Clark is best chance for us -- and for our country

[krkaufman]

> Clark is the best chance for us
> Even my republican brother likes Clark !!

I wholly agree. Clark is our best chance for beating Bush.

And, equally important to me, Clark is also this nation's best chance to begin bridging the divide that's grown between the parties.

Clark has cross-party appeal, unlike any other candidate, and stands the best chance of actually being able to move some legislation in a Republican-controlled Congress.

And just think how the perceptions of all those crossover Republicans will be shifted when they see their President, General Wesley K Clark, being savaged by the jackals of the right-wing media machine.

We can choose a new way; or continue down the same path we've traveled for the last 23 years.

[Myra]

1. Agreed. Clark's the best candidate. He's got it all.

Go Wes!

[Shanty Oilish]

2. If he is not the nominee...

Whom will he support, do you think? When we have a nominee, do you think Clark will campaign for him?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[krkaufman]

26. Considering he's a fledgling politician...

Considering that the General's a fledgling politician, and that he's serious about taking our country in a new direction and bridging the divide that has grown over the last 20 years... *IF* he sees that he can't win the nomination solo, I wonder if he'll pre-emptively team-up with another candidate (P/VP<=>VP/P) to form a more perfect union.

Not to worry about for now. We've got a big week next week.

[overground1]

3. Clark scares the HELL out of me. He is like a blank page.

He has no position on anything other than that he should be president, and will say anything to become it.

I don't believe a word he says. He is totally insincere. He does not believe his own rhetoric. Clark is saying what he has been told will capture the left, and anyone who buys it is getting fooled. I am far too critical a thinker to not see through it. You can't honestly tell me that something isn't off about this man!
He just doesn't add up.

[QC]

4. Got any evidence for those bold, sweeping accusations?

If so, please feel free to share it with the rest of us.

[overground1]

6. Have you ever seen the man talk?

He doesn't have a firm grasp on the issues. He is a gaffe a minute. He is constantly back-pedaling from his sophmoric statements. He parrots back what his handlers tell him, but without the nuance or depth of understanding.

The man is a doppleganger.

[QC]

7. Yes, of course, and my impression of him is very different.

In other words, you admit that you have absolutely no evidence for the accusations you have made, other than some vague personal impression.

That's what I thought.

[Shanty Oilish]

8. What was vague about it?

:shrug:

[QC]

10. Well, "subjective" would have been a better word choice, but

of course that has nothing to do with my point, which is that we have someone presenting personal impressions as The Truth.

There's nothing wrong with personal impressions, of course--we all have them--but it takes more than that to justify trashing someone.

[magatte]

13. caroline

This guy talk about his "BS detector", well I can tell you about my "Shill detector". And there has been just a disgusting amount of such character assasination attacks in the past weeks. They try, through sheer repetition, to instill this image of Wesley Clark in the mind of people. 'Shady', 'creepy', 'don't know what he is really hiding'... What is most disgusting is that it is aimed at one of the most earnest, sincere candidate in a long long time. Which isnt surprising for someone who has never been a politician and someone who had to be convinced over months to finally step into this rat-infested political arena to try and do something right for this country. Go to his website, listen to his speeches, listen to his interviews. Make your OWN mind. Politicians thrive on ignorance, closeminded-ness and fear. Wes is for an age of transparency.

Just take some of your time, and fullfil your duty as an individual and human being to inform yourself. Rather than listen to second hand attacks.


www.clark04.com

[Shanty Oilish]

18. I have fulfilled my duty Sir!

I've been there and I don't like what I see. But let's talk about something else. You say the man is earnest and sincere. Why do you think so? How do you reconcile that impression with his well-known remarks about the wonderful Bush team? If he is earnest and sincere, why did he delay announcing his Democratic affiliation last summer?

Some people go by their gut. I'm not usually one of them, but I don't discount the subconscious wisdom out of hand.

There is a third point here, not terribly important but I have noticed it frequently. A lot of people who support Clark seem to be very much more sensitive to objections to their man. I've seen some very vicious slurs against Kerry go unanswered, and the mildest slaps at Clark get alerted. I get the impression that some Clark supporters haven't thought things through, and aren't very interested in doing so. In other words, a lot of his support is gut level. Obviously yours is not.

Well, I fulfilled my duty, and I have to tell you that's another thing I don't like about Clark. He has said that service to one's country is the highest calling and not only do I disagree, I find the sentiment ominous. All things being equal I'd rather not have ANY military man running the country, but especially not Clark.

Thanks for not being shrill with me, magatte. Some are. :)

[Columbia]

19. Oh, he is a VERY shrewd politician

It takes one to become a four-star general.

[Shanty Oilish]

21. It takes a bit more than that

to deal with the Congress and get one's agenda passed. Military and civilian politics are not identical. Indeed military people are urged to suppress their political inclinations, and the General has, I grant you, been extremely successful at that, up until last October.

[Columbia]

23. I agree

I was speaking of the type of politicking that means doing and saying anything it takes to get to the top which is generally what needs to be done to become a general. I didn't mean it in a positive way at all actually. A general must often sacrifice principles for politics to get to where he is, but where in this day and age, we need a man of pure principles, not one who changes his stance with the winds.

[roguevalley]

34. Piffle. I suppose in your vast experience with military people, you have

examples of the type of lying and whatever it takes
to become a general as you allege? Why do I feel that
the age of people who make these kind of generalizations
is very, very young?

Viet Nam made me a cynic about the military and generalizations
that are nothing more than gut feels writ large. If I can support
a general, then anyone can. I was sold on his policies and his
character. Its going to take more than a talking point list
of unsubstantiated generalizations to make me change my mind.

But then, I'm old.

