costs the American taxpayer about 3 million dollars to educate one of those, and they know much more than how to shine their shoes. In some cases their speciality is weapons or communications or whatever. Clark's is foreign policy and planning. And btw, even the brass he pissed off, admit that he is the best.

That is why faux puts up with Clark....because he has consistently been right. This war is indeed the worst foreign policy blunder this country has ever made--worse than 'Nam which Clark calls another elective war. It was never about WMD, it was about an entirely flawed concept. Period.

[FrenchieCat]

58. And Wes was instrumental in the negotiation of a peace treaty.....

in my book...that's an action for the resume.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I don't know if saying we should just leave takes that much courage....

since a larger segment of the population would now prefer that we leave......which is a relatively recent event......although, I do believe that the majority want to leave in a responsible manner if at all possible.

Of course I wish John Kerry would have won in 2004, and then maybe we'd be gone by now....although that's not anything he expressed during the campaign......or maybe I missed it.

[karynnj]

51. Kerry is not saying "just leave"

his position changed before the shift in the polls. His October speech shifted many people - because many people seemed to follow his move. The same with his call in April. Kerry's plans have considered Iraq all along - and there is a consistent call for diplomacy, speeding up the training ( 4 countries told him they would do it in early 2005), and involving the neighboring countries. All these things have been there since at least early 2004.

I think Kerry deserves a lot of credit for moving America on the idea that we shouldn't be doing the search and destroy and policing. I know others picked it up, Kerry was the first to try to explain why this was so bad on many many talk shows. A few weeks ago, Dr Rice was proud that the Iraqis were now policing a high way. I can't prove Kerry had an impact, but I saw the reaction of the talking heads.

The courage was to do so in 1971.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I know you think that John Kerry deserves a lot of credit for moving

the country to his point of view.

Me, I'm not sure which came first......the shift in the polls, or John Kerry's positions.

Whatever it is, in the end, it's Bush's War.....and really, for now, nothing any Democrat suggest is gonna happen, unless it is what Bush wants.

[windbreeze]

46. I disagree...period!

The type of man you want handling a war....is a man who's been there and done that, because he understands how useless war is...and one who feels that war should always be avoided or at the very least, be the LAST option exercised...I trust Clark on that score, more than anyone else....
windbreeze

[xkenx]

55. Read this DUer from a few months ago.

"Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do".

[Mass]

31. Did your friend know all that about Clark. I doubt it.,

Be sure that the right will tell him all that and depict him as a lefty liberal (oh, he was on the cover of the Advocate). Then, your friend may not like him and the liberalism stuff either.

[xkenx]

34. I agree that's possible, but

for every Republican who then discovers the real Wes Clark, there will be others who won't and will go with the stereotype. We don't need an awful lot of them to flip some red states.

[Quakerfriend]

37. The opinions of the avg repug are not grounded in much truth.

I like Clark. But, Al Gore's MY MAN. I would love to see him run again.

[Donna Zen]

47. Factinistas

When the DLC cranks on the netroots, they slip into the same delusional thinking that swirls in the brains of the average voter. They label us in an effort to define us and shut us in a box. But I've been online since Dec. 12, 2000, and I have a very different take on the netroots. We are living breathing people from all over the country who live varied lives and do varied jobs. We are activists to one degree or another, and probably the same people the Democrats call repeatedly for money and phone banking. Many of us in our embodied lives vs our cyber world, actually belong to and participate in Democratic organizations. How far "left" we are is also varied, although I've found that most netrooters just want a better form of government---like the one outlined in the Constitution. Oh, and how about a few policies aimed at us and our kids?

The greatest difference between the netroots and the average voter is: WE READ. We read constantly and from world-wide sources. We dismiss as ridiculous more knowledge by noon than most people read in a year. That is probably why we fight about our candidates with such vigor, 'cause we do know what we like. It's good unless it's bad. We need to cool it.

Many people who support Hillary Clinton believe she voted against the IWR. 72% of the people who voted for bush thought that he was in favor of cheap drugs from Canada. Plenty of idiots still think that Saddam was connected to 911 including Frank Gaffney, and including my classes. I know, I ask them. Even the people who are involved in politics often know little...take my local Democratic committee...please. My Dem. group thinks that Blitzer is a liberal. It is not that people aren't concerned, but the information highway is riddled with pot holes like going to work, picking up the kids, finding the cat, paying the bills, and just slogging along in America. And of course, faux news.

