Why I continue to be very uneasy about Clark

[Eloriel]

In one of the debates, he framed so many of his answers in terms of the only real life expereince he had: the military. Military allusions, military solutions.

Yesterday with Wolf Blitzer, he blatantly insisted that we need a military man -- a CINC -- to protect us in this day and age. I frankly reject that. We need to DEmilitarize this nation.

Not only that, but it sinks to the level of demagoguery: playing on people's fears to gain support. That's what Bush has done, and it's unsettling in the extreme to find it in a Dem candidate.

Finally, if he's sincere -- that is, if he himself believes that -- then I'm all the more unsettled and would worry about someone who (a) sees the world thru a military lens and (b) believes only a military person can handle things right now and (c) is that fearful himself (which would certainly make him prone to all those military solutions at his disposal).

If he's NOT sincere, well, what does that say?

No, even aside from his questionable ties, Clark is not the man for the job.

Eloriel

[mmonk]

1. Why I feel uneasy about Dean.....

he'll lose.

[Forkboy]

Bringing up another candidate in defense of your own

is weak and helps no one,especially your candidate.

[mmonk]

19. Attacking another candidate

is weak and helps no one, including her candidate.

[Forkboy]

25. I dont see it as an attack

voicing concerns is just that.If you dont consider them valid explain why instead of jumping on a different candidate as a defense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. In fairness to Eloriel

I don't see this as an attack, which is why I am willing to participate in this thread so far. I believe the feelings are quite sincere. I winced a little with the reference to demagoguery, but that wasn't a direct accusation. To be honest, I surprised myself by ending up in the camp backing a retired 4 Star General.

[ShaneGR]

118. Well, there's already a couple more anti-Clark Eloriel threads

So it's an attack.

[mmonk]

88. I've explained many times

probably as many times as posts about him being militaristic (or a risk thereof). After awhile, you give up because no one really listens. She can have reservations if she wants. I'm just tired of hearing how he is such a risk towards militarism or the like and definitely not for the job. Besides being military as all generals are, he has a Masters in Economics, Philosophy, and Political Science. He is a licensed Investment banker. He already has worked with world leaders in a multi-lateral way. He is the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He speaks four languages. He wants to rebuild all of the relationships the Bush administration has done damage to. He wants Iraq's transition and political future determined by a consensus of other countries and not headed by an American. He wants to take the American face off of the occupation. He wants every country to try and work together to eliminate terrorism. He is concerned about one party rule and civil liberties. I could go on, but there's no one here that really is interested other than those that already know and that's a problem. He has administrative experience, foreign policy experience, and knows the world quite well. Nobody in the race has a more impressive resume to take on Bush IMO.

[Scott Lee]

103. Leave it to ADJHS to turn this thread into a tit for tat

Note to self: Never start a thoughtful thread about a candidate other than my own.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

89. childish?

I would think "questionable ties" is childish. What ties?

[Bread and Circus]

93. Why I totally dislike Dean....

he's just a political hack and no one can see it...

Inasmuch Bush had no clothes, neither does Dean.

[PSU84]

117. LOL

Yup.

[Forkboy]

2. "playing on people's fears to gain support"

I have yet to see a politician in my lifetime that doesn't resort to this tactic.Repubs have it mastered but the other side is hardly above doing the same.

Other than that I agree with you.I'm not comfortable with Clark either.

[HereSince1628]

33. With respect to correlating conservative politics and personality

terror management was the most strongly linked of 8 descriptors in the paper by Jost et al. entitled Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. It was published in the May 03 issue of the Psych
Bulletin.

So I share the concern that playing with fear promotes the public's perception that the world is very dangerous and must be approached conservatively.

At the same time, 911 showed us that the world can be a scary place, and no democrat is going to get elected by saying there is nothing to be concerned about.

I'm very interested in reading and hearing about how the candidates want to deal with it.

Frankly, I don't think terror is going to be fought effectively with the traditionaly military.

[La_Serpiente]

3. I think he is trying to

highlight the differences between himself and the other candidates. Every candidate has a trait of theirs to exploit or showcase. His, of course, is his military background. It is his experience, along with his ideas and policies, that may possibly set him to be the nominee.

[neuvocat]

4. Why should you feel uneasy?

Do you think Clark might win the nomination?