[Columbia]

38. Since you mention it, yes

I do have a lot of experience in the military and that is exactly why I am very suspicious of high-ranking officers. Most will do just about anything to get that next promotion and that includes endangering lives. And from what I've seen of Clark's military record and his records as a CNN commentator, I don't trust him at all.

[overground1]

28. I can't help but feel that if Clark gets the nomination

the entire military brass from the top on down will come out and absolutely DESTROY Clark.

The military has a code of honor, and they do not abide officers - particularly generals - speaking out against a sitting president as Clark has done. It's not the criticism of policy, but the personal vitriolic attacks that have really done Clark in. The military will NOT let it stand, believe me.

Normally, they would reserve their personal criticisms for someone like General Clark in much the same way as he would be expected to hold his own criticisms - real or manufactured for political gain - for Bush. But since the general has broken the code of honor, all bets will be off. They will trash him beyond recognition. It is a matter of honor for the military at that point. The only thing Clark has to run on is his military record, and he won't have that by the time people like Swartzkopff, Haig, Shelton, and Franks are done with him. Don't think that General Shelton has even begun to trash him yet. So far, he has been very vague in his criticisms. Expect a constant stream of ugly details from all corners of the military and Pentagon should Clark get the nomination. They will be pissed like they haven't been since Pearl Harbor.

Also, keep in mind - Eisenhower did not become President by trashing Truman. Eisenhower ran a dignified campaign worthy of an honorable soldier. I know that may be a thing of the past in partisan politics. But a General sharing the stage with Michael Moore and slandering the president - ANY president - is beyond the pale outside of only the most partisan circles, even in today's political climate.

I am not defending Bush here, I am only giving a reality check on how the military operates. It is something to consider, because it WILL be the reality of a Clark nomination.

[Shanty Oilish]

29. I tend to agree

and I base that on my own experience with what I have called radioactive brass. While I deplore the Bush regime, it gave me pause to see Clark not only tolerating Moore's remarks but defending them while at the same time admitting he had not even looked into the matter (which would in itself be remarkable).
Besides, this country's in trouble and threatened, and the more troubled a nation, the less it's likely to benefit from being led by a general. Or so history tells me.

[The Magistrate]

90. Swill, Mr. Ground

Vitriol against President Clinton was common from officers of high rank during the last elected administration. The armed forces have become quite politicized over the last decade or so, becoming virtually an adjunct of the Republican Party. If there is hostility toward Gen. Clark from that quarter, that will be the reason, not any antique notions of non-partisanship and private honor. The people will largely discount their actions, accordingly.

President Eisenhower ran against Gov. Adlai Stevenson, not President Truman, who declined to run for a second elected term, realizing his unpopularity stemming from the Korea stalemate rendered his re-election unlikely. There was a great deal of scurrilous criticism of his administration by Eisenhower's campaign, much of it centered on the ludicrous fiction President Truman was not sufficiently anti-Communist.

Gen. Clark can be expected to do very well in the general election: he is a shrewd stategist, and possesses that intangible "X-factor" so important to political success.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[BootinUp]

94. Nominated-best post heading of the day :)

[mikehiggins]

97. You couldn't be more wrong.

Just for starters, Shelton has admitted to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague that his remarks were just political. Haig is on record as praising Clark. Swartzkopf already backed away on CNN and Franks has called for a military takeover in case of another terrorist attack.

But another thing to think about, Over? No one has clean hands. None of these generals wants to open up any can of worms with another general officer who knows where THEIR skeletons are buried. It goes far beyond Frank's problems with ethics in Florida, or Swartzkopf's lobbying or any of that.

The generals who oppose Clark will continue to snipe from undercover, through anonymous sources, through unatributed chages. So much for honor.

And Eisenhower did trash Truman, even though Truman offered to step out of his way if Ike would run as a democrat. It was just a differant time and the public discourse was much more polite and united back then. And Ike, of course, ran against the Korean War, which was a war APPROVED by the UN. When he told the American people "I'll go to Korea," he wasn't talking about arranging a pull out with our tails between our legs like Bush is planning.

Thousands dead and billions squandered so we could put another Ayatollah in Saddam's throne. Congratulations, chickenhawks.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[overground1]

9. You want a link to a secret memo or something?

Yes, this is just my impression of him based on my own observations and my BULLSHIT DETECTOR.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

11. get real- Clark is ABSOLUTELY GREAT !!!

Speaks with an assured tone and has a position on EVERY issue.
Slander if you will with unbacked assenine statements.

The 4 STAR General would SMOKE BUSH any day of the year.
Any time any place end of story.
He knows War and knows it is something to be avoided.
National security?
Chimp let 911 happen! what a dillrod!
the gomer giligan doofus.
Clark said he would have Never let something like 911 happen.
Who ya gonna believe
-an awol idiot son of a bush
or a war hero Rhodes Scholar graduate of West Point and Oxford...?

Hands down Clark is our EZ winner in 04 !!!

[Shanty Oilish]

20. Slander?

He said what he thought. General Clark says he has a right to his opinion though it's unsupported by facts and the charge deadly.
If someone can say, in the presence of a general, that the C in C is a deserter, and the general is ok with that---even when the whole Dem party couldn't find supporting facts before we lost the presidency and the Congress to said deserter---why then is it slander to say one doesn't find the general credible in his very recently donned political outfit?

[overground1]

25. Thank you! And you know, Michael Moore said worse things about Clark

not all that long ago.
Lest we forget.

[Shanty Oilish]

30. Did he?

I must be the only one who doesn't know that, but then, I never heard of Mr. Moore until Clark rode in. I'll have to patch that. Thanks.

[Columbia]

31. Check out Bowling for Columbine

Where he condemned the operation of the war in Kosovo.