Every janitor in my building was for Clark and their number one reason was that he wasn't a politician. When he dropped out, they told me that they couldn't vote for Kerry 'cause he'd take their guns. I told them that Clark's position was identical Kerry's. "Nope," they said, "Clark is a general and a general would never take your guns." I'm telling you, I tried.

Aside from the fuckhead Shelton and a few other cranks like Grange, I doubt that the generals will be allowing any dissing of Wes. They know exactly how bad things are at the Pentagon, and they know that it is going to take real knowledge and sharp elbows to clean things up. Rummy has been f'king with them "big-time." Besides, Wes, a disabled vet, was endorsed by the heads of West Point and Annapolis, that should put a damper on a few swift-fire-boats.


But my personal case for Clark is more involved and has nothing to do with his uniform--sort of. For me, his stars just open the door to let in the light. He more than any of the others understands the world and our role in it. Clark has spoken about the strategic framework which is driving our foreign policy, military and consequently our economic outlook. If we don't change that, then our country will continue along its current disasterous path. He has spoken of the changes needed to reverse the course of the "long war" leading to confrontation with China. We can no longer think that the domestic agenda is separated from our foreign policy; they are one. Clark understands this, and is the best representative we can have for straightening this out. He works everyday with emerging technologies, security, and flies all over the world. Besides the man is quite frankly brilliant.

I want someone in the Oval Office who can manage a huge job and can knock at the Pentagon door---we need some of the money back for health care and education. I want someone who can stand in the bully pulpit and tell America "star wars" doesn't make you safer, and giving up your Constitution will never make you more free. Clark believes in all of this and he can do it.

I would never sign another Draft Clark anything. The American political scene is utter bullshit. He and his family don't need the aggravation. But if he runs and get the nomination, he wins. America loves a GI. And if he runs, I will be there. As a factinista, I read.

[Dinger]

50. Here Here xkenx! K & R

Wahoo ! :patriot:



on edit: Proud to be the 50th reply!

[incapsulated]

62. This is all I have to say.

Clark can win because he can hold positions which are to the left of many and get away with it because he is a 4 star General and because he is from the south. Period.

He is someone with enough first hand experience to actually get us the hell out of the war and the foreign policy disaster that Bush has created, and has a domestic policy agenda that would please the hell out of most democrats, including things like single payer healthcare, for one.

Clark's problem has never been with the general voting public, who I believe would vote for him in a heartbeat over most repukes, but with the democrats who can't see a fucking gift given to them in the package of a truly Liberal, southern, 4 star General, which isn't going to come around twice in our lifetimes, because they can't get past the uniform he wore, which most americans actually *gasp* respect. Or because he isn't a politician, whom, *surprise* most americans distrust. What a goddamned shame it would be if they don't see it the next time.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Don't forget, Charming......

Yes, he's charming, telegenic....and a men's man too.

He's been married for 34 years to the same woman.....and he is self made.

[Adelante]

68. That's all I have to say, too

:hug:

[JNelson6563]

66. Two days ago I was at a Dem gathering

that included 5 counties in northern MI. Talk turned to 08. Nobody likes Hillary very much, some lamented Kerry "blew his chance", some talked of Edwards and others mentioned Biden, Feingold, Warner. I stated my support for Gore. I asked about Clark, some laughed a couple asked "who?".

I'd estimate there were about 30 people at this meeting. Don't let domination of DU or words of support from Republicans give you a false sense of confidence. If you really want to drum up support for your guy I recommend Clarkies get more involved in local politics, as in the local Dem parties. I cover a big chunk of MI and I never, every hear his name mentioned.

Not only could you get Clark's name out in real world political discussion in a positive way (if you manage to avoid hard sell or over-zealousness), you could establish a presence early on instead of showing up at primary season. This is always a good thing when working with long time dedicated volunteers. Don't wait till race time, show up and expect to not be viewed as an opportunist who's merely taking an interest now because of race and doesn't really care about party/cause.

Free advice, today only. ;-)

Julie

[xkenx]

69. When the MSM ignores a good Dem. possibility,

it becomes important to work through the grassroots to bring recognition. I seem to recall a very obscure former Governor of Vermont who worked thru the grassroots/internet to achieve a frontrunner position by the end of 2003.

[JNelson6563]

79. Indeed but it was

how the effort was applied to real world politics that drove it. I was there. The meet-ups, house parties, phone banking and canvassing were done in the real world and are what really drew in the people. I still work with volunteers today who I met at meet-ups. In fact, when I ran for District chair I was sure to include many hard working Dean activists on my slate becasue I had seen how hard they worked to make things happen in real world politics previously. I'd never have had the same faith in someone who was an internet acquaintance/activist.