[Demobrat]

5. What scares me

is that his whole life is war and the military. Why would a man like that want peace?

[Richardo]

7. Often it's those that have been in combat that use force as a last resort

Unlike chickenhawks who think it's all a Rambo movie.

[bobbieinok]

8. So how do you explain Eisenhower???????

He ended the Korean War.

In 1954 he shut Nixon up when Nixon wanted to go into Vietnam to help the French who had just lost a major battle at Dien bien Phu.

He said then that he would not permit American soldiers to get bogged down in a land war in Asia.

His farewell address warned about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

The argument is that career military who have personal experience of war are much less apt to grab some military solution than 'warrior wannabees', aka 'chickenhawks'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I never got near the military

Organized against the Viet Nam War and planned to go to Canada before drawing a high lottery number. But I have met quite a few ex Military Officers in my current line of work. They certainly aren't pacifists, but the ones I have met do not glorify war at all. They are usually more reluctant to suggest or support potential conflicts than the civilian bosses. Many do believe in wasting a lot of money on advanced weapon sytems, but they aren't at all eager to use them. Many know people who died in battle, and don't want to see more of it if it can be avoided. A lot of them think that a strong defence is the only way to ensure peace, which I don't agree with, especially in a post Cold War world. Don't confuse all American miitary personel with "Soldier of Fortune" subscribers

[tinrobot]

11. He wants peace...

...because in war, soldiers die. Most military people do not like war because it kills their friends.

Funny how all the people in the administration who lead the rush to war were those who had never been to war themselves. It just shows that your assumption is false - electing a non-military president will not guarantee peace any more than electing a military president will guarantee war.

[jmaier]

15. Military is not pro-war

Demobrat,

I've spent a great deal of my professional life in or around the military. While there are some "gung-ho" types, they tend to be more conservative about committing troops to combat or peacekeeping situations than many politicians -- especially the current lot.

They train for war so that they can acquit themselves well for their country when called upon but those who have had prior combat experience are not usually quick to want to repeat it. Clark, it appears to me, is in this category. As was Colin Powell until his conscience was co-opted by this administration.

Listen to retired military leaders like Anthony Zinni, in addition to Wes Clark. They are not proponents of this Iraq adventure and think it's counterproductive from a national security perspective.

I'm not particularly found of doctors. From my experience, they are often arrogant and have very poor interpersonal skills. However, that doesn't disqualify Howard Dean from being a potentially good president.

I really get bored reading this "broad brush" attacks against any of the candidates that appeal to prejuidice or negative stereotyping versus reason, fact or evidence.

[jokerman93]

22. Please don't tell me

you let yourself be so simplistic about the way the world works and the way human beings think?

A military man or woman is not defacto a crazed war-loving killing machine. The military, throughout Western civilization, has been part of the social apparatus that has prepared leaders for prominent positions in commerse, politics and high society.

The officer corp has always seen itself as a bastion of civilizing influence. Remember the concept of an "officer and a gentlemen"? Remember concepts like honor, legitimate defense of national boundaries?

Unless you're a member of Starfleet, a strong military is as necessary for nation-states today as a strong immune system is to a healthy body. The military is the apparatus of the state that is empowered to say "NO" and back it up with muscle.

Just because the Bush family has used the American military as a huge personal crew of gangbangers, doesn't mean there isn't an honorable tradition in there somewhere still!

Sorry I didn't mean to be offensive, but really! Try not to globalize like that, it weakens the force of your ideas.

[Demobrat]

28. Didn't he lose his command

because he wanted to attack the Russians? Or was that somebody else?

[Tummler]

41. No

Clark was fired when he disobeyed a direct order to stop eating Christian babies.

http://www.clarkmyths.com/myth4.html

[mikehiggins]

43. He lost his command

because he had the guts to risk his 30+ years in the military to keep a million or so Albanians from being exterminated by genocide.

There was no oil involved, and no real US interest except for taking a stand against something evil.

And he did lose his career over it, but he never complained or ran to the press or sued anyone. He just hung up his hat and moved on.

Clark is a decent man who isn't afraid to do the right thing for other people. He isn't perfect by any standards, neither in his history or his politics, but he is a good man with character and standards, the kind of guy we should be happy to have as a President.