[overground1]

37. Yep. They are two peas in a pod. Neither have a shred of integrity.

After so roundly condemning Clark, Moore now campaigns for him.
Clark has shown he will say and do anything for a "promotion" and Moore will say and do anything for some publicity and a buck.

It's a match made in heaven.

[Shanty Oilish]

40. You are very cynical, overground1...

Anyone ever tell ya that? :)

[overground1]

42. Thank you!

:)
Though I like to think of it as experienced. ;)

[Shanty Oilish]

39. Patch installed

I went to his website. Now I know who he is, for example, the 'great tv satirist of the 1990's.'
No need to think about him any further. The general can keep his company and I wish him the joy of it.

[overground1]

43. Yeah, quite the political heavyweight, huh?

:eyes:

[Shanty Oilish]

65. Quite

:)

[NicRic]

67. KICK !!

The General is not a professional politician, and perhaps a little green behind the ears.However he is a fast learner and is going to blossom as this process moves foward. The republicians are scared to death of him being our choice and trying to help knock him out of the race early. I did not see anything wrong with him allowing another person to speak their mind ,why is it his job to defend a dishonest President ,whom has caused the deaths of many young milatary men with his oil war. To me the whole Moore/bush thing is a none issue, that would never happen if some repug General came out speaking agaist Clinton when he was President. No one should have to defend the idiot in office bush!

[Columbia]

68. The White House

Is decidedly not the time nor the place for a rookie to be learning how to be a Democrat.

As for the Republicans being afraid of Clark, I disagree. I think they would have an absolute field day with him. He would get destroyed in the general election. Republicans are cannibals didn't you know? They love to eat their own...

[krkaufman]

15. Yes, I have.

Yes, I've seen the General speak. Often, and over the course of the last number of years. He is impressive, and is the most intelligent candidate we've got going -- though Senator Edwards is, IMO, the best freewheeling speaker.

But I'm not looking for a trial lawyer, I'm looking for someone who can analyze the information available and make sound judgements. e.g. Clark is the *only* candidate who has put details into his criticism of Bush's elective war in Iraq and negligence in protecting the country from 9/11 -- repeatedly calling attention to the Richard Clarke Al Qaeda "Roll back" strategy delivered to the Bush Admin in Jan 2001.

Your faith-based criticism may well be "critical", but it's not backed up by anything more than Fox News slander.

[cryofan]

84. I kind of agree...but he is a LIBERAL doppelganger

And all of the other top candidates are arguably moderate. I would LIKE a liberal president, even if the liberals are his puppetmasters.

Look, we have a corporate capitalist doppleganger/puppet in office right now. Why not put a man in who is not really all tat interested in domestic policy? Clark is obviously only interested in foreign affairs. He seems willing to let his obviously very liberal handlers run the show, just as Bush has let the corporate looters associated with Cheney & Rove run the show.

[asjr]

12. I like Dean but

I don't know how he will play in the South. Edwards or Clark would do very well in the South. I am a little leery of Kerry. If he can win I will back him all the way, but this is not over by a long shot. Any one of the four could win. Iowa and New Hampshire is not the bottom line.

This may post twice. I am having computer problems.

[krkaufman]

16. Iowa and New Hampshire is not the bottom line.

E X A C T L Y !!!

This media spaz to have a candidate chosen after 1.5% of the delegates have been selected -- based on votes in states not representative of the overall population -- is INSANE!!

The only thing making these first two votes important is the irrational importance that the media is putting on them.

And the media's not done. We're heading into a week, from the 3rd-8th, when 10 more states will make their voices heard, but the media pros (as in prostitutes) are putting more emphasis on South Carolina than any of the other states.

GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!! I'll be lucky to live through this election cycle.


:)

[krkaufman]

17. p.s. Republican analysts

p.s. And could someone tell me why we have to suffer through Republican and right-wing pundits telling us Democrats who's winning/losing and what the candidates need to do to move onward?

GAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!

[hippywife]

33. Scares the HELL outta me, too!

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

This just smacks a little too much of "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." for me.

The fact that a candidate is deemed electable because he would inspire the right wing voters isn't exactly comforting. There's a reason why there is a wide span across the aisle-ideaology. Too bad the Dem leadership has forgotten this. Sidling up to the right is what lost 2002 for the Dem party.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Columbia]

46. That's part of the problem

He seems too much of a 'textbook' liberal if you will. It's as if someone ripped a page out of the Democratic training manual and turned it into his policy sheet. Maybe that is how he truly is inside, but I'm more inclined to believe that that is what he is saying because he was told it is the only way to get elected President.

[overground1]

48. Ding Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

It's good to see someone else here who actually thinks critically and doesn't believe everything they see on TV. ;)

[magatte]

50. so basically any outsider is automacally forbiden to even think of runing

Wow and me who thought that 10 year in public office WASN'T one of the requirement to run for president in this country. So basically you have to be an insider through and through to satisfy people like you... Great. Good luck with progress (if that is a word you even respect).

[Columbia]

52. Outsiders are great...

But not ones that have issues that morph to the prevailing winds. Consistency is key and the general just doesn't have it.

[overground1]

54. Right. Inconsistency is a sign of someone without any solid beliefs.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[overground1]

60. how about you take off the blinders instead

and see Clark for what he really is, instead of what you'd like him to be.
Clark is just your own "Generic Democrat".

[Columbia]

61. To me, he's just a...

'Refurbished and Newly Repackaged Democrat'

[cryofan]

88. so maybe he is more open to ADVICE from "textbook" LIBERALS

THat is the kind of president we want: one who is mainly interested in foreign policy, and will leave the domestic agenda to his longtime supporters--who are obviously textbook liberals, as has been pointed out above.

