As Much as I Respect and Admire Gen Clark....

[Corey_Baker08]

Ive gotta be truthful in saying that I dont believe being a news anchor on fox is the best route to go for a Potential Presidential Candidate. I believe this will hurt his credibilty as a contender for not only the nomination but for the Presidency.

I think Clark would benefit more if he was out like John Edwards traveling the country stil trying to fulfill Democratic Values even though he is not an elected offical, for example on his own free will Edwards will be in Columbus on Thursday speaking about raising minimum wage.

But you have got to applaud Kerry though he is still out fighting and even though Clark is, I wish it wasnt behind a news desk.
While Kerry is getting the national headlines and possibly positioning himself for an 2008 run, Clark is behind a news desk reading off the headlines.

I dont know, I just dont think this is the route to go for a potential candidate for President.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Clark isn't a news anchor, he's a regular guest (nt)

nt

[FourStarDemocrat]

76. Correct. He's a military analyst.

Having frequent appearances on television providing sharp analysis and commentary will not hurt him, only increase his exposure and recognitionn.

[JohnnyBoots]

77. He's exposing himself to the dark side to knock some common

sense into their heads while on Fox. It's not like he sold out and did a 180 he is just trying to bring more people over to our side, but behind enemy lines. Personally I think it is a brilliant idea.

[JHBowden]

2. Losing to the worst American president in history

isn't the best route to get elected either.

:hide:

Too much testosterone in my system today!

[Corey_Baker08]

4. Well If You Look at it that Way.........

Losing the primaries to the candidate who lost to the worst American President in history isnt a way to get elected either.

[TheDebbieDee]

5. I hate to disagree, but Kerry didn't lose - he was robbed! n/t

[zann725]

15. I can't believe we're still correcting that Fact...all these months later.

I have to rephrase and remind someone daily, it seems.

[high density]

103. Bush is still in the White House, right?

So it looks to me like Kerry lost.

[sendero]

66. dupe

[sendero]

67. I hate to state the obvious...

.... you can't have it both ways.

Either:

1) Kerry did win and he was robbed and too timid to do anything about it.

2) Or he lost.

Either possibility disqualifies him as a presidential contender in the future from my point of view.

And please, don't raise the "proof" issue, if he didn't have it that was his fault too - it's not like nobody knew what the Repubs were up to, EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

[Totally Committed]

69. I'm sorry...

Kerry may have been robbed. As a matter of fact, I believe the election, to a certain extent, was stolen from him.

That having been said, I believe that Kerry's camapaign was the weakest Presidential Campaign I have seen in all my years. I believe his decision-making was faulty... from the people he chose to have around him, all the way to the things he chose to emphasize. I believe he chose the wrong runningmate. I believe his choice not to fight Bush as down and dirty as he should/could have was a mistake. And, in the end, his choice to throw in the towel like a beaten dog only hours after the last vote was counted (especially after promising a fight to the finish...) was so disheartening and heart-breaking, as to ruin any trust left between him and all but the most devoted Kerry-ites. When he left, he took all the media attention that could have been focused on the voter-fraud issue with him (several reporters have said that when Kerry threw in the towel, they just went on vacation, and their papers and magazines didn't replace them for coverage... so if several said that openly, you know a number more did the same. If it were not for John Conyers and his dogged determination to get to the truth, we would not have had our suspicions justified. I believe that if Kerry had had the guts to stay and fight, which by the way, I acknowlege Edwards wanted to do from the start... he might have even managed to have the election reversed. The hell with "ripping America apart"! -- That ship had already sailed, and the Republicans did it, not the Democrats!)

Kerry may have had the election stolen from him, but he also to a certain extent allowed it to be stolen. And, in the end, he just walked away, leaving us to live, beaten and weakened, under the most oppressive, offensive, and illegal administration in history.

I mean no disrespect to any of you still enamored of the man. I spent the years from 1972-1997 enamored just as you are now. I know how seductive his persona and talk can be. I supported him with my time and money for years. But, please remember, there are those of us who are not happy with him now, and probably never will be again. So, to keep touting him as the be-all-end-all will not always be met kindly. Some of us think he "lost" this election, whether or not it was stolen from him. And, we guage that this way: Who's in the White House right now? What did John Kerry do to prevent that?

Just something to think about this morning. I won't argue this further, because I will not get acrimonious and bitter about this anymore on an open Board. I feel that the healing has got to begin with as much unity as we can muster at any given time. And, I am struggling to hold my thoughts and emotions together on this subject as it is. Thank you for reading.

TC

[cally]

84. Well said

and I believe it's important that more of us say this. I fully supported John Kerry. I was the Dem in my area who constantly argued that I supported Kerry not just because he wasn't Bush. I respect the man and his politics but he ran a horrible campaign. I can't forgive him for not challenging the vote when there was evidence of voter intimidation and racism. He promised all of us he would fight for us and he didn't. In the end, he didn't fight and harmed all of us.

[snowbear]

7. Oh ............ and........

You're right.. He didn't win the primaries..

Because Iowa selected our nominee and gave them the mojo they needed..

And the General DIDN'T RUN IN IOWA... :( :( :(

[Corey_Baker08]

17. Plus.......

He entered in the race late which put him at a disadvantage. Like I say though I hope he runs I would love to see him run. I am just afraid that he is going about it the wrong way about it.

I am afraid the other candidates will pick apart his credibilty because while they were on the floor of the senate and so on he was behind a news desk. I am more concerned for him than I am against him because such a wonderful person can and will have their credibilty smashed in an instant.

[knight_of_the_star]

93. The reason he entered late

Was because, unlike John Edwards, he was drafted to run.

[JHBowden]

10. So?

I have little interest in Clark, so what's your point?

[Corey_Baker08]

21. I was Just making a Point....

At least Kerry got the nomination and won the most votes of any Democratic candidate for President in History.

Besides the 59 million rigged voting machines didnt think Bush was the worst President in history :) :) :) :) :) :)

[FrenchieCat]

25. Keep in mind that

Jbowden is no friend of Wes Clark!

[xultar]

71. n/m

[gulliver]

3. It's Clark's way of leadership.

He's sincere, intense, and always ready to persuade. He doesn't talk down to the Republicans who watch Fox News. He persuades them, keeps his balance at all times. He fights when he has to, and he wins his fights. He educates but doesn't clobber or bore. He knows who he is, trusts himself, and likes himself.

He is always trying to persuade the other person "to want to do what he wants them to do."

[snowbear]

6. Oh C'mon Corey....

A zillion polls are posted almost weekly on every Democratic, Independent and Left-Leaning websites, blogs, forums, you name it..

And every single time, it's that 4 Star General -- Wesley Kanne Clark -- who comes out on top!! :patriot:

He came out on top =BEFORE= he became a military correspondent on Faux, and he still comes out on top =AFTER= accepting the job.

His cable gig isn't hurting his reputation. And guess what.. he has the ability to appeal to people of ALL political persuasions.

When you're trying to win an election - that's not such a bad thing..

Face it Corey ;) .... General Clark ((( ROCKS! ))) :headbang:

[Corey_Baker08]

9. Your Absolutely Right Clark is Popular

But as the saying goes what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.

I like Clark hes a great man and would make a great President, but sitting behind the desk at Fox news network is not getting the job done i dont believe.

As I said earlier look at Edwards hes in the same position as Clark, he not an elected offical, but Edwards is out fighting to have legislation passed, he is out rallying the supporters, hes doing just as much as or in many cases more than an elected offical.

My question is why isnt Clark out doing something like this. He could be out independently pushing for election reform or healthcare, or to bring the troops in Iraq home, but hes not. It just saddens me that a man with his potential isnt out fighting hes behind a news desk.

Also if you remember a certain 2004 Presidental candidate was sweeping all of the polls and everything like that, but we all know what happened in the end.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Hope you read Clark's letter from TODAY.....(pacific time here)....

To john Warner and signed it!

Stop Blaming the Troops - Investigate the Real Culprits of Abuse

The time has come to investigate the Bush Administration's role in the prisoner abuse and humiliation that has motivated our enemies in the war on terror and endangers the well-being of our fighting forces.

Today, the reports of abuse and humiliation at detainment facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba are distracting the world from focusing on winning the war on terror. Although the military chain of command seems to have properly investigated the role of its personnel and held accountable those in the wrong, the civilian leadership in this country has failed to do the same.

Call on Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner to investigate the Bush Administration's role in prisoner abuse now!

For generations, the United States has been a powerful voice of moral authority in the world. After World War II, we led the world in creating the Geneva Conventions and prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and later became one of the first nations to ratify the Convention Against Torture. Even today, Slobodan Milosevic is being tried for war crimes thanks to a U.S.-led NATO air strike against his brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has squandered our legacy of moral leadership.

I need your help to protect the honor of our men and women in uniform and to set us on the right course to win the war on terror. Although the President has said the United States is "committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example," the Administration's actions don't match his words. In his infamous memo, Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush to ignore the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war – a treaty that protects our soldiers captured abroad – to give the president more "flexibility." This so-called "flexibility" along with other Administration policies and statements may have ultimately contributed to the environment in which the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan have occurred.

Among the disturbing practices identified so far: the rendition of prisoners to countries where they can be tortured, failing to register "ghost prisoners" to deny them visits by the Red Cross, employing civilian contract agents to conduct interrogations outside military rules, and the reported prolonged degrading treatment of some detainees in U.S. custody. All of these deserve further investigation.

With the right leadership and accountability, couldn't the Administration have prevented the embarrassment of Abu Ghraib and the controversy at Guantanamo Bay? While some are blaming individual soldiers, doesn't at least some of the responsibility rest with the civilian leadership of our government? Don't the American people deserve the truth? Shouldn't Congress lead an investigation?
Sign my petition to Chairman John Warner now and urge him to hold hearings on the Bush Administration's statements, policies, orders, and actions related to prisoner abuse.