Just the fact that people like him exist puts the lie to the Bush's and neocons of the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. That's kind of a badly mangled version. Short answer: No

For a good overall discussion of Clark's relations with the Pentagon etc as NATO Commander go to this thread where many good links were posted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=798403

The story about the Russians was something Clark reported himself in his first book. Russia was traditionally close to Serbia and very reluctant to lose influence in the region while NATO was opposing Servbian Nationalist forces promoted by Milosevic. At one point a very small group of Russian troops landed and took control of an airport in the region so that they could excerpt greater influence on the conflict through their presence there. Clark had earlier wanted to take control of that airport to prevent something just like that happening. He discussed the situation with the Pentagon, and was given backing on his plan of action. A british General, however, who had troops on the ground, did not want to in any way confront the Russians, saying "He didn't want to start WOrld War Three" or something like that, way over the top. But because the British were the ones with troops in the area, not the U.S., the Pentagon backed off so as not to cause conflict wihtin the NATO forces.

[Demobrat]

54. So in other words, yes,

he did want to attack the Russians. Thanks.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. No, he did not.

If you oversimplify everything it is impossible to try to have real dialogue. If you buy into the crap about Clark being a half crazed gunman than you might believe something like that. There was never an intent to attack anyone. There was never a desire to attack anyone. Maybe there was an outside risk of a small skirmish, almost certainly not though. There were larger reasons why it mattered whether Russia was suddently given a veto over NATO actions by suddenly moving forces in on their own into the region. It was resisted diplomatically and it would still have been resisted diplomatically, even if some NATO forces had been moved in. The resolve of NATO was being tested, and what was going on was jockying for position, everything got kicked upstairs for talks well as it should have been, and always would have been. Clark was never in any hot water with the Pentaagon over any of this. You implied he was fired for it . Wrong. Sorry but I have to leave for a Clark Meetup now. Can't play any longer.

[Kahuna]

44. Where's the logic to your question?

:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

59. He does not want peace

The DLC/Clinton needed an "anti-war" candidate to combat Dean. So they told him to say he was anti-war.

One of the problems w/that is that he screwed up and said he would have voted for IWR, before it sunk in that he was supposed to be anti-war, ala, "Mary, help!"

The other problem was his commentary on CNN. He did not continually say the war was wrong and he was against it. He was against it in the sensee that he wasn't allowed to play w/the repug team and HE would have done it differently.

Wanting to execute the war differently is not being anti-war.

Moreover, it is more than obvious that he was/is not anti-war in his speeches and interviews. As stated above, he speaks through a military lens, as that is how he views the world.

IMHO, he will continue the diet of fear that has been fed to the American public since September 11, 2001. The only difference will be doing it his way so that he can be the hero.

I absolutely, positively do not want him to be president. I want change. I do not want endless wars. I do want our relationship w/the world community to heal.

[BootinUp]

76. A piece from a recent Clark speech on foreign policy

I think you painted Clark in a very inaccurate way there. So here is part of a speech given at Center for American Progress October 28, 2003

http://clark04.com/speeches/008/

snip...
Our fractured alliances are a natural consequence of the contempt this Administration has shown our friends and partners. With the Kyoto Protocol, the Biological Weapons Convention, the International Criminal Court, the war in Iraq and in so many ways large and small, we sent the message: "your security is your own concern, and your concerns are of no concern to us."

This is no accident. It is a function of the backward way this Administration does business. Traditionally and ideally, we Americans meet our challenges by starting with the facts, analyzing the problem, and reasoning toward a solution with our citizens and our allies. This Administration does things in reverse. As we've seen in Iraq, they don't start with the facts and shape a policy; they start with a policy and shape the facts.

So what do we do about it? We get at the root of the problem. And the root of the problem lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

When I am elected, America will once again be a reliable international partner. We will be open in our debates, and steadfast in our commitments. We will honor the values we expect from others, and exhibit - in the words of our Declaration of Independence: "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

But we'll need a strategy to fill the void that emerged at the end of the Cold War. This isn't some wooly-headed idealism. There's an opportunity today with the challenges we face to bridge the gap between left and right in America. To reach a new bipartisan consensus. Again, it will be up to this party. Its heritage of internationalism and military power. After all, it's the party of Roosevelt and Truman. It gave us the United Nations, NATO the Truman Doctrine, deterrence, containment, and the Marshall Plan.