[magatte]

56. Wes has been true and consistent, as far as policy goes

Show me the inconsistencies. I will show you some courageous stands, like the one on gay rights, the one on flag burning, the 3 precent tax hike on millionaires. The guy could have easily chosen the Edwards route and avoid left, avoid right.
Please show you inconsistencies.

[overground1]

58. ok.. try abortion and IWR, for starters.

[mikehiggins]

98. Abortion and IWR

Did you read the interview that story began with? What do you think of the exchange?

As to the IWR, let's see what Richard Perle says in his testimony to Congress right after the testimony Clark gave that is so widely quoted by the right wing:

PERLE: (in regard to Clark’s testimony) No, I don't believe it and frankly I don't think he made a very convincing case in support of that cliche but it was one of many cliches. At the end of the day when you sought to elicit from him a reconciliation of the view that time is on our side with what he acknowledged to be our ignorance of how far along Saddam Hussein is, he had no explanation. He seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies as though we hadn't been through diplomacy for the last decade, and relegating the use of force to a last resort, to building the broadest possible coalition, in short a variety of very amorphous, ephemeral concerns alongside which there's a stark reality and that is that every day that goes by, Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has, improving their capabilities, improving the means with which to deliver them and readying himself for a future conflict. So I don't believe that time is on our side and I don't believe that this fuzzy notion that the most important thing is building legitimacy, as if we lack legitimacy now, after all the U.N. resolutions that he's in blatant violation of, I don't believe that that should be the decisive consideration. So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.

-----

So, the guy who was one of the original architects of the Iraq War says Clark just doesn't want to go, who would be better suited to know?

Bonus question (before you get to it): as to being a Democrat? If Bill Clinton, Dave Dinkins, George McGovern and all those others think Clark is a Democrat, what's the problem?

Your problem with Clark is systemic so there is no way to communicate any information. It is your persistence that makes Clark people figure you're probably shilling for Kerry or others. Lots of luck. The Clark hard core is REALLY hard core. We wouldn't be here if we weren't.

Most of us, like those I meet at the meetups in my state, are older and very experienced in politics on the local, State and Federal level. We weren't satisfied with the nine original candidates so we looked for one of our own to put forward so thoughtful Democrats could make a real choice.

Nothing we've seen so far has done anything to change our opinions (except maybe we're coming to like Howard Dean more since he's now in our part of town) and neither will snipers from the other side. The race is in the hands of the voters now, and that's where it should have been from the start.

[Columbia]

59. Policy?

The only time he ever had to write policy was for this election and I'm sure he had plenty of help.

As for inconsistency, let's look at his presidential voting record (a mix of Democrats and Republicans), his military record (fired from his post as NATO Supreme Commander, bombed civilians but is now anti-war) and his public speeches (supporting the Iraq war and the Bush administration). That's just a start.

[overground1]

53. "Progress"? What's wrong with the Democrats we have?

You trust our party to some guy who only registered as a Democrat because he knew he couldn't win the Republican primary against an incumbent?
:wow:
Just how far have we lowered the bar for what is acceptable in this party?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[hippywife]

63. Propaganda?

I think it is time to take your own advice and READ!! The link I posted was General Clark in his OWN words. Anytime I bring up this article, his supporters either back away silently, refusing to comment, or get their feathers totally ruffled. Why is that? I didn't write it.

There's gonna be a little problem if the eventual nominee is someone who voted for, supported in any manifestation, or praised the Iraqi war effort. Bush can't win on his domestic policies. He's going to have to rely heavily on his "victory" in Iraq and the fear many in this country have since 9/11 and the "war on terra". It's going to go something like this:

DEM NOMINEE (other than Kucinich or Sharpton): Mr. Preident, the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was illegal, our troops died for your lies...there were no WMD's!

BUSH: But Mr. (insert your favorite candidate here) you

a.) also stated that you believed that Hussein had WMD's.
b.) voted for the IWR.
c.) supported Biden-Lugar amendment.
d.) praised this Administration's handling of the conflict.
e.) All of the above.

DN: Um well, what I meant to say was....

http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR012304.htm

Bush already has a record of taking action in the minds of the frightened. Why would they choose anyone else when this happens?

I'm not here much because I am working fulltime and working a campaign. When I'm not, I'm READING and WRITING articles so there aren't many things I'm missing about any of the candidates.

Thanks for the implication that I can't use my education, though. Much appreciated.

[overground1]

66. *perfect post*

Way to lay it out, exactly as it will go down.
:yourock:

[magatte]

81. my two points,,,

One, in your earlier post you label Clark a Republican, which is simply spouting off propaganda and I stand by that. You haven't shown (nor has the article you linked to shown) how any of his social or economic policies will rank him as a conservative. You have an agenda and paint him with whatever brush you like.

Second, this article WAS CRITICAL of the Bush governemnt. He is giving comfort and praise to the troops, but paints a very sobering picture of the situation and repeatedly attacks the Bush administration on its intentions and handling of the whole thing. I can give you quotes from Dean to Kerry, via Edwards that were far more gushing for that same occasion, with everyone trying not to look disrespectful to the troops. Clarks article is a detailled militaro/political analysis of the situation after the army marched into Baghdad. If you chose to highlight fragments out of context that doesn't make them truthful or relevant.

I guess bias survives education... ;)

(BTW I like Dennis, my only point against him was his seemingly backward (union-baiting) position on free-trade, but I have since had the opportunity to read his position in more details and it is more flexible than I thought. He is a good guy.)

[hippywife]

106. If you had followed the thread

to that point, you would have read how folks are claiming that Clark has appeal for Republican voters. That is what I was responding to in my first post. And since you brought up the so called propaganda, I have to admit that I'm not comfortable with his pedigree, either.