How can we win the war on terrorism, a fight for democracy and freedom in America and around the world, if we forsake the very principles and institutions for which we are fighting?

The laws of war are designed to regulate combat and to protect non-combatants from the violence and degradation of war. The conduct of this Administration may ultimately lead to a green-light for our enemies to torture our soldiers when captured -- we owe it to our men and women in uniform and their families to investigate.
American soldiers deserve better than to see our allies pointing their fingers at Guantanamo Bay and calling it an "American problem." We are doing their work too – defeating terror is a global priority.

People of good conscience cannot afford to stay silent. Please join me today, and then invite everyone you know to stand with us.

Sincerely,
Wes Clark

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/184

Sign the petition:

http://ga4.org/campaign/prisonerabuse /

Leave a response:

http://www.securingamerica.com


Discussion on the topic from 6/28/05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1891146

[Corey_Baker08]

31. That is Great

This is exactly what i am talking about I am relieved to see this i really am.

[FrenchieCat]

46. But

did you sign the letter?

[Corey_Baker08]

50. Absolutely

Why Wouldnt I? I like and I respect Clark, I am in no way against him at all? I am not anti Clark at the least, I just do not agree that Clark is being used to the best of his ability behind a news desk, hes a fighter.

[JNelson6563]

92. My experience in the real world

has been quite the opposite. I cover a large section of Michigan in my position and I never, ever hear mention of Clark.

I've long noted that the internet and reality are very different places.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

8. Wes Clark is no John Edwards....

and I'm more than grateful for that!

Edwards can keep talking about poverty....and Clark can speak to millions on Faux channel and get them to see the truth. I think that our Democrats should do what they do best to win this war being waged against our democracy!

You see, Clark may not have gone on Faux to further his political life. Maybe he went on Faux to try and further the truth to those who need it. Maybe that's why I like him. Maybe it takes a real patriot to get out there and say what needs to be said....not to further his political career....but to help save this doggone nation of ours!

As the only 4 star Democratic General, I think Wes Clark is doing what Wes Clark does best...and is doing it just fine.

If you see a problem with it....so be it. However, the reasons you give are pretty limited...because Clark is doing a lot of other things...and he is certainly NOT a news anchor.

Here's what else Clark has been doing.....since you obviously don't follow his movements like you do Edwards and Kerry's....

Here's his schedule for the last couple of months. I didn't include his Tv appearances on CNN and Faux.....

April 14th: US Naval Academy Conference, Annapolis MD
April 18th: 2005 Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills-on panel.
April 20th: Dewey Ballantine Distinguished Speaker Series event in Houston with remarks by General Wesley K. Clark. Followed by a question-and-answer session.
April 21st: Traveling to Kazakhstan from April 21st-April 24th.
April 27th: NDN conversation with General Wesley Clark about America's Role in the World...at the home of Chris Heinz in NYC, April 30th: White House Correspondants Dinner in DC.
May 4th: delivering the Tribute to Liberators keynote address for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. This event is closed to the public.
May 6th: Speaks on a panel before The Atlantic Council and the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany --"Germany and NATO: The Next 50 Years"
May 7th : May 2005 Commencement Address at Lyon College and will also receive an honorary degree.
May 13th: Khakis & Catfish Democratic Constitutional Officers
May 14th: Associated Press Luncheon
May 14th: Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner
May 15th: Ripon College Commissioning Ceremony
May 17th: Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus in Washington D.C.
May 18th: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations-
May 18th: A New Strategy for America-- speaking engagement
May 21st: Keynote speaker atACLU of Georgia Annual Bill of Rights dinner:
May 23rd: Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser
May 24th: Arizona Democratic Party Press Conference with Veterans
May 28th: Democratic Radio Response which will run on Saturday, May May 28th: Cornell University Convocation
May 30th: Al Franken radio show
June 1st: The City Year Awards-Robinson Center Music Hall-Speaker
June 6th: Ed Schultz Show
June 12th:Annual Flag Day Dinner-Manchester City Democratic Committee, NH- Keynote speaker
June 21st: Fundraiser for Congressional Candidate Eric Massa
June 22nd: Testifying --UN Task Force Congressional Hearing
June 22nd: Fundraiser for Congressman Lincoln Davis
June 23rd: Clark speaks on Kosovo, Military Channel
June 27th-July 2nd - 78th Annual LULAC National Convention -Will speak (in Spanish)
=====
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Fron...
On the staff level, Reid’s aides have organized several meetings between about 50 Democratic aides and a group of national-security experts. The experts who have met with staff members include retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander; Rand Beers, who served as foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential campaign; and Brookings Institution scholars Susan Rice and James Steinberg. Three or four more of these meetings are expected to take place in the next 10 weeks, Democratic aides said.

The purpose of the meetings is to ensure that Democratic “staff has the confidence and tools to support members” of the Senate as they articulate their party’s position on foreign policy and security issues, said a senior Democratic aide familiar with the meetings. “Reid has the feeling that national security is highly important.”
=====
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.cla...
Washington Monthly May 2005
War didn't and doesn't bring democracy
By Gen. Wesley Clark
=====
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.cl...
A dose of humility
By Wesley K. Clark
=====
http://www.usnewswire.com /
Democrats Announce GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century
=====
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/bio/gene... /
Stop Global Warming March-
Top 10 Marchers
General Wesley Clark (3,228)
David (1,681)
Al Franken (1,677)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (1,368)
Laurie David (1,292)
Reverend William Sinkford (488)
charles (335)
Rabbi David Saperstein (297)
Wendy (244)
Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) (190)
====
http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
US FORCES SHOULD INTERVENE IN DARFUR, SUDAN – GEN. WESLEY CLARK
Almaty, Kazakhstan, April 23 –
snip
"US forces with a mandate and adequate cover should go in and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur," he said in answer to a question. "It has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It must stop."

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/50105 ...
Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast

For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

Clark is a board member of this group....fighting against the apathy in regard to the Sudan (Harvard and Illinois just divested...good stuff)!:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3060&l=1
as a Vice Chair -- of which George Soros is a chairman...
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1

Here's the audience for Faux compared to other Cable Network

Vox Populi for both Tuesday and Wednesday…
The numbers are from Nielsen’s
Wednesday, 5/18
Total Day
FNC - 798,000 viewers
CNN - 337,000 viewers
MSNBC - 180,000 viewers
HLN - 209,000 viewers
Prime Time
FNC - 1,625,000 viewers
CNN - 690,000 viewers
MSNBC - 324,000 viewers
HLN - 373,000 viewers

Tuesday, 5/17
Total Day
FNC - 852,000 viewers
CNN - 388,000 viewers
MSNBC - 195,000 viewers
=======
April 2005 Competitive Program Ranker (M-F 6a-11p programs)
April '05: 3/28/2005 - 4/24/2005
Ranked On:
HH HH P2+ A25-54
NETWORK PROGRAM NAME DAYS COV AA%AA (000) AA (000) AA (000)
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR MTWTF.. 1.9 1,660 2,178 465 19
FOXN HANNITY & COLMES MTWTF.. 1.5 1,272 1,630 436 19
FOXN ON THE RECORD W/GRETA MTWTF.. 1.4 1,178 1,490 399 19
CNN LARRY KING LIVE MTWTF.. 1.2 1,053 1,268 352 20
FOXN THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 1.1 967 1,266 330 19
FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUME MTWTF.. 1.0 897 1,120 236 19
CNN NEWSNIGHT W/ AARON BROWN MTWTF.. 0.8 752 907 307 20
FOXN FOX AND FRIENDS MTWTF.. 0.9 772 885 365 43
FOXN STUDIO B W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 0.8 694 820 260 23
FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J GIBSON MTWTF.. 0.8 685 818 211 21
FOXN FOX NEWS LIVE MTWTF.. 0.8 661 772 246 104
CNN PAULA ZAHN NOW MTWTF.. 0.7 629 760 252 20
FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO MTWTF.. 0.7 633 741 210 22
FOXN DAYSIDE WITH LINDA VESTER MTWTF.. 0.7 610 705 220 20
CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 MTWTF.. 0.6 534 632 198 20
CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS MTWTF.. 0.6 499 569 146 20
CNN LOU DOBBS TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.5 487 559 157 20
CNN AMERICAN MORNING MTWTF.. 0.5 467 531 171 19
FOXN FOX & FRIENDS FIRST MTWTF.. 0.6 495 517 233 19
CNN INSIDE POLITICS MTWTF.. 0.5 457 512 140 20
CNN LIVE FROM ... MTWTF.. 0.5 426 483 154 58
CNN NEWS FROM CNN MTWTF.. 0.4 400 479 134 18
CNN CNN LIVE MTWTF.. 0.4 395 453 126 35
HLN NANCY GRACE MTWTF.. 0.4 374 451 136 20
CNN CROSSFIRE MTWTF.. 0.4 371 414 99 15
MSNB MSNBC INVESTIGATES ....F.. 0.4 358 413 176 3
MSNB SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY MTWTF.. 0.4 295 352 119 18
MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN MTWTF.. 0.3 290 339 115 20
MSNB HARDBALL WITH C. MATTHEWS MTWTF.. 0.3 273 324 88 20
MSNB IMUS IN THE MORNING MTWTF.. 0.3 284 316 92 20
CNN CNN DAYBREAK MTWTF.. 0.3 292 312 136 19
HLN PRIME NEWS TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.3 227 276 94 20
MSNB THE ABRAMS REPORT MTWTF.. 0.3 220 259 86 28
HLN CNN HEADLINE NEWS MTWTF.. 0.2 196 223 95 520
CNBC CLOSING BELL MTWTF.. 0.2 193 207 43 20
CNBC THE CONTENDER M.W.... 0.2 156 206 121 8
MSNB MSNBC LIVE MTWTF.. 0.2 187 203 71 139
CNBC STREET SIGNS MTWTF.. 0.2 175 188 47 20
CNBC THE APPRENTICE .T..F.. 0.2 156 178 103 8
CNBC THE OFFICE ....F.. 0.2 142 177 121 2
CNBC POWER LUNCH MTWTF.. 0.2 166 176 41 20
CNBC MORNING CALL MTWTF.. 0.2 155 164 42 20
CNBC KUDLOW & COMPANY MTWTF.. 0.2 145 159 35 20
MSNB CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST MTWTF.. 0.2 141 157 49 37
CNBC MAD MONEY MTWTF.. 0.2 139 151 46 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 9:30A MTWTF.. 0.2 142 149 45 20
HLN SHOWBIZ TONIGHT MTWTF.. 0.1 108 128 59 40
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 9A MTWTF.. 0.1 110 119 29 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 8:30A MTWTF.. 0.1 104 119 35 20
CNBC DENNIS MILLER MTWTF.. 0.1 90 107 60 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 8A MTWTF.. 0.1 87 104 25 20
CNBC LATE NIGHT W/CONAN OBRIEN MTWTF.. 0.1 75 88 45 20
CNBC BIG IDEA W/ DONNY DEUTSCH MTWTF.. 0.1 68 79 39 19
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 7:30A MTWTF.. 0.1 65 73 32 20
CNBC SQUAWK BOX 7A MTWTF.. 0.1 63 62 26 20
CNBC WAKE-UP CALL MTWTF.. 0.0 36 34 15 20