So, are you unwilling to concede the point that dominating internet forums is no way to win an election?

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

95. Internet and on the ground campaigning are not mutually exclusive

In fact, I don't even see a correlation between the two.

Been my experience that most of those who are active on the internet are also working out in the real world, at least among Clarkies. That might be because Clark has spent so much time telling us to.

And those who are not active on the ground would not be even if they weren't on the internet. Some people just can't or won't get out of their homes and away from their computers. I am unwilling to criticize them too sharply. For one, I don't know why they don't--some are not physically well, others may not be good at working with people face-to-face. For the other, at least they're doing something--the vast majority of people do nothing at all; they don't even bother to stay informed, or go to the polls if it's the least bit inconvenient.

[JNelson6563]

102. You overlook a big demographic

The armchair warriors. Basically useless creatures often found infesting internet forums like this one.

Look around and give things a good read. You will see for yourself.
Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

109. I didn't overlook them

I specifically addressed them. I don't think they're as big a "demographic" as you do. Espcially not among Clarkies. And I gave a reason why.

I honestly cannot think of a single Clarkie I know well, either here at DU or over at the Clark Community Network (the WesPAC blog), who isn't very involved "on the ground" except for maybe two or three who are practically shut-ins due to their health.

But however many of them there are, they are still doing more than the VAST "demographic" of people who don't watch the news, don't donate to campaigns, don't even bother to find out who the candidates are in their state primaries, and yet still waddle into the voting booth to pull the lever for whoever feels like the best choice for whatever office is being contested.

You seem to be basing your assertions on the area where you live. That's understandable, but you cannot reasonably extrapolate it to the rest of the country. Michigan is a blue state where Clark didn't run much of a campaign in '04, didn't do well, and probably doesn't have many supporters today. If you look at scientific polls in states where he campaigned, he gets a statistically significant share of support. Obviously not enough to challenge Clinton at this point -- no one does. But even 5% of a small state is a whole lot of people. Some of them will work very hard for him if he runs in 2008. Some of them are working hard for him now to elect Democrats in 2006.

[Donna Zen]

70. thank you for the advice

How many of us work with our respective Dem. committees? Let's see. I am on the committee, a membership which pre-dates the 04 primaries by many years. But I'm so glad you came here to remind us of all of the wonderful things that we might do. Of course I'm the daughter of an elected Dem. who served for 30 years, but again, it is important for you to remind all of DU of the importance of activism.

Actually, when Al From muddles along believing that the net-roots only exists online, it is surprising. When there you are deep in the heart of MI party. Good for you.

Of course, in the past you've encouraged us to get Clark's name out because he is so unknown. We must do a better job if your friends in MI are to quit laughing when you mention his name. It's great that you so kindly bring him up. What is truly discouraging about your tale is the notion that if the Democrats don't know who Clark is then they may have also missed the Democratic convention in 04, or even worse than that the recent roll-out of the Democratic Security Plan. Yikes! Oh well, I've also read lately that 68% of registered Democrats didn't know who Reid and Pelosi are.

I'll be trying to think of ways to take your well-timed and intentioned advice.

Thanks so much.

[JNelson6563]

73. There's a difference

between knowing who someone is and having that person on one's political radar.

Sorry to see you take such offense at my message. There reallya re folks out there hwo think they are covered cause by golly DU is dominated, owned, what-have-you.

Oh, and lastly, I wasn't talking with "friends", it was a political meeting of Dems from several counties within my Congressional District. I'll be sure to inquire and get a fully peicture the next time I meet with all 14 of my counties, which will be June 17th. If you'd like I'll let you know the reaction, if you promise not to take offinse but action.

Julie--wondering how all the thin skinned folks manage in the political arena

[Jai4WKC08]

83. Doing my best Cary Grant impersonation...

Julie, Julie, Julie...

Don't do us any favors, ok? There's not a one of us who isn't aware that Clark isn't well enough known among Democrats outside the netroots. I have no idea who you are talking about that thinks we're "covered" because somehow we "own" DU -- I sure don't know of a single Clarkie who does. That's a pretty broad charge of gross stupidity to make with no evidence at all.

Nor are there many of us who aren't doing exactly what you so sweetly recommend, working in our local parties and Democratic organizations. What's more, we're not doing it to get Clark's name known, but because we need to win races THIS year. That means we're talking to Democrats AND Republicans. Maybe you don't need to do that in MI, but here in the red states, it's absolutely essential.