As far as the article only being praise for the troops, may I point out that while the war was being decried the world over as the illegal and illegitimate attack that it was, Clark paints it in a most glowing light:

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

While he is critical of what must take place to insure final victory, this is hardly calling the war what it was. He celebrates it as an exercise in liberation which we all know that it was not. Hence the comment "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." because that was the first thing that came to my mind the second after reading that first paragraph. "erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold action" sound an awful lot like words of support for the operation.

And to top things off:


As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Notice he doesn't paint himself as one of the opponents "who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the war." He excluded himself from that group by praising Bush and Blair and excluding himself from those that "are temporarily silent."

[bowens43]

78. "TO THE LEFT of most of the people running for the Democratic party "

Says who? Wesley Clark? Sorry, not good enough. His history belies his rhetoric. There is nothing to indicate that he actually supported or believed in any of his so called policies before he decided that running as Republican wasn't an option. His policies seem to be ripped right out of the pages of 'Liberals for Dummies'. He seems to be saying whatever he believes we want to hear with out regard to feasibility. Pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

Read? All we have are Clark's words...... nothing to support them.

[Lurking Dem]

80. His working to

improve housing and schools for military families under his Command and the environmental records of the bases he was assigned to was......what? A ploy for maybe running for President someday?

[bowens43]

87. How is improving

military housing and schools a for the military families a liberal issue? Seems to me that that was his DUTY as was ensuring that bases under his command obey applicable environmental laws.

BTW, do you have a cite for your assertions? Something that doesn't begin with 'Clark said'?

[mikehiggins]

99. I guess that was all Clark wrote

since it is frequently repeated over and over again, along with the testimony before Congress that shows Clark really wanted the war all along.

I guess it is too difficult to come up with the reams and reams of paper columns and transcripts of all those times Clark supported the war. It wasn't like he was invisible, right?

What a terrible thing to be caught between George Bush and Wesley Clark. Thank God we have Dennis Kuchinich here to win the WHite House and make everything okay.

What a relief.

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. OBVIOUSLY, you haven't taken ANY time

to read or LEARN about Clark. But, go ahead and continue your "critical thinking" OK? :eyes:

[cryofan]

82. I basically agree with you. And that is one reason I support Clark

Whatever candidate is elected has, at least to some degree, to back up his election rhetoric with action once elected. Clark has proposed the most progressive actions with respect to taxes. Therefore, I think it most likely that he will take the most progressive actions once in office.

It is apparent, much as it is to you, that Clark is largely unconcerned with domestic policy. His domestic agenda has obviously been crafted by someone else. That's good, as far as I am concerned. He has effectively turned over the domestic agenda to his supporters. I like that.

[TakebackAmerica]

105. HERE YOU GO!

On the Issues


Learn how Wes Clark's life experience and vision will provide a higher standard of leadership for America.
› About Wes Clark
› Career Highlights
› On the Issues
› In the News
› Essential Reading
› Watch "American Son"
› Frequently Asked Questions
Wes Clark has a vision for an even greater America.
His vision addresses the real problems that face real people every day. His strategies for national and economic security invest in people while returning the country to a path of long-term fiscal discipline. Clark believes that, together, we can build a safer, stronger America for our children.

› Download Policy Briefs


Families First Tax Reform Plan
Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is a major tax simplification proposal that will restore progressivity to the tax code, relieve the working-family squeeze and reduce poverty.

Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 would pay no federal income taxes, and all taxpaying families with children making up

› Wes Clark's Families First Tax Calculator




Turnaround Plan for America
The Turnaround Plan for American outlines specific, measurable domestic agendas that Wes Clark will achieve in his first term as President.
› Read Wes Clark's Promise to America
› Download "Turnaround for America" PDF
› Goal 1: Family Income
› Goal 2: Environment
› Goal 3: Higher Education
› Goal 4: Child Poverty
› Goal 5: Health Care


Overview of Wes Clark's Policies
Economy & Jobs
Families First: Tax Reform
› Short version
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Economic Plan
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Economic Vision
› Download PDF
Job Creation
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Restarting the American Jobs Engine
› Download PDF
Manufacturing Security Plan
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Wes Clark's Agenda for Cities
› Download PDF
Rural & Farm Security Plan
› Download PDF
Fighting for Labor
› Download PDF
Poverty
› Download PDF
Education
Education Policy
› Download PDF
Universal Preschool
› Download PDF
Higher Education
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
School Equity
› Download PDF Health Care
Health Care Plan
› Read the speech
› Download Short PDF
› Download Long PDF
› 3rd party analysis PDF
› 3rd party comparison PDF
Improving our Health Care
› Download PDF
Prescription Drug Benefits for America's Seniors
› Download PDF
Global AIDS Security Strategy
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Domestic AIDS Security Strategy
› Download PDF
Stem Cell Research
› Download PDF
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Grand Rounds: Mental Health Care
› Read the speech
Environment
Protecting the Environment
› Download PDF
Clean Air Plan
› Read the speech National Security
Success Strategy in Iraq
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Al Qaeda Plan
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
10 Pledges
› Download PDF
Air Transportation Security
› Download PDF
New Atlantic Charter
› Remarks on Restoring America's Alliances
Middle East
Op-Ed from Forward › Remarks To The Arab American Institute Leadership Conference
Other
A Higher Standard of Leadership
› Download PDF
Government Openness Policy
› Download PDF
Gun Safety Policy
› Download PDF
Civil Liberties and the USA PATRIOT Act
› Download PDF
Service Plan
› Read the speech
› Download PDF
Statement on the Civil Justice System
› Download PDF
Statement on the School of the Americas
› Download PDF
Securing Voters' Rights
› Download PDF

American Communities
African Americans
African-American Position Paper
› Download PDF