But thanks for your thread of your take on this!

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Is that ALL?!?!

That lazy dog! No wonder Corey is complaining.

[Corey_Baker08]

82. Thats A Mistake: I am not complaining

I am simply pointing out, is Wes Clark being used to the best of his ability? Is he better on fox speaking the truth to the American People or would he be better out pushing legislation to raise the minimum wage, provide healthcare, and all of the other things that only Kerry seem to be doing.

Thats all i am saying is Clark being used to the best of his ability. I am not anti clark I like and i respect clark, but is he being used to the best of his ability.

Now this post and people twist my words and turn them against me saying im disrespecting Kerry, Clark and everybody, but my original thought was is General Wesley Clark being used to the best of his abililty.

[Crunchy Frog]

87. From Frenchie's post, it looks like Clark is doing a whole lot

of things and pushing a whole lot of issues. Different people have different strengths and different issues that they will be more focused on. Clark's areas of focus will no doubt be somewhat different than Kerry's whose own areas of focus will differ somewhat from Edwards'. If everyone focused on exactly the same issues and let other issues completely slide, that wouldn't be very effective for pushing forward the overall Democratic agenda would it?

Who can say whether anyone is being used "to the best of their ability"? That is practically a metaphysical question. All I know is that Clark is out there working like a dog to advance the interests of both the country and the Democratic party. Kerry is as well, though in somewhat different ways. You seem to be looking at it as "one way is the right way and one way is the wrong way". Maybe it's not so binary. Maybe the ways they are working are complementing each other.

At any rate, you seem to think that Clark's activities are limited to "being behind a desk at Fox". I hope you will actually read Frenchie's post and see that you couldn't be farther from the truth.

And finally, if you really do have concerns about Clark's current activities, I would advise you to email him, or at least email WesPAC with your suggestions as to how he could be acting more effectively. They do respond to feedback.

[Corey_Baker08]

88. Definatley Agree

Clark is doing alot, not once did i say he wasnt I was just asking if he was being used to the best of his ability.

[Adelante]

90. Frenchie... here's a later one of those - Vox Populi

Vox Populi for Wednesday, June 15

Here are the numbers, courtesy of a Fox News Insider. They were compiled by Nielsen Media Research and are as follows:

TOTAL DAY
FNC — 1,045,000
CNN — 444,000
MSNBC — 207,000

TOTAL DAY 25-54
FNC — 322,000
CNN — 146,000
MSNBC — 84,000

PRIMETIME
FNC — 2,246,000
CNN — 731,000
MSNBC — 307,000

PRIMETIME 25-54
FNC — 604,000
CNN — 266,000
MSNBC — 110,000

The show by show breakdown is after the break

FNC SHOWS
HUME — 1,316,000
SHEP — 1,390,000
O’REILLY — 2,496,000
HANNITY & COLMES — 2,168,000
GRETA — 2,074,000

CNN SHOWS
DOBBS — 386,000
COOPER — 533,000
ZAHN — 397,000
KING — 1,060,000
BROWN — 737,000

MSNBC SHOWS
ABRAMS — 315,000
MATTHEWS — 368,000
OLBERMANN — 387,000
TUCKER CARLSON — 198,000
SCARBOROUGH — 335,000

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2005/06/16/vox-populi-for-wednesday-june-15/#more-286

[1932]

11. I think Clark's bigger problem is that he seems to put his personal

financial welfare first. I'm not sure that he should be doing what Edwards is doing. But he is unapologetic about trying to make as much money as possible investment banking and media consulting during the next couple years.

Although it's totally reasonable for Clark to feel that it's time for him to make the big dollars after foregoing the payoff because he served his country instead, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to think that that's going to endear him to a lot of people who are going to have a different interpretation of what that says about his convictions.

I think if you want to be president, you have to expect to make the sacrifice right up to the day you get sworn in, and then for four more years after that. And I think you have to be very conscious of what everything you do says about your convictions. Republicans thrive on the idea that you're supposed to put your personal welfare ahead of the community's. But Democrats live and breathe the idea that you make personal sacrifices so that others can experience a minimum level of dignity and decency. Democrats sacrifice the millions and millions they could be making so that many more people can get a couple thousand.

On a related note, I heard Chris Heinz say that he thought (paraphrasing here) that politicians should go out and prove themselves in the business world, show that they know how to make money, before they run for office. That made me cringe. I don't mind if a presidential candidate sas made money in the course of manifesting important qualities that a president should have. But I think that the idea that success in the world of business should be a marker of a good Democrat is way off base. Like I said above, a deep concern for the powerless shoud be the marker of a good Democrat. If you put your own financial well-being ahead of that (especially when you're already doing pretty well financially) maybe there's another role for you to play besides running for office. I'd rather have people with a different set of convictions making the clutch calls about critical policy decisions.

[FrenchieCat]

13. You don't even know how much money Clark is earning from

this Fox contract. You really don't have an idea....so for you to write an entire page of nonsense based on nothing is really, really scary! :scared:

[1932]

18. I suspect his deal isn't very different from Susan Estrich's

and here's a discussion about her and Fox that I thought was interesting (about 7 minutes in on the mp3): http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2564

I have no doubt he's getting paid something from Fox, and he's certainly making money investment banking too.

I'm very certain that I've read quotes from Clark (and his son) saying that he's justified to make money now because he wasn't making what he was worth in the Army.

That's fine, and that's probably true.

All I'm saying is that voters read meaning into statements like that (and they have perceptions of actions even if Clark never even tried to justify his actions), and it's harder for Democrats to win elections expressing attitudes like that.

I think what I'm talking about here is the root of what Corey (who, IIRC, is a 15 year old who works for minimum wage) is trying to say. No matter what you think of me, I suspect that Corey has revealed a very genuine sentiment that many other people will feel too.

[FrenchieCat]

24. You "suspect"?

Geeze....K, guess that will do well enough for an entire page of attack rethoric.

You suspect, you think you know what Corey is trying to say (sorry Corey, guess you're not articulate enough and need a translator..."I suspect"), the perceptions is....

You sure are "suspecting" a lot of things. Like Wes said recently...we need that "f" word used more often i.e., F.A.C.T.

All of this f*cking supposition is what is wrong with your insight....it's based on not much.

[1932]

30. You have the star.

Search the archives and tell me whether there's a quote from anyone in the Clark family about how it's OK that Clark is making money investment banking and consulting because he didn't make as much as he could as a general.

I admit that I haven't seen the pay stubs and the cancelled checks since the election, but I do remember articles about transactions upon which Clark made money and the names of some of the companies writing checks to Clark during the campaign. They weren't small companies. I think it's safe to say that he's earning in the plus 1 million per year range. (He made that much on a single transaction, IIRC, in 2003.)

If you have F.A.C.T.S. I'd love to see them. If you're arguing that he's not making that much from FOX or from investment banking, would you care to put a number on it? What do you think he's making? Or, what do you think is the threshold amount, above which would justify my comments? If he runs for president, we can check out the FEC filings and see how far off the mark we were.

[snowbear]

34. Why do you care 1932?

Were you a Clark supporter who feels burned by his current choice of employment?

[1932]

36. I care because I want Demcorats to get behind the candidate with best

chance of winning early.

I want the millions in early money to be well spent.

[snowbear]

37. Cool, so you'll be at the next Clark rally?

LOL!

[CarolNYC]

117. larissa....

you are one of my favorite posters here...always good for a smile, no matter how tense the "discussion".

Thanks!!! :) :) :)

[FrenchieCat]

43. I don't believe that it is my job to support your argument......

What I will say is that Wes Clark has earning power.....period.

You alluding, without a single F.A.C.T. and asking me to provide them for you makes my case. You don't know....you're just talking.

Wes Clark earned under $50,000 for most of his career. He didn't have to. Do you know what it means to be a Rhodes Scholar? To graduate from Oxford? Hel-lo...my daughter is going to start Harvard this Fall....and I'm certainly not expecting her to make $50,000 for year after year after year. In fact, I'd be surprised if she will make that sum at the time that she is hired on a job!

You simply have no clue when you attack Clark's character. Sad to say, your vagueness doesn't really do much for me.