Remember, the OP specifically calls what she describes "anecdotal evidence." One Republican's opinion. I would wager that for every one like him, there are probably 10, at least, who never heard of Clark or, of those who have, don't know anything about him, not even that he is a general, much less how liberal his positions are. The OP's only implication is that if (and when) they find out, some percentage of them will react similarly. I don't see that she was said a word about how Democrats would vote in the '08 primaries, only that Democrat activists should look at whom some Republicans might be willing to vote for in the general election.

So if you want to inquire of *your* counties, feel free, but do it for your own edification. There's really nothing you can tell us we don't already know. Not that I think that will stop you. For however busy you claim to be with "real world" politics, you sure seem to find plenty of time to come here and preach to us.

In any case, don't pretend that your words of wisdom have anything to do with the OP. And please please don't pretend that our reaction to your advice is a matter of being "thin-skinned," as if we don't have plenty of past provocation to question your motives.

All I can figure is that it must aggrevate the hell out of you that Clark could receive not one primary vote in MI and still win the nomination. That it's not the loyal Democrats in *your* blue counties who will determine the outcome all by themselves.

Either that, or you just get some sort of perverse kick out of putting Clark and Clarkies down.

Ultimately, I think your posts in this thread prove that free advice is usually worth exactly what it costs.

[xkenx]

87. YO, Jai.....I never had gender change surgery......Ken

Seems like some people don't know what "anecdotal" means. Thanks for the support.

[Jai4WKC08]

93. Oops! Sorry, Ken

I was thinking of someone else.

[JNelson6563]

100. By all means then

do continue to ignore Michigan. No skin off my nose. There's always the internet!! :toast:

(Also, could you provide some evidence that I spend a lot of time posting on DU -- much less lecturing Clarkies --? I'm tired of unsubstantiated claims from a certain DU crowd who cries foul and bloody murder with any perceived slight. You're first, cough up evidence or refrain from such hyperbole toward those who offend you)

[Jai4WKC08]

111. No need to be insulting, or downright untruthful

I didn't ignore Michigan and I didn't say anyone should ignore Michigan. So don't give me crap about "continu(ing) to ignore" your state. I'm just saying that it's not representative of the rest of the country. So if you survey *your* counties and come back and tell us how no one there knows about Clark, or cares about him if they do, it won't mean anything more than that we have to do better in Michigan next time, assuming there is a next time.

And since you ask me for the evidence... I did a search on your name in GD/P alone. The last 25 threads you have posted to were all within the last two weeks, give or take a day, about the same time frame as the last 25 threads I've posted in. Just a snapshot, of course, but it tends to indicate you and I spend about the same amount of time here. More to the point, of those last 25 threads, three of them are about Clark specifically (in the subject line) and a fourth included a sub-thread about him where your posts could all be found. So that's 4 out of your last 25, or almost a sixth. Compared to the gazillion people and subjects that DU threads are about, seems sort of disproportionate for someone who claims to have no great interest in Clark himself. It's certainly more than you posted about Gore, who you claim to support. I wonder if I actually counted the individual posts what I'd come up with? Doesn't matter tho... every one of your posts in those four threads were to chastise or insult Clarkies in one way or another.

But don't be disingenuous. You're not fooling anyone who's been here a while. You've been at DU for a long time and can almost always be counted on to insert some little anti-Clarkie snipe whenever you seem to think there are too many of us for your comfort level. Which seems to be a very low threshold indeed.

[JNelson6563]

119. Wow

Lots of words, no evidence posted. Why am I not surprised?

Still, I am flattered it matters enough to you to do a search. You must really want to buy yourself the right to whine about my brief commentaries. Well good for you. I am always impressed with people who are willing to dedicate lots fo time to things that matter a lot to them.

Would chat more but need to fill out precinct delegate paperwork and get to county clerk's office, meeting w/a Levin aide and a campaign finance committeee meeting for my state House Rep. candidate.

All before the kids get home from school. Have yourself a productive day. :hi:

Julie

[CarolNYC]

120. Haha!

Busy busy Julie, always good for a laugh...doing all of that important work with zero help from Clarkies...And yet still she finds time to do the really important work of chasing Clark threads around...She is a true martyr for the cause. hahahahaha...