Op-Ed for Detroit Free Press

GLBT
› Statement on GLBT Issues
› Equal Rights for All Should Mean All
Veterans
› A Veterans' Security Plan
› Veterans for Clark
Asian Pacific Americans
› Agenda for Asian Pacific Americans
› Download PDF
Irish Americans
› Statement to the Irish American Community
American Indians
& Alaska Natives
Making Good on America's Promises
› Download PDF
› Read the speech
Hispanic
› Hispanic & Latino Position Paper (en español)

Fulfilling America's Promise To The People Of Puerto Rico
› Download PDF

Washington DC
Voting Rights
Statement on Voting Rights and Home Rule for the District of Columbia
› Download PDF American Expatriates
Agenda for American Expatriates
› Download PDF
Disabilities
› Statement on Disabilities
› Download PDF
› Read the speech
› Clark04 Event Accessibility Guidelines
Seniors
Seniors Make America Great
› Download PDF
› Download PDF (large font version)
› Prescription Drug Benefits for America's Seniors
Women

Valuing Women

Securing Equal Pay for Women for Equal Work

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose



http://clark04.com/issues/

[wal]

14. Kerry / Kucinich in '04

Clark is a blow-in - Kerry has 30 years as a Democrat.
Also, he's honest, courageous, and his quiet integrity appeals to the middle ground voter.
Campaign for your favourite, but when the primaries are done, vote for the Real Deal - John Kerry.

[woldnewton]

22. Clark's poor showing in NH proves he should have tried running Republican

The idea that Clark is "too liberal" to have made inroads against Bush is ridiculous and offset by several very important aspects of American electoral history:

1) Moderate Republicans, Independents, not to mention CROSSOVER Democrats who saw the more ridiculous episodes of the Democratic contenders sniping at each other and especially at Dean could have voted for a serious Republican challenger. If RepubliKKKans challenged the legitimacy of the cross-voting (as you know they have to), the oppositions could counter with what happened to Cynthia McKinney. If they wanted to throw out cross votes, they would have to take the chance of reinstating McKinney to her seat. I don't think they want to do that.

2) Even some far right KKKonservatives would have voted for a serious challenger regardless of his idealogy to express their tremendous disappointment with Bush. Historically KKKonservatives have voted for a Democrat when the Republican incumbent has simply gone too far, not because they necessarily prefer the Democrat, but to send the incumbent a message.

3) There are several different Republican challengers to Bush that qualified for various state primaries. None of them had a shot. Clark would have.

4) Wasn't the field of Democrats crowded enough before Clark declared at the late date that he did?

5) Clark was hedging his bets on NH, bypassing Iowa all together. And guess what? He still lost even after the media vultures did their best to excoriate Dean.

6) Challenging Bush as a Republican in a primary election would have given the American people the opportunity to fight Bush on two fronts. Clark blew it.

[Shanty Oilish]

32. What probably happened

(Unless Gov. Dean is correct and the general is a Republican), Clark probably spent some time last year exploring his options, whether to run for president as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. By elimination of R and I as less feasible, he went with D.
That's how it looks to me and being a Democrat I prefer candidates who are Democrats first and presidential aspirants later. Much later.

[roguevalley]

35. So basically, if your family didn't step off the Mayflower as dems, you

aren't credible. You know, Ashcroft spews this kind of
narrow thinking. I hate to think that the gates are
closed if you can't show you are at least 3/4 dem on your
family tree.

Good grief. Like the repug talking points here. Makes
me smile. Poor showing in NH? Right.

[overground1]

36. What hyperbole! Clark didn't become a "Democrat" until after retirement!

That is a small part of what is at issue here.
But there is oh so much more to it, too.

[magatte]

44. please.....!

He is from Arkansas, where one COULDN'T even register one's party affiliation even if they wanted until recently. AND he voted Democratic in the past three presidential election, AND he has values that are purely democratic, And he has campaigned for this party outside of this election.

STOP TAKING CHEAP PROPAGANDA POTSHOTS.

[overground1]

49. This isn't the only party he's campaigned for... just ask Karl Rove.

[magatte]

51. No I'll ask you, Mr Insidious comment

Show us your wisdom. Karl Rove said something about Clark??? I am all ears.

[overground1]

55. No, but Clark said some nice things about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ect

at quite a few Republican fundraisers not too long ago.

[Shanty Oilish]

62. I distinctly remember his coyness

when Hannity begged him to admit he was a Dem. Clark demurred. That was late last summer. Nobody was asking him to register, just to acknowledge that he was a Democrat and nothing else. And what do you mean 'until recently' one couldn't register as a Dem in Arkansas? Of course one could.
I have noticed that opposition to Clark is rather frequently characterized here as slander, propaganda, etc. I believe that is nothing more than name-calling itself. One should argue the opponent's points, not hang tags on them.
However, in some cases, it is difficult to argue. For example, the general's praise of the Bush team speaks for itself and one can't explain it away.
Wesley Clark is an unknown quantity, politically. You don't know what you're getting. There's a term for that but it would probably be misread as name calling.
Also, I would take issue with your statement "He has values that are purely democratic." Even small d democratic. The man is a soldier and while we all have some democratic values, a career soldier, a general, usually has decidedly non-democratic values. Military values. I'm very leery of that possibility with regard to Wesley Clark.

[overground1]

64. Indeed. Clark is a leap of blind faith that I'm just not willing to take.

[Shanty Oilish]

69. And honest men wouldn't expect you to.

Nor even most politicians.

[bowens43]

74. We're not talking about 'being a dem' here.

We are talking about giving the top leadership position in our party and the presidency of the United States of America to a man who has absolutely NO verifiable history of supporting our candidates or our causes. I would love to see Clark run for the presidency after he proves himself , after he earns his his stripes as a Democrat. If he truly believes in our party and believes the rhetoric he is spouting then he should spend some time in congress trying to enact the legislation he claims to support. He should actually spend some time as a Democrat before demanding the top prize. I believe absolutely that if Gore was president now, Clark would be fighting it out in the Republican primaries.