[Texas_Kat]

28. So are you saying that WKC isn't entitled to earn a living?

or are you disagreeing that he's worth what he's paid? Do you have a handle on how much 'free' work he's doing for the Democratic party? See upthread if you have any doubts (and those are merely the public events--not the private ones).

Contracts are not all about money. Sometimes contracts are about working conditions. I noticed that Hannity shut down Charlie Rangel's mike tonight. He was a guest. I suspect when WKC negotiated his 'contract' with Fox, there was a proviso that that kinda crap wouldn't happen.

Frankly, I think it's pretty sharp to negotiate a contract where the 'enemy' pays you to appear and (from all appearances) has to smile and be respectful while you tell them the truth.

So, exactly what is your beef? or better yet, which millionaire are you planning on supporting? The one(s) who have family wealth or the ones who 'struck it rich' early in their careers?

[1932]

32. I addressed this sentiment above.

He's entitled to make a living. But he's not entitled to think that putting his financial self-interest ahead of other people's will make him the best candidate running in 2008.

Running as a Democrat, it's going to be hard to make the "putting people first" argument when you spent the previous 4 years putting your savings account first.

[Texas_Kat]

41. Whose self-interest is he putting himself ahead of?

Yours?

I am delighted to have him so 'selfishly' putting MY interests above his own, because frankly, he doesn't have to expend all this time and energy on our behalf, but he really does feel obligated to help the Democratic party.

He'd be making more if we didn't keep calling him to serve.

Whether you appreciate it or not, he's forgoing at least a coupla bucks by working hard on your behalf too.

[CarolNYC]

118. hate to say it 1932...

...but you're making very little sense in this thread....

[Texas_Kat]

48. If what 1932 says about your age is true, Cory, then

congratulations on being able to vote in 2008.

It is a responsiblity that everyone should take seriously. I hope that by the time you reach your 18th birthday you will have had the opportunity to read up on the candidates running for office and weigh the qualifications (and quality) of each.

In case you didn't follow the previous primary closely, thousands (actually 100,000+ grassroots activists) asked General Clark to run for President. Many who are influential in politics also encouraged him, including President Jimmy Carter. We raised $3 million for the effort in the first 2 weeks of his (first) political campaign ever. At the time he withdrew, WKC was the top money-raiser of all of the candidates except for Governor Dean.

Clark's campaign was a 4 month effort, from September 2003 till February 2004. He had (and still has) a huge impact on Democratic politics. He continues to shore up Democrats who need it and fearlessly defends any Democrat who comes under fire from the right wing noise machine.

Deciding who may be qualified as a candidate by the time the primaries roll around again may be premature. BUT, the Clark folks are not going anywhere. Ask yourself how it could be that he engenders such a loyal and dedicated following?

I can answer that very simply, Wesley Clark is on our side... He is loyal to the ideals of the Democratic party. He spends energy, effort, talent and intellect on our behalf--not his own--ours. How could we not return it?

[snowbear]

14. oh bull crap to 1932 -- (re: putting financial welfare first)

But think what you may...

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

26. I don't see why making some money

media consulting and investment banking should be such a sinister thing, really. God forbid he should make a living.

Whether or not his Fox stint turns out to be a good thing, I think it's an interesting experiment in trying to get the word out to Bushbots on their own turf.

He strikes me as, how shall I say, diplomatic in the way he reframes the issue so that folks like Hannity can't get all frothy at the mouth at him. He has some things to learn yet, and this baptism of fire might turn out to be a good training ground for him, even as he lets the freepers see what a reasonable Democrat looks like.

We shall see.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. If Clark wanted to put his personal financial welfare first

he wouldn't have spent most of his life making a military salary. With his brains, education, and experience, he could have been a millionaire many times over by now, like Kerry or Edwards. He chose public service and a modest salary instead.

Nice try, but this line of attacking Clark just doesn't float.

[karynnj]

75. Agree, he certainly has the right to take a lucrative job

It seems, at times, that everyone is taking the set of experience that their favorite has, defining it as necessary, then critising the other potential candidates for essentially not being a clone of their favorite.

Having a personal fortune lets you get through rough spots in a campaign that a less wealthy candidate can't get through. The obvious example last year was that Kerry was able to loan his canpaign money he got by morgaging his half of his house. Dick Gephart would not have been able to access that amount of money. (John Edwards, on the other hand, would not have had to risk his house.) Kerry, like Clark, chose public service and a relatively modest salary as well over using his abundant connections and skills to make a fortune.

Realisticly, the Fox job gives Clark a chance to let people come to know him. Especially if he is given the ability to control the microphone, this can't be bad. One of the problems identified last year was that the media has become stacked against the Democrats. Clark, whether he runs and becomes the nominee or not, is doing something that will benefit Democrats.

He does not HAVE a Senate seat and even if Arkansas's governorship was up in 2005, it would not be good to take office in Jan 2006 and start a Presidential run. The substance of a Clark run has to be his nilitary experience - like Eisenhower. That's his strength. His weakest area is very little experience running for office. Being on TV may be the best proxy for this that he can get from now to 2007. The primaries in and of themself will test this.

So, I would say as someone who prefers Kerry, but likes Clark that this is a very sensible move and could help the Democrats as much as Clark.

[Crunchy Frog]

95. I agree with your post. Thank you for injecting some reason

into this discussion. As far as taking lucrative jobs goes, I have no doubt that Clark could be doing things that would be massively more lucrative than what he is doing. He seems to be making sure that whatever he is doing to make a living is consonant with his bigger interest in helping the country and advancing the Democratic agenda.

Personally, at this point I'm not that concerned with his, or anyone else's presidential plans. I just want them out there doing what they can to advance our agenda and limit the damage Bush is doing to the country and to the world as much as possible. I say, the more the merrier.

[karynnj]

112. Thanks, I was trying to back up your earlier points

I really hate the efforts to pre-emptively destroy possible primary competition. It is so counterproductive if it harms the good efforts any of them are trying to make in a pretty hostile environment. The Republicans have shown they will stop at nothing to destroy Democrats. It would be nice if we didn't help them.

I hope Clark is successful at Fox and becomes a new Democratic voice because that can't hurt the Democrats and could really help. What's the worst thing that could happen? My favorite would fail to get the nomination? However, if Clark becomes enormously well regarded and thus becomes an obvious winner, it is quite possible that in that process, I would become one of the people preferring him as the nominee.

Much can happen between now and 2007/2008. At this point, if we support and nurture all possible candidates, it is more likely that one or more will grow into a powerhouse candidate who would not only win, but could become a great President. The primaries (or just the lack of support) will weed out the weaker candidates. Now is the time to let them try to flourish. (Not to mention - we are a minority party, we can't afford to throw out any voice that is even slightly good. )

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. You make really excellent points. Here is one other small one

Clark has to pay for all of his political staffing out of his own pocket. The government picks up the tab for Senators, Congressional Representatives and Governess to have personal staffs that support their politics work; manage their schedule, do Press Releases, work up policy papers, etc. Elected officials are given budgets to hire all of the above and even secretaries and file clerks. Clark gets none of that. Even John Edwards, who is also in the private sector now, can pull some staff resources from his Poverty Center which I assume (but do not really know) gets some level of University support, if nothing else office space. Nothing wrong with that either.

To the extent that Clark has a business career there are constraints on how he can use the resources of any company he is associated with for non company ventures. So Clark is left footing the bill out of pocket if he wants to have any organization resources behind his political initiatives. That means fund raising for WesPAC and underwriting his staff through various gigs. The FOX one provides income while giving Clark a means to reach millions of viewers with a Democratic message.

[karynnj]

138. Are you sure about the elected officials?

I am pretty sure that there is a legal separation between the office / legislative staff that the government pays to do the work of the elected office and the campaign staff. Obviously, there are still major advantages as I'm sure a Senator could conduct an interview on his future plans form his/her Senate office.

[CarolNYC]

120. Kerry, like Clark, chose public service

This is true...Kerry has spent a long time in public service...for this I applaud him also.

[CarolNYC]

119. exactly.....

1932's argument makes no sense....

[Auntie Bush]

100. That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read written

by a democrat.

[bettyellen]

135. oh, you want clark to apologise do you???

you want another Dem who has nothing to apologise for to do so?
sell that somewhere else.

[Clarkie1]

12. For Clark it's not about his presidential ambitions.

It's about what's best for America.

Faux news viewers will listen to a 4-star general, even when he is criticising right-wing policy. They will listen, and some of them will start to think for themselves.

I understand others may be primarily out for themselves and their desire to be president is their #1 priority in life, but for Clark what's best for America will always come before any less important considerations.

[bowens43]

63. For Clark EVERYTHING is about presidential ambition.

He praised the bushies but repugs rejected him so he became a 'Democrat'. Democrats rejected him so now he is pandering to the fox-bots in preparation for the next primary. There is no ass so dirty that he won't kiss it for a few votes.

[dogman]

72. Can you back up this nonsense?

I've only seen it on RW sites and extremist LW sites. I've seen it debunked, I've never seen evidence that it's true. What do you have to offer?

[Kahuna]

73. I'm still waiting for Will to back up his numerous attack

on Clark. Maybe one day he will offer something more than a drive by.

[Clarkie1]

143. Educate yourself, then we can have a discussion. n/t

[snowbear]

16. Question for Corey

Who do you support anyway?

You have a John Kerry 2008 in your signature line...

..Yet when you put down General Clark, you commented that he (Clark) lost to the man (Kerry) who couldn't win against the worst president in yada, yada, whatever...

I could've sworn you just insulted two Democrats in one post.. :think:

You're driving me bonkers tonight Corey.. :crazy:

[1932]

19. I think you're imputing JH Bowden's post on to Corey.

[snowbear]

22. Nope.. read post # 4

Corey: ...."Losing the primaries to the candidate who lost to the worst American President in history isnt a way to get elected either."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (( :crazy: ))

[1932]

23. Corey was pointing out the logical flaw in that argument.

If that's your argument about Kerry, then you certainly can't support a candidate Kerry beat.