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. This is getting silly

Are we all going to have to publish our personal appointment books online to keep up with each other in some kind of competition? You are doing good work for Democrats Julie, that's great. Jai is active with her local Democratic Party doing good work also, which she also posted about. Dogman is also, which he too posted about. It's all good, but it shouldn't have to be competitive. Jai and Dogman and I happen to be Clark supporters while actively backing the Democratic Party. You happen to be a Gore supporter while actively backing the Democratic Party. Good for the Democratic Party. If each of our local involvements end up having to get tallied and ranked toward bragging rights over who is a better Democrat, and who is or isn't wasting the most valuable time by posting on DU, the Democratic Party is in a sorrier state than I am comfortable accepting.

[Donna Zen]

101. Offense?

Reading over my post, I would think that I thanked you politely for your political directions. Is that now a sign of offense? If I were to offer you advice, it would be that making sweeping assumptions about the intelligence and activities of someone you don't know at all, can lead to a betrayal of a supercilious attitude toward others that might be deemed as offensive. But I would not offer such pointed remarks toward an essentially anonymous person, and thus one I would do best not to judge.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. It's always good advice for Democrats to be active in the Party

No argument there. But I don't know why you assume that Clark supporters are less so than others who use Democratic Underground. I have a lot of respect for those who supported Dean in 2004 who have been active in Democracy For America. I attended a DFA event in NYC recently and wrote about it on the DU DFC forum. A number of Clark supporters who I know were on the host committee for that event. They were certainly present and involved also.

I am active in my local Democratic Party Club as well as staying active in various local issues based initiatives. I know regular DU Clark supporters who are on their county Democratic Party Central Committees. I know another who ran for and won a seat on her School Board. Many Clark supporters are working hard directly on campaigns of candidates Clark has endorsed for Congressional and State races, not a few in leadership positions.

I don't know why your sample of people in MI underrepresents Clark, but it does. That is the nature of both reality and statistics. There is virtually no such thing as uniform temperature, there are always hot and cold spots. The surface of the Sun itself wildly varies in temperature, by millions of degrees from place to place. Clark currently polls nationally as well or higher than Biden and Warner, and usually but not always higher than Feingold. Clark averages about 6% currently, which means in a average group of 30 Democrats one or two would list him as their first choice for President in 2008.

Name recognition drives most of this at this stage. Gore, Kerry, and Edwards have all recently been on National Democratic tickets. Hillary was literally in the White House for 8 years. Feingold earns his attention, but he is also a neighbor of MI. Biden essentially camps out on Sunday talk shows. Warner is that new face pundits love to promote. Clark has roughly the same National recognition as all of these men who are in the top tier of Democrats who weren't on National tickets or married to a President. Other Democrats, like Vilsak, Richardson and Bayh, trail further behind.

I am not trying to refute either your observations or your advice. Your observations are your own and I don't doubt that you report them sincerely. Your advice is on the money, but not only for those who support Clark.

[JNelson6563]

77. Agreed

I urge anyone who has a burning interest to get involved NOW. I share my story to make several points. For all the talk of involvement I have seen n'ary a Clarkie in any of my District dealings over the past two years. I have a mighty big swath of the state.



Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. Your map is misleading BUT it proves your point .

I say it is misleading only because it shouldn't be called nationally representative. Clark did not do well at all in MI in 04 either, it was one of his worse Primary states. Meanwhile, Clark was doing very well in WI right next door back in 2004. Clark was still polling second in that state on the day he withdrew from the race. Why did he fare so differently in MI and WI? Undoubtedly a number of reasons, but I strongly suspect that Clark had a much stronger "ground game" in WI than he did in MI. That I think speaks directly to your point, Julie. Clark supporters in MI were never major players in that state and it shows in the results. They were much more active at the local level in other states, and that showed with much better results elsewhere. There's a good lesson in that, and not just for Clark, and not just for 2008.

[JNelson6563]

98. Nonsese, I said 4th Cong. District of MI

and that is what the map is of. I never claim to have my finger on the pulse of the nation's Dems but I do know my patch of gorund and I have shared my observations and insights. Sadly it seems to have been taken the wrong way by most everyone but you but that is to be expected I guess.

Cheers,
Julie

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. Now I think you are being thin skinned

Julie I never said you claimed to be reporting on the nation. I directly said that I did not reject your observations on the ground where you were, I said they were sincerely stated. I even gave background support to why I think your experience probably is representative of your district, and why that type of thing spells trouble for any candidate.

You know that in at least two posts on this thread I supported your basic point, the need to get involved locally in the Democratic party and the dangers of not doing so. I said your type of experiece fully supports that opinion.