Going forward, we'll need new labels and new ideas. Many of them will be created right here at the Center for American progress. Maybe we'll see it today. Maybe it will spring forth in a flash of inspiration - maybe John Podesta can put it on a bumper sticker. Or maybe it will come from long discussions and synthesis and hours of quiet and patient work.

....
In a nutshell Clark wants to create a coherent strategy that emphasizes working with allies. Not endless wars...

cheers

[ignatiusr]

6. Missing his points

Clark uses analogies based on his own life experience, just like everyone else does. After spending 34 years in the military, I can't blame him for using these analogies. They have nothing to do with literal "military solutions;" they're metahpors.

And Clark isn't saying that we have to have a military man in office to keep us safe. If you look back at the Blitzer interview, he was saying those things in the context of explaining the strategies that Bush would employ in the coming campaign. He will attack our patriotism, and he will attack our strength on national defense. Clark is saying that, in a climate like this, the most effective candidate is one that has built-in strength and credibility on these issues.

Many people continue to talk about fearing his "war" mentality, which I suppose they're assuming he has based solely on the fact that he was in the military. Clark has said repeatedly that the military should be a last resort. The whole "military" problem in regards to Clark is something that I think can easily be debunked. If you're uneasy, take time to investigate, look at his quotes on war, look at his quotes on defense spending, and I think you'll quickly see that, if anything, he's more progressive on these issues than many of the other major candidates are.

[La_Serpiente]

10. I think that

the military helped shape him as a person. Maybe he picked up other viewpoints and ideas at Oxford. I don't know, but all of these experiences have shaped him into who he is today.

It is the same with Dean. Obviously, his life as a doctor and financier has shaped him as a candidate and a person. The same is with Kucinich, who carried on the ideas and concepts of the sixties (i.e. peace, no nuclear weapons, large government programs, etc.). It helped him shape him as the anti-war candidate.

So I don't think he should shun his military heritage. I think that he recognize it and respect it.

[DancingBear]

12. Interesting strategy that Clark is undertaking here

I believe it is called "actually trying to win the election".

Whether we like it or not, the mood of the country (at present) is predicated on security issues (courtesy of *). The strategy to defeat *, hence, is to attack this head on, with the argument being that * has WORSENED our security, not enhanced it. This is where the military component can be used quite effectively.

This election, more so than any other I can remember in recent memory, will turn on the 20% of those in the middle. Bush has his, we have ours, and the rest decide it.

Rembember the old political adage "how will this play in Peoria?" Clark plays very well in Peoria, thank you. He is, by far, the best candidate we have to move middle America, and THAT, like it or not, defines this election.

[cally]

13. I think compassionate, intelligent humans

who have seen war are more anti-war than most of the other politicians. I see Clark as a person who is not anti-war, but wants to use our country's military might to promote peace in the world. He rejects the use of military to promote corporate interests.

Clark uses his military experience to show his values. He promotes true family values, education, health care. He has seen first hand how much this matters.

I'm personally astounded that I'm supporting a militarty man for President. When I looked beyond that and overcame my own prejudices, I think he is the most liberal candidate that has the best chance of winning the election. His military credentials gives him much cover for progressive ideals.

[Justice]

14. Sad That These Posts Continue

Really really sad.

People on DU complain and fuss about Bush and the RNC and then copy the same moves and tactics used by these folks -- just look at these words ---

"Uneasy" "blatantly insisted" "unsettled" "questionable ties"

And yet Clark is the one playing on people's fears?

Really sad.

Wes Clark is an extremely optimistic man who offers great hope for America. He encourages discussion - he promotes openness and honesty - he offers answers and solutions. It is because of his experience in the military that I trust him more - he will be among the last to use force - because he knows what it is like to fight a war, and have injuries and deaths.

Some can't handle Wes Clark - fine. Some don't think their guy can win all on his own - some think the only way to win is to bully and slam other candidates.

[arewethereyet]

106. I disagree

I realize that you like Clark but many others do not and they have justification. To relegate their honest sentiment to triviality is not beneficial. And I have yet to see him offer any answers or solutions that were not baseline republican.

[TexasPatriot]

16. as a clark supporter

i have to tell you there are times i hear him go on about the military having a solution to X or Y and I feel that same cringe.