Obviously Corey is trying to say something about the poster's logic and not about Kerry.

That's pretty obvious.

[Corey_Baker08]

29. Thank-You Exactly n/t

[FrenchieCat]

33. Hey...you're right about this one thing!

How does it feel to actually use facts?

Although the "what Corey is trying to say" bit is getting a bit tiresome....the guy may be young, but he's supposing not much more than you are.

[1932]

35. Corey said that that was what he was saying.

I think when things are very obvious, it's OK to state them. I'm not so much interpreteting. as I am stating things that are obvious, and that goes beyond post 4.

[Corey_Baker08]

38. Im Not Supposing anything Im telling you my opinion

and my opinion is that while i like and respect Clark I do not think he is putting himself in the best position for a run at the Presidency in 2008.

I dont know what you are talking about when you say "what Corey is trying to say bit is getting a bit tiresome" If you read my post I tell you what i say and if you cant interpret my sentance you are coming and asking, whats corey trying to say?

The other poster was just trying to get an obvious statement that I made clear, as if it werent already.

[FrenchieCat]

40. What-ever......

If you don't mind being patronized...then so be it...cause that's exactly what 1932 was doing to you.

[Corey_Baker08]

27. That Post Was More of Sarcasm....

Saying that at least Kerry was actually able to win the nomination (mildy insulting Clark)but then using the other posters remarks, "who lost to the worst President in history.

like id rather be the candidate who lost to the worst president in history than be the candidate who lost the nomination to the candidate that lost to the worst president ever.

Get it, LOL its confusing.

But To your question:

I mainly support Kerry in 2008 but I will gladly support any democratic candidate who gets the nomination. Kerry is my hero, Ive seen him at a rally and ive got his autograph. While I want Kerry to be the nominee I also want this to be a great competition between Democrats. I want every contender to be at his or her best, which is why i am doubting that Clarks current position is putting him in the best place for a run for the presidency.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Anyways....

Let's get back to you topic....K?

So you find that talking to millions of people about this President and his lies in a way that even a Faux audience can understand is a bit "undignified"?

Would it be better for Clark to make "just the right moves" in order to maximize his chances are running for President....and to you, it appears....doesn't include television?

I find that "ironic", since many of the 70,000 thousand who drafted Clark in 2004 found him at CNN. But what the heck? Guess that "superficially" speaking the 34 year military career of a Supreme Allied Commander 4 star General Rhodes Scholar's 1st in his class most highly decorated officer since Einsenhower led and won our last successful war best selling book author should not appear on regularily on TV for "appearance" sake?

After all, what would people think?

Maybe his paid consultants just forgot to let him know that each of his moves must be calculating in seeking the highest office. Maybe he decided to think "out of the box" and do what he felt was the thing to do. Maybe he just thinks that having a voice that can influence our 2006-2008 elections is important enough to have him put his pride in his pocket and serve in a way that he is good at. Remember that Clark's appearance in CNN received the highest ratings during his coverage of the war.

Corey, let me put it this way.....Television got us where we are...and Clark possibly thinks that Television can get us out of this mess. Television also gave us both of the last "Fixed" presidential elections and a whole lot more. Are you really stating that you don't understand the true power of the Teevee on the Masses?

Further, you have not responded to my post where I tell you exactly what Clark IS doing.

So can we get some additional comments on you based on the discussion thus far?

[Corey_Baker08]

47. The Point I am Trying to Get Across is Simple

I Like and I respect General Clark. I know of all of his accolades and accomplishments. I believe that Clark would make a great President of the United States, I also believe that Clark believes he would make a great President of the United States.

While I respect the fact that Clark is trying to get the truth out to Republicans and Democrats alike I do not believe this is the right path for Clark to take as a Presidential contender. I am speaking in essence of all of the polls and everything else that suggest Clark is the man in 2008 and he will be the next President of the United States.

I believe that instead of getting the truth out to the American people on TV Clark should be out fighting the realities of America. I believe he should be out fighting to bring the support needed to supply Healthcare to the millions of underage children in America like myself that find themself sick or injured and reluctant get help because their families cant afford it. I believe Clark should be out rallying the support much like John Edwards so that the minimum wage in America is raised so that wonderful people like my mother and so many others dont have to work two jobs and leave their families and loved ones everyday and then at the end of the week get their paychecks and realize they still dont have enough to make ends meet and keep food on the table and clothes on our backs.

I believe Clark should be out Rallying support to bring our troops home now so that no other American in uniform ever again has to be held hostage to Americas dependence on foreign oil. I believe Clark should be out fighting for election reform so that when i go into those poles in 2008 and cast my very first vote that it is not subject to mechanical error or human obstruction.

I believe there is more to fight for than just the truth, and speaking the truth on national tv is not using Wesley Clark to the best of his ability.

[FrenchieCat]

51. Unfortunately,

I will agree to disagree with your entire take on Clark and what he is doing, and how effective he may be.

I think that you are incorrect in your many beliefs. I'm starting to think you haven't read any of the posts in this thread...and still don't really know what Wes Clark is doing for the Democratic party.

I think, at this point, that you should just stick to John Kerry, a Senator with a full time gig orating for hours in the wells of the Senate, and then voting on this and that. I think that it is great that you are supporting a lifetime politician millionaire who voted for the IWR. If that's your man......Kewl!

What I will say is this:

Sadly, whether you will ever acknowledge it or not, the Corporate media decides our elections...not you and not me. So you can keep ignoring their power, as they'd like nothing better.

I don't think that you followed the 2000 election aftermath...because if you had, you would not be taking the mass media, and especially cable news, for granted. They are the force most likely to inflict damage to our party....and I guess your suggestion of Clark taking some kind of back road and quietly doing what Edwards is doing is the answer. Frankly, I'll say (without disrespect to you), you don't know Jack....and you really don't know Clark.

[Corey_Baker08]

54. DEAL: Lets Agree to Disagree

I support John Kerry because he is fighting for me and my family and my future. He is voting for Legislation to raise the minimum wage in America. He is cosponsoring Election reform, He is working on The Kids Come First Act that will give me health insurance, he is sponsoring a bill to expand and enhance benefits for members of the Armed Forces and their families, he is sponsoring a bill to extend the period of temporary continuation of basic allowance for housing for dependents of members of the Armed Forces who die on active duty, he is sponsoring a bill to increase the military death gratuity to $100,000, effective with respect to any deaths of members of the Armed Forces on active duty after October 7, 2001, he is sponsoring a bill to express the sense of the Senate regarding the need for the United States to address global climate change through comprehensive and cost-effective national measures and through the negotiation of fair and binding international commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I Could Go On and On but I think you get the point. I support Kerry because he is fighting for me and for my family. I respect and like General Clark also, I hope you realize that, but while Kerry is out on the floor of the senate working to pass legislation to make this country safer,stronger and more secure, well General Clark is on TV telling the truth about the war in Iraq.

I guess your right maybe i dont know Jack about Clark. But it would seem that the only thought you have of Kerry is a lifelong politican, and with a quick look at his record you would realize that "lifelong politicans like John Kerry" are the ones fighting for middle class and working values.

So in essence you respectfully dont know as much about Kerry as you may think.

[FrenchieCat]

56. I didn't inpune what Kerry is doing......

He is a Senator, and he is doing what he is supposed to do as an elected Senator. I think that's good thing...and his last 20 years in the Senate got him the nomination as the Democratic candidate. I respect his career.

So in essense, you don't really know what I know about Kerry...

You specifically started a thread stating that you think that what Clark is doing is a bad idea if we wants to be President someday...cause it just doesn't "look" right to you. I found that superficial and told you why. And then, it quickly became obvious that you didn't really know what Clark was doing....because you said that he wasn't doing anything....till I pointed out to you some of what he was doing. As an Example, Clark's letter was on Buzzflash, and was on this forum, and was on KOS....yet you had no clue. So please....let's get real.

This is not a "I know you are, but what am I" situation. K?

What you stated about Clark, I rebutted.
In contrast you rebutted (I don't know what) by giving me a long litany of what Kerry is doing. The difference is, I never questioned what Kerry was or wasn't doing "things". Kerry orating in the senate and voting is what he does daily....that's just a F.A.C.T. that shouldn't need defending.

[Corey_Baker08]

85. I AM NOT SAYING CLARK IS DOING NOTHING

The intention of my original post was to raise the question, is General Clark being used to the best of his ability? I did not say he is doing nothing. Reading back now i admit that I was to critical in my wording when I said, "he is sitting behind the news desk at fox"

However it may have happened Kerry, the Primaries, and whatever other crap that was thrown in here had no place, I wasnt saying that Kerry was better than Clark in the least, I simply am asking if Clark is being used to the best of his ability.

Is Clark more productive speaking the truth to the American people on fox, or would he be more productive out pushing legislation to raise the minimum wage,to provide healthcare,to bring our troops home, and all of the other things that need done.

I AM NOT SAYING CLARK IS DOING NOTHING, NEVER DID I SAY THAT.

[alittlelark]

42. Sigh...... it's more than 3 years to the next prez election...

You're ALREADY trying to sway? The 'Kerry 2008' thing is kinda cute but sooooo out of the question...... what (where) are you thinking?

[snowbear]

44. Yeah really...

He would've done great..

But we're not going there again! :o :crazy:

Don't worry Corey.. by the time our '08 nominee is announced, you'll be sold hook, line and sinker on them. No matter who it turns out being! :hug:

[Corey_Baker08]

49. I Just want to Point Out.....

This thread was not designed to draw up support for John Kerry, it was designed to question actions of Gen Clark and designed to ask the question about why Clark is not being used to the best of his ability.

However I do support John kerry obviously because he is a man of his word. He promised on November 3 to continue fighting for the values this country was based on, and here he is today, arguably the most active Democrat in the country.