[mikehiggins]

101. Clark's poor showing. Lets look at the videotape

Clark was defeated handily by two "local" boys, both professional politicians of many years standing. One was supported openly by the former Governor and the senior Senator (that'd be Ted Kennedy, by the way). The other was supported by the actual winner in 2000, Al Gore, and a whole covey of others.

One was coming off an amazing victory in Iowa and the other had a quick change of packaging and resumed the powerful campaign that had come off the tracks because of the media.

Both were constantly in the media, a media which only mentioned Clark to dismiss him and write him off as a loser and an amatuer, a poseur at politics.

In turn, Clark managed to beat two Senators, a Congressman and a minister with a large national following.

Not bad for someone who started running in September with no staff, no campaign, no organization and only a promise of money.

We should all do so badly.

[roughsatori]

24. I can generalize too: Clark won't get out the Democratic vote

But then again your argument seems to be (many of Clark's supporters make the same argument) that Republicans like him and will vote for him.

I don't pick a candidate based on how much Republican friends and family like a Democratic Primary nominee.

Then again, I may be too left-wing: I can not be FRIENDS with ANY Republican, let alone go to them for advice on who I should vote for in a Presidential race.

[krkaufman]

27. The word is "inclusion"

> I can not be FRIENDS with ANY Republican, let alone
> go to them for advice on who I should vote for in a
> Presidential race.

That's hardly the empathetic values that I thought we were all supposed to have.


> But then again your argument seems to be that
> Republicans like him and will vote for him.

Wrong. He will make it easier for dissatisfied Republicans and right-leaning Independents to vote Democratic this time around -- and get Bush out of office. They're called swing voters. Kinda key.


> Clark won't get out the Democratic vote

If the "Democratic vote" can bring itself out to remove Bush from office, then they'll deserve the military state that they get.

[bowens43]

77. So you're saying we should nominate him

because he's like 'them' and he will attract them. Guess what, we don't need 'them'. Dissatisfied Republicans will NOT, in any significant number, vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is, they will vote third party or stay home.

It's the old 'we had burn down the village to save it ' mentality.

No thanks, we have better options. There are worse things then four more years of bush.

[mikehiggins]

102. Ah, there you go again

No, politically and socially there is no worst thing than four more years of Bush, unless you factor in an atomic war or one of Stephen King's global plagues.

If Bush gets back into office there may well be no elections in 2008 or "for the duration of the present emergency."

Can't happen here? I guess that figures. You just said there were worse things than four more years of Bush.

Wake up bunky! The barn's on fire.

[AP]

45. Clark's biography is the best think about him. He's a weak campaigner.

Think of Reagan and Clinton as master campaigners. Reagan was nothing. All he had was persona. Clinton was everything the Repubicans hated and had to be a master campaigner to survive attacks on all those things they hate.

Clark doesn't have very many (if any) of the skills of a master campaigner. He had NH to himself, a huge dedicated following on the internet, and money, and he went down just about every day over the last two weeks in NH. He's competiting for the same territory as Kerry, and is not grabbing the hearts and minds of people in that battle. Furthermore, he's not in control of the media represetation of his discourse.

This became clear to me when I saw his son on CSPAN. His son was great. He had passion. He was able to say what was at stake. He talked about his biography in a way which explained logicially why he was a democrat and why he felt he had a lot at stake in the next election.

In other words, he was able to do everything his father has been unable to do, all with an extremely pleasant, compassionate, sincere personality.

[bowens43]

70. I disagree on every point.

The only thing that would be worse then Clark getting the nomination would be Clark winning in the general election. I think a Clark presidency would spell disaster for our party. We don't need to move further to the right. We don't need to become like them in order to beat them in the general election. We don't need 'cross party appeal' to win the election. We don't need a southerner to win the election. We don't need a 'new way' if that 'new way' means abandoning our principles and handing our party over to the likes of General Clark.

Did you know that Dean received a much higher percentage of the military vote in NH then Clark did. Hmmmm. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it.

"the best chance of actually being able to move some legislation in a Republican-controlled Congress."

You're kidding right? Have you listened to what Clark has to say? There is no way in hell ANYTHING he has proposed will get through a republican controlled congress which means he's either disingenuous with the Democratic voters or he's an idiot and we know he's not an idiot.

[Columbia]

71. Thanks

For a welcome dose of reality. :toast:

[Shanty Oilish]

72. His vaunted resume is a basic reason he should never be president

A nation at war, this kind of war with its threat aimed at civilian populations, does not need more trouble coming from the leadership. It doesn't need a military general at the top. One tends to attract more, and we don't need a government thick with military personnel.

There used to be an understanding of the need for civilian control of the military. Seems to have gotten lost, perhaps because American law and culture was too healthy to worry about a military overthrow, but it's not real healthy now. No, I am not saying Wesley Clark is out to overthrow democracy. I'm saying he's career military and thinks like it, he's authoritarian and hierarchical and he goes about a problem in a military way, and will probably surround himself with similar people. On the Clark website I note that he believes the civilian service corps may conscript civilians in times of crisis. That right there speaks volumes.

Note the word "first" in this sentence: "The Civilian Reserves program would offer a more flexible approach that can appeal first to volunteers in order to match their skills with the needs of specific crises..."

And here: "During a crisis, if sufficient volunteers were not available, the President would have the authority to call-up as many as 5,000 Civilian Reserves..."

Do you want to be one of his civilian reserves? I don't. Do you trust his judgment as to what constitutes sufficient crisis to draft a civilian into whatever form of service he sees fit? I don't.