I could argue that in some sense it's not much different from a governor talking about solving health care in his state or a congressman/senator talking about this or that legislation. And when you're talking about how effective the VA has been, or how the military has solved some (not all) of the big problems the rest of society is still struggling with I think there's an element of pride in there.

Still - that sense of a 'military answer' is something i've seen Clark use as a quick response. I dont think it's intended to play the fear angle - that really is at odds with every townhall stump i've seen him give. There's a lot of positive forward thinking stuff in those. I think it's intended to make people feel comfortable with him in terms of qualifications. Some of the early dem attacks on Clark were on experience - and his military experience is what he had to fall back on. I think that now, with more substantive policy wonk stuff in his basket, he can do more positive visioneering stuff (but we'll have to see).

As we get to smaller debates and we get the silly stuff finally off the table, i think that whole taught economics / rhodes scholar thing will come off a lot stronger than the drill sgt.

[Closer]

17. I concur Eloriel

He simpy CAN'T think outside of the military box. He just can't. I've NEVER heard him NOT speak without using military terms or analogies. He's a machine.

I've also noticed that MOST of his supporters (especially here at DU) are very militaristic themselves... And mostly white males. That's telling.

[rumguy]

24. Your attitude is one of the reasons Democrats

are having a tough time...

Clark..militaristic? His supporters white males? give me a break.

[xultar]

Yo! Black Female here...Since you know how all of his supporters

look.

[Closer]

42. Do you know how to read?

Just wondering, because I don't recall ever saying "all"? Do you see it somewhere I don't?

Sure, all you females and non-whites can respond, but I still stand by the statement that a majority of Clark supporters are militaristic white males.

[Kahuna]

49. Another one over here! Draw a conclusion from this!

:yourock:

[Closer]

50. I have Kahuna

I have.


I've drawn several conclusions from your posts :hi:

[Kahuna]

69. Isn't is past your nap time?

:hi:

[Closer]

72. Hey

That's almost as mature as some of your earlier retorts to me, using such efficient comebacks as "your mama." :hi: In fact, you've used the "your mama" to me 3 or 4 times now I believe.

So Kahuna, that makes ME wonder if it's past YOUR bedtime darlin'.

But since I've seen your picture, I know that's not the case. So I guess there are other possibilities :hi:

[LouisFC]

66. Female

Another female Clark supporter who is not militaristic checking in.

[knight_of_the_star]

85. HEY!

Wiccan pacifist here! I don't think that qualifies as miliaristic! Painting with a broad brush doesn't work very well Closer, you tend to miss the details when you do. I would like to have seen da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa with broad brush strokes.

[Closer]

18. accidental dupe

[cally]

23. *snarf*

I fit none of your stereotypes and most of the Clark supporters I know don't either. Pay more attention before you cast all of us under the wrong tent.

[Closer]

29. When did I say "all"

why don't YOU pay more attention! and re-read what I wrote. :eyes:

[cally]

38. I know you said most

so prove it. Outspoken DU Clark supporters that are not militaristic white males. DTH, Mzpip, Dem-expat, VolcanoJen, Kahuna, etc, etc.

[bobbieinok]

me too

white female over 60 ... my adult political views formed in the civil rights, women's liberation, anti-war 60s.

[Jerseycoa]

105. Me, too, all those things

But nearing 60.

[Field Of Dreams]

115. Count me as a Women for Clark member ...

and an ethnic minority too!

The Clark meet-ups I have attended have been about 60% male, 40% female.

[HoosierClarkie]

20. His "military lens" is very wide.

He is not just a military man. He makes that very clear. He did talk about leadership many times during his interview with Blitzer. Clark was an outsider in the military. He had a worldview even back in Highschool. People in the military resented that. His medals and knowledge mean the same to me as his struggles as a young small boy in Arkansas that had to learn to stand up for his beliefs and work for everything. It was not given to him on a silver platter. He is a complicated human being. He is Not just a military man. I can give you links to article after article about his life, but I think you have made up your mind.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. short answer...

he's not Dean. That would be more to (your) point.

But to add a little more here, I'll just use this point of conjecture by Clark (and your rebuttal) to point out that this is THE reason Kerry is the best man for the job. He has the fullest perspective as a civilian, military commander, and legislator, to execute the powers of CiC.
Kerry is our diamond in the rough.