I agree though, however the candidate is in 2008 I will support wholeheartdly. I just know that this next election in 08 is the make or break point for Democrats,and when we have someone of such prestige like Gen Clark sitting behind a desk at fox not be using to the best of his ability, its a shame because he could make the greatest President in history, but I am afraid this will hurt his electibility.

[Texas_Kat]

52. Perhaps you should sign up for alerts from WesPac

http://www.securingamerica.com

or notice the other calls he's made for action.

There have been several posted here on DU. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

[Corey_Baker08]

55. Yep already a Wespac member

[alittlelark]

53. sigh............

so early, so distracting?

[Kahuna]

70. Some of us believe that Gen. Clark IS being used to the best.,.

of his ability. He's not out preaching to the chior. He's speaking truth to power (as evidenced by his after * bush analysis on FAUX last night) to millions of viewers who have only heard republican lies for the past ten years. The general reminded viewers that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. He told people who have never heard it until last night, the the "war" is creating terrorists of people who were not terrorists before. He commanded respect from Brit Hume because of who he is and because of his command of the facts.

When these presidential addresses are made, FAUX gets the lions share of viewership. So, a lot of people heard a good rebuttal for the first time last night. That's a good thing. Whoever the nominee is in 2008, will benefit. That's the greater goal. Not his own presidential ambitions. Remember, when Clark ran, he was one of the very few candidates who didn't bash his challengers. Why? What purpose would it serve to tarnish the nominee with rhetoric that could be used against him, like some of the others did.

[Corey_Baker08]

91. Thats All I wanted to hear

im glad that you understood that im not saying he isnt doing anything i am asking if he is being used to the best of his ability. I wanted people to form their own opinion, my opinion is no Clark is not being used to the best of his ability.

thank-you

[Kahuna]

124. Thanks. I did understand that..

you were not accusing him of doing anything. The general is in a very visible position for our side on CNN. That's a good thing. :pals:

[laugle]

45. I watched him for the first time tonight,

and I'm thinking it just might be a good strategic move. At least in terms of getting some truth out to the bozo's who still think Fox is news. Just have to wait and see. After all, if we are going to win, we must make some converts. We need to try to repair some of the horrible divisions Bush has caused.

[CarolNYC]

121. We need to try to repair some of the horrible divisions Bush has caused.

This is so true. As much as being overly partisan might fire us up, the fact of the matter is that this country is really terribly divided and that's really not a good thing. Whoever comes after Bush needs to be able to bring people together so we can start some sort of healing after the nightmare that is this Administration.

[ngGale]

57. Let's look at General Clark this way...

he IS a General, a master of war and planning. Have you ever thought, by working with FAUX he could be infiltrating the enemy?

It did bother me at first, but so far he hasn't strayed from his values and beliefs. So, let's give him a chance and think he is working on the inside - kinda like a covert op for our side. I signed his petition today for our troops. His thoughts are pure, maybe he still is to.

I'm sleepy and had to sign in just to put my 02. in for Clark. We need all the help we can get, and he's a heck of a General. I've always thought he would make a great Attorney General...after all even if the Dems win, somebody has to get us out of the Iraq quagmire. General Clark could do this, it's going to take a good military man with experience. He has it!

[FrenchieCat]

58. Thanks for signing!

Nite! :hi:

[ngGale]

59. You are very welcome FrenchieCat...

Nite, nite!:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

60. It may not be your intention

but pitting Kerry against Clark and either refighting the '04 primary wars, or getting an early jump on the '08 primary wars is an inherently inflammatory and divisive activity.

Our main concern with all Democrats right now should not be with how they are positioning themselves for a run in '08, but what they are doing to advance the Democratic party and agenda. Wes Clark is doing that in a variety of ways including getting our message accross to people who wouldn't normally be exposed to it, but whose votes we need if we are ever to be the majority party again. John Kerry is also doing his part to advance the Democratic agenda. Maybe I have more respect for him then you do, but I see his actions as being motivated by a desire to do what's best for the country. If you see his actions as just being about positioning himself for another run, then I feel really sad about someone as young as you being already so cynical about politics.

I do hope that you will eventually come to respect John Kerry more than that.

[Corey_Baker08]

78. **John Kerry is not the issue here**

I am constantly defending John Kerry in all of my post. This original post was not about primaries, john kerry or the other stuff people through in here, it is about Wes Clark. In a later post I used John Kerry as an example as to what Wes Clark should be.

That is not disrespectful in the least to John Kerry in my eyes and I have a ton of respect for John Kerry.

[Crunchy Frog]

83. **No, John Kerry is not the issue.**

The issue is the attempt on your part to pit Kerry supporters and Clark supporters against one another on this board. Basically, an attempt to ignite a flamewar.

Your post was all about how Clark and Kerry are, or should be, positioning themselves for a 2008 presidential run. I don't think the two men should be pitted against each other in this forum, and I believe that it is extremely disrespectful to both of them to be seeing their actions only in terms of how it effects their positioning for 2008.

You and I may simply have different definitions of the word "respect". I would like to see Kerry's current actions as working for the good of the country and the Democratic party, not as cynical moves to position himself for another presidential run. You seem to have a different view and see it as "respectful". I'm afraid that we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

[Corey_Baker08]

94. I am not Trying to Do that at All

My original post was to ask if Clark was being used to the best of his abililty.

I did not have any intention of pitting Kerry vs Clark. I was respectfully questioning if Clark was being used to the best of his ability. You were to form your own opinion from there. I used John kerry in my post as someone, in my opinion who was being used to the best of his ability.

I think theres only 1 definition of respect and the my original point in my post was not clear or badly worded.

I didnt mean to make it sound as if the only reason they were doing anything was for a run in 2008. I was talking about in Kerrys case the way he was continuing to fight to pass legislation, and that in the end should he decide to run for President this will definately be an advantage as opposed to Clarks would be at a disadvantage should he decide to run because Fox has the potential to ruin his credibility particularly in the Democratic primaries.

[Crunchy Frog]

99. That isn't what you said in your original post.

There was nothing in your post about whether Clark was being used to the best of his abilities. You posed the issue entirely in terms of how he should best position himself for a 2008 candidacy.

"Ive gotta be truthful in saying that I dont believe being a news anchor on fox is the best route to go for a Potential Presidential Candidate. I believe this will hurt his credibilty as a contender for not only the nomination but for the Presidency."

"I dont know, I just dont think this is the route to go for a potential candidate for President."

You then tried to show how Kerry's positioning of himself for a 2008 run was superior to Clark's, clearly pitting the two men against one another.

"But you have got to applaud Kerry though he is still out fighting and even though Clark is, I wish it wasnt behind a news desk.
While Kerry is getting the national headlines and possibly positioning himself for an 2008 run, Clark is behind a news desk reading off the headlines."

Your own words in your original post contradict what you are now claiming that you said.

I also disagree with you about there not being different definitions of the word "respect". For example, if I were to meet a bear in the woods, I would have a great deal of respect for it since it could kill me. That is a very different kind of respect than what I have for people who I admire for their work and their values, like Wes Clark and John Kerry.

I still contend that, based on the content of your posts, you and I use the word "respect" in different ways, your way seeming to be tied to how effectively someone is positioning himself for a future presidential run, my way being to simply respect someone for the work they are doing, advancing the values that I believe in, and helping my country.

[Corey_Baker08]

104. Well I was wrong in my original Post

All along the message I was trying to get across was to make the point that a fine man like Wesely Clark is not being used to the best of his ability when he is "sitting behind the desk at fox news" It was more of a methaphorical message and I did say that about the being contenders for President because they both obviously are.

I was simply saying that this job on fox will hurt Gen Clarks credibilty in the primaries with Democrats which is such a shame because he would make such a great President.

My wording was wrong in my original post and for that I am sorry, but i stand behind what i originally said. That does not mean I look at Clark and Kerry as nothing but contenders for President, that is far from the truth, even though from the wording of my post that may be what is implied it is downright wrong.

I didnt say that the only agenda Kerry and Clark had was to run for President. I was posting in originality to the many polls and post here on DU and everywhere else that show Clark leading and show Clark being the Democratic candidate for President. I was simply referring to the job Clark is doing and I made a point of showing the job Kerry was doing.

If you think that I do not respect Kerry or Clark just as much as or more than you do, than you are absolutely wrong in thinking that and for that I am sorry.

[Crunchy Frog]

108. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted what you were trying to say in your OP.

As you acknowledge, it could have been worded much more effectively, but I'm also somewhat guilty of jumping to conclusions that were probably unwarranted and I apologize.

I hope we can call a truce on this.

By the way, the polls on here don't show Clark being the Democratic candidate for President. They are simply a sampling of opinion amongst a very unrepresentative group of people who post in online forums. They have little or nothing to do with the real world.

I'm glad to hear that you think Clark would make a great President. I think that Kerry would have made a great President, and maybe he still will be one day. Overall though, I would like to see the discussions on here move away from '08 as they tend to promote divisiveness and are not really relevant this early in the game. I'd like to see the focus be more on what people are doing in the here and now to advance the Democratic agenda, and of course, the upcoming '06 races.

[Corey_Baker08]

109. I Agree

And I am definatly guilty of having sucky wording and be over critical.

[karynnj]

96. I see both Kerry's and Clark's actions as you do

One of the problems identified last year was that the media has become stacked against the Democrats. Clark, whether he runs and becomes the nominee or not, is doing something that will benefit Democrats.

At the same time he is adding to his own pluses (the main one being his military service) in many ways:
- It will increase his name recognition and will allow people not on Democratic boards or watching CSPAN to get to know him
- It will make him more financially secure - which shouldn't be important, but in today's world is.
- One of Clark's disadvantages last year was that he had never run for election. (Eisenhower hadn't either) Given that there is no elected office that Clark could run for, the hurly burly of cable TV might need very similar skills.