Above you said "I'd estimate there were about 30 people at this meeting. Don't let domination of DU or words of support from Republicans give you a false sense of confidence." With that statement you seemed to contrast the fact that Clark gets a lot of support on DU with the fact that he doesn't in your district. My only other point was that your district is a single snap shot. My Democratic Party Club has 5 Clark supports out of about two dozen active members. It doesn't represent the nation either. I really wasn't attacking you in that post Julie.

[JNelson6563]

118. Hmm. Perhaps....

Not meaning to misunderstand you and I ddn't see your post as an attack.

Here's what you said:

Your map is misleading BUT it proves your point .

It's a map of Michigan with the 4th District highlighted. I am missing your point entirely.

I say it is misleading only because it shouldn't be called nationally representative.

Whoever said it was? Certainly not I.

I guess on these two points I am missing something. I didn't see these remarks as an attack but I got the sense you misunderstood what I had said.

Clark did not do well at all in MI in 04 either, it was one of his worse Primary states. Meanwhile, Clark was doing very well in WI right next door back in 2004. Clark was still polling second in that state on the day he withdrew from the race.

I had a fellow activist PM me to tell me they had shared much of my experience re: internet activists and their activity level in RW stuff. They also shared some numbers on the Wisconsin primary:

Clark was polling 13% on Feb 10th in Wisconsin. Dean was at 12%, Edwards at 9%, and Kerry at 45%.

This was after the infamous "Dean scream"so it's plain to see why Dean's numbers were so low and Kerry's so high. I wonder what the numbers were prior to that for all of them.

No thin skin here but the words "misleading" and "nationally representative" threw me off.

Cheers--
Julie

[Clark2008]

106. I'm so sorry Democrats in your area aren't well-informed

The Democrats in my area - a red state - all know who Clark is and want him to run again.


Please take my free advise and go tell your area Dems they need to read more.

:hi:

[dogman]

112. Yesterday at my County executive committee meeting we didn't even discuss

the '08 Presidential race. We were to busy with '06 to even waste one breath on '08 Presidential politics. We are busy working on County Board seats and State Senate and House races. We are setting up a multi-county organization to give us more strength dealing with the state. We have people who supported Dean, Kucinich, and Clark that are active right now. We saw Kerry and Edwards supporters come around in the last primary. Even though that is the only time we've seen them participate, they receive the respect that their candidates of choice deserve. I haven't heard a mention of Gore from any of our County activists or any from our neighboring Counties. Hillary gets mention because she has a Hillary Rodham Clinton Leadership Award that our County Chair received. In our County newsletter their was a write up about that and a write up on my activity which is attributable to Clark's inspiration. Our only goal at the national level at this time is to replace Hastert.

[Jai4WKC08]

114. Good point. At my last district meeting

Just over a week ago, no one mentioned '08 during the meeting, and I didn't hear any '08 talk as we were eating breakfast before. I even spoke with my Congressman, who's a big Wes Clark fan, and didn't say anything about '08. It would have been embarrassing to do so, since the guy has got his own re-election to worry about (altho right now, he's unopposed--hooray!--that's a big deal for a red state like ours).

Afterwards, on the way out, a few of us did talk about '08 for a few minutes. I had my "Wes Clark Democrat" pin on, and that got a couple people to come up to me and ask what he was up to. Obviously, anyone who hadn't heard of him would be less likely to ask, and I would assume that included most of those present.

[CarolNYC]

117. Hey, gee, here's something different....

Julie showing up in a Clark thread!! What a surprise! :hi:

[xkenx]

135. Shhh, I think Julie might have given up

[mmonk]

71. I don't think this country can wait until 08

for a political change in America.

[Adelante]

122. Agreed

It's got to come this year. Every 2006 election is carrying national weight more than ever.

[Greyhound]

116. Kick for Wes. n/t

:kick:

[RogueTrooper]

123. The Art of Electoral War

I can't help but think that, this electoral cycle, General Clark is a paraphrase of "Generals always preparing to fight the last war". I can't see Wes Clark getting the same intensity of traction the he got during the 2004 electoral cycle this time round. He is a candidate of the last war; not this one.

My personal opinion is that the biggest mistake he made was not taking ( the rumored ) offer by Dean to become his VP; thus going into Iowa as a "team". I should also add that I don't think Dean would fair particulary well this time round either - something the canny Doctor from Vermont has long realised.

[Texas_Kat]

124. You have the wrong General

Clark has always been THE strategic thinker.

But at this time, he's not 'preparing for the next war,' he's out there fighting the one we have right now -- the 06 elections.