In times like these, the better a general he is, the less I want him in the White House. Civilian presidents leave when we tell them. Read history---or look around today---and see what military leaders do.

And then there's his excellence as a general. That's not beyond dispute either.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Shanty Oilish]

73. A few more quotes

from clark04.com

"When our country was attacked by a terrifying new barbarism on Sept. 11, 2001, the American people stood ready and willing to be mobilized to serve a cause greater than self."

"General Clark also {sic} Senators McCain, Bayh and others to broaden the Senior Corps, expand the Peace Corps, enhance the service component of college work-study programs, and bring a new generation of citizen soldiers into the military through a short-term enlistment option."

"Challenging all Americans over age 18 to make themselves available for service."

Some form of the word "mobilize" is used 13 times on that page.

[bowens43]

75. It's all that he has.....

Clark's entire campaign is based on capitalizing on the fear that has been cultivated by the bush administration. He attempts to paint the militarization of a civilian government and a nation as a good thing. He tries to make us believe that his military career is not only relevent but a needed attribute for the presidency. He is a man who has spent his entire adult life training to apply military solutions to political problems. There is no place in a civilian government for a general.

His support for a flag desecration amendment was enough to rule him out in my book. Anyone who is willing, after taking an oath to defend the Constitution, to amend the Constitution to place limitations on freedom cannot be trusted.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[citizen snips]

79. Clark has made too many bad decisions.

He came into the race to late, he skipped Iowa, and he flipped-flopped his decision on abortion. And Clark has no political experience.

[magatte]

86. By the way, while we are on the subject

What is Edwards position on Abortion? Just curious.

But my main point would be to avoid falling for such easy traps. Details about their differences in supporting and defending the right to chose. They are all committed to it. This kind of thing should be a non-issue but kept gettinng pressed on by repubes and the whores that seemingly run most of stateside media and somehow managees to become the focal point of a democratic primary. It is pretty crazy, pretty sad. None of these condidates is going to overturn RoeVsWAde, none of them will appoint a judge that might have an inlking to do that, none of the will take steps to limit a woman's choice in any way. The real issues and the real differences are on an other level (electability, abilty to foster progress, ability to responsibly manage the economy, ability to responsibly use force, ability to reunite this country and put it back on good rails.)
Refuse to become a resonance box for the pundits and repub you see on TV trying to frame our debate such as tio suck out all life and relevance out of them.

[citizen snips]

95. This is Edwards position on abortion.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/women_families.asp

[digno dave]

89. open up

Clark needsto refine his approach in a big way. He's not slick enough to be dancing around issues like he is prone to do. He makes too many mistakes and draw attention to himself in a bad way. Time to speak from the heart and let the chips fall where they may.

[MoonRiver]

91. Amen.

My head and my heart are 100% with the General!

[copithorne]

92. I'm a good liberal.

And Wesley Clark is a man of dazzling character and integrity. I really haven't seen anybody quite like him. I'd really have to think that all you'd have to do is listen to the guy and you'd see it too.

But sadly, it's like my priest said after George Bush got enough votes to get into the white house. He said that Americans have no ability to judge character. They don't. It's a total mystery to them.

The majority of Americans know as much about Chinese classical poetry as they know about character.

I also think that Wesley Clark is the only candidate who can beat George Bush. It's conceivable to me that George Bush might lose to some other candidates. I don't think it's likely. But Wesley Clark will beat George Bush like a drum. He will rally millions of Republicans and independents in a political realignment that will make it possible to progress in this country.

I don't understand why anyone would say that Wesley Clark is to the right on anyone in the Democratic race. Or that he is opportunistic. Or that he doesn't speak clearly. The fact that he is a military man or that he used to vote Republican is a gift to the Democratic party. If we can accept the gift, we'll change history for the better.

[Clark Can WIN]

93. Clark is also this nation's best chance to begin bridging the divide that'

Clark is also this nation's best chance to begin bridging the divide that's grown between the parties.

I couldn't agree more. I remember when it was ok to have differences of opinion with each other without all this hate. I'm tired of it, and I don't care who started it frankly. That's a discussion best left to a grammar school playground. Clark can help mend this and get us out of this unholy war.

I choose Clark.

[HootieMcBoob]

96. yup

if Clark isn't nominated we've missed a golden opportunity for this party.

[windansea]

103. Clark is the man we need to win n/t

[WHAT]

104. We need a strategist...

in the White House as president. Someone as good as Putin. I'm a Kucinich supporter and will continue to support him because of his message...but the media will not allow his viability as a canidate. They are trying to shut-out Clark, too. The two smartest canidates that are consciousable and competent. Both of these canidates have different perspectives and emphasis on foreign and domestic policy but they are both policy makers which is actually what politics is...so, they are both good politicians in the sense of "statesmanship".

Because I like both canidates, I've been examining the importance of domestic policy vs. foreign policy...and, at this time, think foreign policy might be more important because if our foreign standing stays the same we will see a further decline in domestic security. Also, the Harvard geniuses who screwed Russia will be putting the cost of Putin's education on us...economicaly and in world standing. Colin Powell sitting in a tree with a bb gun isn't going to do any good, either.

Well, back on topic. I want a smart man with good intentions leading our country. Someone who can prioratize because that's what strategy is...like a rubric's cube where you have to get the coloured square in the right place and you have to be able to manipulate all the other positions to insure that one position.

Also, I would choose the type of globalism that unites the people of the world...not the tribalism of a band of corporate brigands. That's what our new foreign policy is, tribalism that represents a shrinking of co-operation and limits opportunity and creativity for people everywhere.

In closing and while I'm at it...having had an opportunity to see all the potential first ladies this past week in New Hampshire, Clark's wife impressed me more than the other's because of her seeming good nature and vitality.

My convoluted thoughts on the presidental canidate...