Kerry whether he runs again or not is also doing things that are consistent with being a good Senator and being a good Democrat. He should be encouraged when he does good things.
- Democrats have been accused of not having an agenda to run on. Kerry has chosen a few popular issues (especially kids' health and veterans benefits) and has attempted to use him email list to generate interest and support for his plans. With Republican control, he has little chance of getting any of this passed, but through his activities and the activism he is trying to create, he is defining the Republicans as against these things and the Democrats for them.
- His tactic of using the email list for petitions and issues which seemed surprising the first time he did it has been used by Reid, Boxer, H. Clinton, Kennedy and others since then
- I think it is likely that any Democratic candidate will continue innovatively using email to explain positions, issues, and how to get involved.
- Kerry is excellent on making stands that are unimpeachable on controversial issues. Kerry's politeness and polished manners, while a drawback for a street fighter, are assets when we are fighting in an environment where the media will twist Democratic stands or show then out of context in a way to make us look bad.

[ikri]

64. So you think...

That the best way to attract wayward voters is to go to Democrat Party events to speak to the converted?

Where is Clark more likely to find floating voters? In the Faux News audience or in an audience of committed Dem voters?

Let's imagine that Clark announces that he's running for president on Faux News in 2006 or 2007. How can Faux then adequately attack Clark in the manner that the swift boat liars attacked Kerry? Attacks on Clark's abilities and background are de facto attacks on Faux's hiring standards.

Faux cannot attack Clark without attacking itself.

As to John Kerry speaking out. That's his job. He's a United States Senator. The day a senator stops speaking out is the day they should lose their job.

[Corey_Baker08]

79. I Do See Your Point......

He may be able to use this to his advantage in 2008 because while Fox is attacking all of the other Democratic Candidates they may defend Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. No, Clark will be defending other Democrats, if he's there

I suspect Clark will be long gone from FOX before then. Clark always defends other Democrats from Republicans.

The point is that FOX viewers will have become familiar with Clark through what Clark is doing. That makes it harder for the right to try to define Clark first, in their usual unflattering terms. And while he is on FOX, Clark is showing that Democrats know what they are talking about, something the Right Wing tries their best to deny.

[bklyncowgirl]

65. Clark is not "Preaching to the Choir"

Having Wes Clark who brings both an extroadinary military career and a progressive analysis to Fox News is a good thing.

If the Neocons are to be defeated people's minds have to be changed one at a time. Clark's status as a military expert on a conservative news channel gets him a hearing for his arguements from people who, frankly, have no intention of listening to Air America or reading the Nation Magazine.

As long as they don't screw with him, and if they do I'm pretty sure he'll be out of there fast, he's doing the right thing by getting the message out to people who would never listen to a liberal otherwise.

[Kahuna]

68. Maybe so.. But his appearances on FAUX...

will make the way easier for the eventual nominee, as he continues to speak truth to power to the FAUX sheeple, who have been brainwashed nonstop for the past ten years.

I am so proud of him for what he's doing.

[CarolNYC]

74. Hey Corey!

Thanks for weighing in on this. I've only read a small portion of this thread and don't have time to go through the whole thing now so perhaps I'm saying stuff that's been said before....if so, sorry for the repetition.

Couple of thoughts...

First of all, I applaud you for being so involved at such a young age. You're only about a thousand times more aware than I was at that age.

Second, you keep saying that the General is behind a news desk reading headlines. I see why you have such a problem with this, because you have a total misunderstanding of what Clark's role is on Faux. Have you seen any of his appearances? You can catch at least a couple on dembloggers.com. I understand if you can't stand the thought of watching Faux to see him. They are awful....but he's really not behind a news desk and he's not reading headlines. He's an analyst and is giving his analysis of things...like last night he responded to * speech...no headlines, just his analysis of where we are in Iraq, how we got there and how * supposedly addressed it last night.

Third, I believe that Clark was not motivated to take this position in an attempt to further his Presidential ambitions. Could it hurt them? Sure. I think he knows that. Yet he's willing to take the risk because this whole thing isn't about him becoming President but about saving this country from the mess it's in. He's a true patriot who puts country above self and even party (which upsets some who don't see him as partisan enough). He's spent his whole life serving the country in the best way he knew how. That's what he continues to do.

I believe he thinks that reaching out to the millions of reachable ones (and I know there are lots of unreachable Faux viewers) in the Faux audience who could be brought to believe the truth if only they heard it is more important than whatever damage the move might do to his Presidential prospects. I would hope that all of those being mentioned as contenders for 2008 aren't making every decision between now and then based on how it will effect their Presidential ambitions because we're in a heap of trouble and some of these guys better be thinking about us instead of themselves all of the time...but maybe I'm being too idealistic.

BTW, there was a lot of discussion about this move and the rationale behind it on this site a couple of weekends ago. Perhaps you missed it though. :(

Perhaps you could check out some of the videos on ww.u-wes-a.com to get a better idea of where Clark is coming from.

Finally, he's been doing more than just appearing on Faux. He's met a number of times with Congressional Dems, he's testified before Congress, he's appeared at fundraisers for people running in '06 (VERY important elections), he's spoken at other Dem events (he defended Chairman Dean at one of them saying he was proud of him at a time when others were piling on him for being too outspoken) and lots of other things...which I'm sure someone has probably already listed for you somewhere here.

Check out his www.securingamerica.com site to keep abreast of what he's doing...and while you're over there, sign his latest petition.

And keep on keeping on....

Carol

[Corey_Baker08]

80. Finally Your Like the only one that got the right meaning from my post

All I was trying to get across was the fact that Clark is "sitting behind a newsdesk when he could be out being used to his full potential to push legislation.

I have NEVER seen Clark on Fox, my TV does not dare go near that channel. Thinking back when I first heard Clark moved to Fox I was not on the net that much because I was taking drivers training, so I guess I missed the debate.

[CarolNYC]

86. Hey again Corey,

I hope you passed your driver's test...or have you not done it yet? If not, then good luck.

Again, though, Clark is not sitting behind a newsdesk...I think you misunderstand the scope of his role at Faux.

And, one more thing that I forgot to put in my original response, when I got a chance to talk to Gen Clark at an event a couple of months ago, I couldn't help but ask him if he was considering a run in 2008. He answered that it was too early to make any decision on that but that no matter who ran in 2008, the most important thing was that they have a strong Democratic Party behind them. Later, in his address to the group, he said that the biggest security threat to this country was the danger of one party rule. I believe everything he is doing now is working toward strengthening the Democratic party for the battles ahead. THAT, whether you see it or not, is a very important role to play if we hope to ever get out of the mess we're in now.

You seem to have a hard time wrapping your mind around the fact that someone involved in politics might be thinking of someone other than themselves when it comes to making decisions or taking action. Granted, a lot of (if not most)politicians are in it only for themselves...and I truly hope that John Kerry and John Edwards are not of that sort....but don't be that jaded and cynical about politics yet. There are still a couple of altruistic ones out there.

For Gen Clark, from everything I've seen him say and do and every impression I get from speaking to him, it's not about his becoming President...It's about making sure that as many Democrats as possible get elected at all levels of government so we have some leverage to stop the damage being done by this Administration...and ultimately get rid of them.

I think that those only thinking about positioning themselves for a future Presidentual run at a critical time like this should be chastised rather than applauded.

[Corey_Baker08]

97. Agreed

I admit that before my original thread I am guilty of really not knowing much about Clark at all. I was fired up about all of the things John Kerry was doing for the party yesterday on the floor of the senate, on tv and in the newspapers and I made a point to show Kerrys actions as compared to the little I knew about clark and ask the question if Clarks position at fox was really using him to the best of his ability.

My words were to critical about "sitting behind a news desk" and "reading the headlines" I truly didnt know of all that was getting accomplished because of Clark.

On a good note I did pass my drivers test and tomorrow I am going to see John Edwards in Columbus so I hope I get to meet him like you did Clark.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[CarolNYC]

98. and hey again....

I hope you have a great time at the Edwards thing. Even if you don't meet him, enjoy the atmosphere and being part of an "event". And take your camera if you can. :)

Keep your enthusiasm....and remember, politics is rough and tumble. You might get bruised up a bit...and I mean at discusssion boards like this, not at the Edwards thing....but you can handle it. ;)

Congrats on the drivers test...Be careful on the roads...

[Crunchy Frog]

101. I'm very glad you passed your drivers test. Congratulations!

I failed mine on my first try. Congratulations also on getting to see John Edwards. I hope you will give a full report here afterwards.

I'm very glad that Kerry gets you fired up. It's great that you have someone out there who really inspires you. I'm also glad that you have had the opportunity to learn more about Clark's activities from this thread. I think you could have worded things more effectively, but it looks like you got alot of good information for your trouble. :)

I do think it's important to be able to praise the activities of someone you support without having the need to put someone else down, which is what your post appeared to be doing. I apologize if I misread your intent. Hopefully you have learned something useful about how to express yourself more effectively.

[Corey_Baker08]

106. Thanks

I realize the wording in my original post really sucked. I am sorry for that.

[bettyellen]

136. well you have a star, so you can always do a search if you feel like

you need some backround before posting. and there's a bit of time to go back and edit your post (20-30 min or so?) if you misspeak again.
and welcome to DU!
:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

89. Watch Wes Clark's response to Bush's Lies now if you haven't already

Wes Clark puts duty, honor, country first before Presidential ambitions. He is also a team player, which is why he is on Fox doing all he can to reach the heretofore unreachable so Democrats can have a better chance in 2006. This Fox military analyst position may not be the same as what Edwards or Kerry is doing, but it is something only General Clark can do better than any Democratic leader out there plus he's doing it with an agenda that is tailored to educating the Fox audience as to what the hell is really going on.