From Paul Hackett's race in the special election in Ohio to Jim Webb in Virginia to Eric Massa in NY, he's been out front early to persuade the Democratic party to support candidates that were not considered 'usual suspects' by the powers-that-be in party politics.

Winning back the House and/or Senate in 06. That's the war.

[RogueTrooper]

125. It was meant as an analogy

regarding Clark's chances in the 2008 primaries.

I was not cast aspersions on his comitment to getting fellow Democrats elected nor was I questioning his abilities. I was commenting on his chances in the forthcoming Presidential primary.

[Texas_Kat]

127. I understood, and I didn't take it as a negative post.

I was only pointing out that the strategy he has put in place for the 06 war is definitely not 'politics as usual' nor is it the way Dems have fought mid-term election 'wars' in the past.

Dems have always highlighted what common wisdom acknowledged they were strongest in already.

Clark's strategy has been to highlight what Dems are strong in (national security, veterans affairs, homeland security, etc) but that are not considered by many as 'Democratic' issues. In addition, he's been working on tying issues like global warming, education, emergency preparedness and health care into 'security' issues.

It doesn't seem like he's 'fighting the last war' it sounds like he is not only fighting the 'current' 06 war, but laying the groundwork for an effective future.

;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

128. Current reality strengthens Clark's 08 hand

Had Cheney and Rumsfeld not been so arrogant, had the Pentagon been allowed to use the war plans for Iraq that had been prepared as a contingency during the preceding decade, had Bush committed the real number of troops needed to provide a semblance of security to Iraq post invasion, had Rumsfeld not ripped post invasion "nation building" away from Powell's State Department and given that task instead to Cheney and Rice's people, then maybe Clark's moment in the Presidential spot light might have passed with 2004.

But none of that happened, instead the world has become a more dangerous place for Americans than at any time since September 11th 2001. Current Iraq is obviously exhibit A, but even Afghanistan is showing signs of increasing instability, while North Korea has gotten Nukes, and a military confrontation is looming with Iran. Add to that the fact that Al Quada recruitment is up, and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has lost control of his government to Hamas. Anti-American sentiment is growing in South America, and Russia is increasingly refusing to cooperate with the United States. Both Russia and Venezuela are important Oil exporters to the United States, as hedges against our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil.

Meanwhile Clark's repeated testimony to Congress regarding the real international threats faced by the United States and how to manage them, stretching from 2002 through 2005, are increasingly widely recognized as having been prophetic. But perhaps more telling politically than Clark's congressional testimony, will be Clark's television commentary to America on the FOX network over the last year. Time and time again Clark has been right about the broad range of security issues facing America that he gave expert commentary on, even though the FOX jocks fought him tooth and nail over every inch of territory he covered. Each time the Republicans found an excuse to brag that the corner had been turned in Iraq, Clark was there to counter them, even when other Democrats were stepping lightly.

In the wake of every single "success" Iraq experienced while "moving toward" a "Democratic independent government"; the hand over of authority to an Iraq provisional authority, the first Iraq elections, the Constitutional referendum, the second Iraq elections, each time Clark stood his ground and pointed out the very real danger that Iraq still faced for coming apart at the seems. With each "corner turned" more Democrats were emboldened to join Clark in his relative pessimism, but can you remember the jubilant televised scenes of Iraqi's smiling while they waved their purple thumbs in the air after the first national elections? Republicans were all over the airwaves ready to jump on any Democrat who dared question the good news from Baghdad, and most Democrats were hesitant to say anything less than positive about those elections. Yet, even before that purple ink dried, Clark was calmly and unhesitatingly citing the dangers still present in Iraq, on FOX of all places, inside the Lion's Den.

Clark has earned some real credibility now with a public that largely was unaware of him in 2004, an unawareness that then gave Clark's opponents an opportunity to negatively define Clark before most people had much sense of who he really was. In specific, and important to his potential chances in 2008, Clark has earned some real credibility with members of the Democratic Party at all levels since 2004. He did it the old fashioned way, Clark worked hard for it, by continually busting his butt for the Democratic Party in every corner of the nation, and at every level of the Party. Clark is better known for who he is now, rather than for who he symbolized in 2004. Clark is recognized as being among our Party's current leaders. He was one of Kerry's top surrogates in 2004. He shared the spot light when Congressional Democrats unveiled their points of unity on National Security this year, and Clark delivered the National Democratic Party's Saturday radio addressee three times in the last year or so. Plus Clark has non stop been honing his media and campaigning "chops", something else he had little or no time to do prior to his entry into 2004's race. He is a much more formidable politician now than he was as a fresh rookie in 2004.