See this thread for the videoclip link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1893455&mesg_id=1893455

You may not think what he is doing may not be good for his future Prez prospects, but it is great for the future of the Democratic Party at the polls as more Fox viewers realize that they've been had. Not all Fox viewers are Bushbots - most of them are regular folks without a political nuance in their fluffy heads.

I don't mind watching Fox News a few minutes a week if only to catch the truth being told from a good Democrat's mouth. It's not as if I have a Nielson's box on top of my TV set.

[yebrent]

102. I think you are half right.

It unfortunately won't help Clark win the primaries, but it is greatly helping the Democratic party as a whole, especially in the Red states, and it would greatly benefit him in a general election. Maybe Clark is more concerned about actually changing voters minds instead of best positioning himself to win the primaries? Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the Dems thought that way for a change?

[Corey_Baker08]

105. Yea It would be nice

The point I was originally making was that a fine man like Wes Clark who is obviously running for President I believe will have his credibilty smashed in the Democratic primaries because of this job at Fox news.

I said that this isnt a good way to kick off a Presidential campaign, I never said it wouldnt help the Democratic party, because obviously someone finally going on fox news and telling the Democrats side to the story is a major plus for us.

[Totally Committed]

107. Or....

it will be enhanced when they finally kick his butt of their network for relentlessly telling the truth to the sheeple.

I think it's a strategy designed to get the word out to the cluless FOX watchers, and in the end, be the "fired military FOX analyst" who refused to buckle under to their RW rheteoric and nonsense.

Just a thought.

TC

[Corey_Baker08]

Hey just wanted to say...

That your right about the stop creating polls thing and I apologize.

[Adelante]

115. You know, this turned out okay

Some misunderstandings cleared up and Democrats coming back together, which is what we all want. So, thanks, Corey. :pals:

I did want to make one small point, so I may as well get it out of the way.

Have you noticed an increase in Democratic unity of message? Did you notice how the Dems, almost unanimously, are expressing Democratic policy in a clearer, sharper way?

Not everyone is in the same role.

As has been said, John Kerry is in the Senate doing his job. He is thorough, deliberate, and very productive. This is what I like about him. He's no flash in the pan. He's steady and smart. This strengthens the party.

Howard Dean is out there rebuilding the party infrastructure; critically important work. He's presenting himself publicly in the way that appeals to the base, raising money, and building the grassroots, which strengthens the party.

The Congressional leadership is out there publicizing the Dem agenda and making sure it gets worked through legislatively. They are strengthening the party every day of the week.

One thing everybody knows HAS GOT TO BE DONE is the peeling off of moderate Republican, Reagan Democrat, and Bush-voting Independents, turning red states blue in 2006 and 2008.

The other day Dean said it, "Reach out to people who didn't vote the way you did."

Which brings us to Wesley Clark.

The party knows that he is able to reach these voters. He's never going to get the extreme right or the extreme left. In fact, the Democratic Party will never get them, because agenda comes first with those groups. It's the left and right of center, the persuadable center who will provide the bulk of a winning Democratic voting base once it is added to the base we already have.

It's that persuadable center we have to be talking to, reaching out to, reeling in.

This is Democratic Party policy. This is what the party is working hard and it's most clearly evident in Dean's 50-state strategy.

They are all talking to each other.

Wes Clark isn't out there as a loose cannon running his own show for the sake of some future presidential race. He is not an elected official or a party leader in the usual sense. But he is extremely involved in developing Dem policy and promoting it. He's an advisor to several Congressional committees, is in on strategy sessions regularly, and testifys before committees. The party would have known about this Fox gig way before we did.

You see what I'm getting at here? John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid; all of them. They're working together to ensure we get as many voters in our column as possible.

That's what Wes is "doing behind a news desk." God knows it isn't all he's doing, and you know that now, too.

This is about strategy, smart strategy, winning strategy.

It's not the first thing on his mind, a 2008 race, but say it was, it's still smart. He has no Senate staff like Kerry; he has no 20-odd campaign staff like Edwards; he has no budget for travel and expenses; he's not rich. So, even if 2008 were his reason for doing this, he gets a lot more bang for the buck on Fox than he gets from the rest of the media which doesn't cover him at all. By the time he is ready to run, if he does, he'll be way beyond Fox. The party will be richer for it and Clark would have been exposed to a lot more voters.

[Corey_Baker08]

116. I Agree Completely

And All in All this really did turn out to be a good deal. I have actually learned alot about Gen Clark.

I am so thankful this didnt turn out to be a blood squirting flamewar, we are united as Democrats and together we will come back stronger and better than ever.

[harlinchi]

110. I don't care 'bout his Fox job. Go get'em Gen'rul!

[harlinchi]

111. Wow! My hundredth post!

[Adelante]

122. Hey, congratulations!

:hi:

[harlinchi]

140. Thanks, WesDem!

I'm a kinda "WesDem" myself. Here's hopin' the General can, as one of the Blue Collar Comedy dudes would say, 'Git 'Er Done!'.

[ChiciB1]

113. I Agree With You...

At first I was just going to let this ride, but having thought about it, he's only giving Faux News the opportunity for higher ratings!

Those Dems who want to watch the stuff will pump up their ratings and then they will be out the crowing like a Peacock in full splendor!

Anything that keeps them up front and CONFRONTATIONAL isn't a good idea as far as I'm concerned.

[Kahuna]

125. Hmmm. Let's examine what you wrote here...

You said: he's only giving Faux News the opportunity for higher ratings!

So if more people tune in to listen to what he has to say, that's a bad thing?????!!!!! I'm confused. :wtf:

[ChiciB1]

132. Not A Bad Thing Regarding WHAT HE Has To Say....

A BAD THING that it's THAT channel. No confusion necessary, because I don't happen to think that THOSE people who tune in are going to LISTEN to what HE has to say with an OPEN MIND!!

More Feed for them. Hey, Clark has a lot to say.... but given how most REPUKES garble anything that is said by the other side, and given how SELECTIVE they are, what are the pluses???

Then again, there aren't many options to air what you might have to say, they're ALL bought and sold for, it's just that that BUNCH is so reprehensible! Keith MIGHT have taken him in!

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. Well, seriously, Clark isn't a huge draw, and I love him personally

He won't make hardly a blip either way in FOX's ratings. Clark is talking now to the people who would have tuned it in anyway and a couple of hundred hard core political activists like me who can't always wait for the video to get posted, and I turn off Fox as soon as Clark is off

The point is more whether or not Clark is "doing anything there" of any value to Democrats, and I am of the opinion that he is. I've seen it reported that 22% of FOX viewers are Democrats. I bet a lot of them are the ones who have defected to Bush and need to be brought back into line.

[ChiciB1]

133. I NEVER Watch Them...

My remote doesn't know the number, Clark or not. I can wait to find out what's up right here at D.U.

I'm not trying to obstinate, I just don't want them hawking their ratings. They'll say, see we have more viewers and we're the ones who report the news in an objective way!

Ain't that what they do??

[Darkamber]

123. Kerry, Clark and Edwards are all important for Democrats...

Each has their own roles and each one is doing their best to fight for Democrats and Democratic values.

Edwards is going through the grassroots. His direction it to speak with and meet with the people and his passion is to fight against proverty now. He can't people about the war on Fox. That's not where he is from or what he's about. He's about helping people and lifting people up. A very core part of being a democrat is about.

Kerry is doing his best to fight for us in the Senate with the limits that we have there he's still doing his best as a Senator and I hope he stays there and continues that fight.

Clark is making a big move and doing comments on the station that I won't watch anymore...Fox. Can't say how he's doing there as I can't stomach listening to that channel. But he's still providing comments on the War that only someone with his background could.

I think we would be better to support all of them then to discredit any of them for they are doing...08 is still along way away and who knows how things will change.

Big thing is that both Edwards and Clark are doing fund raising for Democrats and as they both attract different supporters any work they do is good for all of us.

[Kahuna]

126. Well said. Time for Dems to try something different...

like working as a team. :applause:

[blm]

128. I like what BOTH of them are doing. Clark may be turning people around and

Kerry is trying to make government accountable, just as he has always done.

Nothing wrong from where I sit.

[sundancekid]

129. it's beyond annoying to have to put up with gross ignorance like yours

... puhleeze! it's a nominal requirement for DU posters to be informed at a minimal level b4 they open their traps ...

opinions are one thing, MISstating facts and then rendering a full blown pontification upon those erroneous statements passed off as "facts" is a whole other matter ...

:grr:

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. It's been worked out upthread

We have a young poster here, and God Bless him. He didn't quite understand the protocol about being overtly opinionated without backing facts, but thank God there are 18 year olds willing to actually have opinions about what is happening to our country.

He was quite gracious above about how he learned from this thread experience. Would only that more of us could act that way.

[CarolNYC]

131. I don't even think he's 18

He just got his driver's license...Isn't that 16?

In any event, I think he's to be commended and nutured. We need more young'uns like him. He'll learn. And, yes, he was very gracious.

[bettyellen]

134. "behind a news desk reading off the headlines." You have no clue !!!

i guess you haven't seen him even once, have you?
way to post!

[Adelante]

137. Easy

You obviously haven't read the thread. Corey is a good person who started his thread awkwardly. He actually has a good deal of respect for Gen. Clark and has shown it.

[bettyellen]

139. i know it's cute: he's young and cares.....

never said he wasn't a good person. just clueless. posted about stuff quite inaccurately when he coulda used the search button or goggled up something more accurate.
he'll learn.

[rhett o rick]

141. He is encouraging people to watch the Reich Wing propaganda chanel. nt

[rhett o rick]

142. Sorry, but as much as I respect John Kerry, he doesn't stand for the

principles of the Demo Party. He supported the GWB War. And apparently continues to support it. He needs to explain why he supported the GWB War.