Unlike in 2004, when Clark had little or no time to prepare detailed policies on many issues until the race was well underway, Clark will campaign as a multi dimensional Democrat should he run again in 2008. Wes Clark and Al Gore are the two Democratic leaders who have consistently done the most to highlight the dangers of Global Warming over the past year, and that is an issue whose time will finally have come by 2008. Clark also spoke out this year on the need for the United States to move to a single payer health care system, another issue whose time has surely come. For all of those reasons and more, Wes Clark's time as a leading potential Presidential contender has far from passed. Check your schedule, it is arriving shortly on track number Eight. Meanwhile Clark isn't standing around waiting at that platform. You'll find General Clark still hard at work, his attention firmly fixed, on track number Six.

[RogueTrooper]

129. I have to disagree

Although I do agree with you Clark is a good deal more media\candidate savvy than he was during the 2004 primary.

This time I am not sure who is going to constitute Wesley Clark's base. The last time it was pretty evident where his core support lay; this time less so.

This time round Clark will not be able to be drafted in the same way that he was during the 2004. This time his declaration of candidacy is going to have to be explicit. During the 2004 primary the other candidate had a great deal of trouble training their guns during the early stages of his candidacy because it did not exist. It will not be the same this time. At the time I felt that Clark's shadow candidacy was doing tremendous damage to the momementum of the other insurgency campaign (Dean for America).

To flesh out my "last war" analogy somewhat:

During the 2004 election the candidates were running against both Bush and his record. In 2008 this will not be the case as the candidates will be running against against Bush's record and A.N. Other Republican. The type of critique necessary for 2008 will be different in this time round.

As for the two main policies that you cite: Single Payer Health and Global Warming. His success will be determined by whether he can better articulate his positions than other candidates in the primary field. Particulary if there are candidates who may more practice of articulating those policies and more credibiliy with the Democratic electorate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. Here is where we agree

The 2008 field of potential Democratic Candidates will be a very difficult one for all concerned. Unlike in 2004, there is no sitting President being opposed, and for the first time in recent memory, there is no sitting VP looking to move up through the ranks. A number of top Democrats will be pulling out all the stops early for a chance to be the Democratic candidate in 2008. Unless you believe in the invincibility of Hillary, which I don't, it will be hard for anyone to emerge victorious, Clark included.

Had General Clark been able to enter the Democratic race in late 2002, like the rest of the 2004 field did (officially or unofficially as the case may have been), the stars may then have been aligned for a perfect Presidential storm for him. Clark would have had time to get to know his campaign staff personally. He could have taken his act on the road without the glare of a national media spot light on him during all of his first early steps, an advantage all the other candidates had over Clark, and he could have done what potential Broadway shows do today, work out the kinks before headlining the Great White Way. Most important of all, Clark would then have competed in Iowa. Had that been possible for Clark in 2004, yes, it is hard to imagine a stronger set up for him to emerge as the Democratic Presidential candidate than that would have been.

But it is a great leap to go from that to saying Clark's time has passed. For reasons that I cited in my earlier post, and others I didn't get into, Clark remains a very viable possible Presidential candidate in a field that it will be difficult for anyone to emerge from. I don't think the odds favor any Democrat getting the nomination, though some are certainly longer shots than others. Clark in my opinion is a strong candidate for the Democrats to run in a general election against whoever the Republicans come up with. I think that was the case in 2004 also. Clark's harder hurdle will be getting past the rest of the Democrats in a Primary campaign.

So in summary, had Clark entered the 2004 race in late 2002, that would have been his strongest shot to win, but the fact that he didn't doesn't equate with his time now being passed. A good case can be made that Richard Nixon's "time came" in 1960 when he ran as a sitting Vice President to a popular President. He lost that race, but he won the Presidency anyway in 1968. Some could also say that Gore's time came and went in 2000 when he was running as a sitting VP to a popular President coming out of 8 years of relative Peace and Prosperity, but few on DU now say with certainty that Gore's time has clearly passed either.

[Donna Zen]

131. Who do you think the articulate Dem. candidates are?

And....

have you ever listened to General Clark?


Really listened?


The 08 campaign will be determined by the same gang who determined the last campaign...the MSM and bunch of jumped up Washington insiders who could give a shit what happens to this country as long as they've got theirs.

[HannibalBarca]

133. Agreed 1000%

Seriously, if you want a sure fire ticket then the mighty general is your man, he has the most admirable qualities a person can have and I believe would unite the U.S unlike a certain other "uniter".