[Jerseycoa]

26. Go Here

http://www3.clark04.com/chat/


He's talking right now on a broad range of subjects, not just military. You are welcome to attend.

[RBHam]

27. Clark is "onside" with the NWO's Terror War

During the last debate he went out of his way to insist that, "we KNOW who was behind 9-11"...

Really, Mr. Clark? Where's the evidence? Has there been a trial?
What about the obvious fact that the 9-11 commission is perpetrating a cover up? Can you explain to us why the Air Force stood down on that day?

Enough said.

Clark cannot be trusted.

[Justice]

32. What Are You Saying?

Clark's point was that we should be pursuing Bin Laden -- not Hussein.

Why does that make him not trustworthy?

[RBHam]

100. bin Laden is a boogeyman, the War On terror is a myth

Think about who benefited from 9-11 and then ask yourself, which organization could pull off an operation like that? A bunch of rag tag pipe bombers or a Black Ops organization funded with trillions of dollars that have gone unnacounted for from the Pentagon?

[neverforget]

31. Another thread that does nothing to enhance the discussion but

merely serve as sounding board for repeating the same thing about Candidate X or Y.

[Julien Sorel]

34. Another anti-CLark

flame bait thread from eliroiel, and everyone swallows the bait whole. Amazing. Just as substantive and honest as all the rest, too.

[neuvocat]

36. Indeed.

You'd think that people would have learned by now that flaming candidates gets you nowhere.

[Forkboy]

37. and your post is substantive how?

?

[Closer]

39. accidental dupe

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Eloriel]

57. Hehe

I'm reading this thread -- it went from my post to 55 responses before I got back to it -- and I'm wondering where AP is railing about respondees "attack the poster and not the substance." Seems he and others have no problem when it's Clark supporters offering up no substance but just bashing the poster.

Amazing. Toooo funny.

Eloriel

[Justice]

58. Good To Know You Post For the Reaction Not the Substance

Says a lot.

[Eloriel]

109. That shows exactly the kind of twisted logic of the Clarkites

No, I posted for the substance (please try to convince me you didn't see any substance in my original post). However, it was fascinating to see the reaction -- NO substance, just diversionary tactics and attacks on me. And then I posted about that.

But thanks for playing -- and demonstrating another wonderful characteristic of the Clarkites and Kerryites (whichever you may be). WONERFULLY instructive, and I appreciate that aspect of it more than you can know.

Eloriel

[eleny]

135. More baloney from you, Eloriel

I can't blame you for trying to save face. But you messed up. You did it to yourself. Trying to turn the tables won't change that.

[Closer]

60. The hypocrisy here

is almost too unbelievable isn't it?

My favorite (most recent) is yesterday when Pruner made a post about how Dean now had 100,000 more people signed up than Clark on meetup. Pruner got SLAMMED/FLAMED like crazy for posting it, mainly from (you guessed it) Clarkettes. That thread, too, by the way, was locked because it was a "vanity thread" (yeh, I don't get it either.) Anyway, (here's where the hypocrisy comes in) earlier in the day yesterday, a Clarkette posted a thread about how Clark's blog now has more hits than Dean's. Did that person get flamed like Pruner? No. Did that person's thread get locked for vanity? Take a guess :eyes:


So, indeed, Eloriel. They hypocrisy is palpable.

[Justice]

64. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

The people you and Eloriel complain about as bashers on pro-Dean posts are NOT the same people who post here objecting to your anti-Clark posts.

Why put up junk just to get back at AP when guess what -- AP is not even here?

[Eloriel]

122. There you go again.

I didn't put up junk just to get back at AP.

HOWEVER, when the kinds of responses that AP relentlessly and monotonously criticizes and a few others join in on when the shoe's on the other foot didn't end up getting criticized by anyone at all, I thought it was humorous -- and hypocritical -- and pointed it out.

Eloriel

[oxymoron]

83. I was one that complained about that thread and I was...

immediately branded a "Clarkie". I am truly undecided and just fucking sick to death of these "my dick is bigger than yours" threads.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. You're not talking about me, right?

I was giving you some credit for inviting meaningful dialogue. Don't go turning nasty on me now lol. You have gotten some sincere and meaningful responses.

[retread]

35. To your statement "..., Clark is not the man for the job." I say

ABB!!

[xultar]

46. So let me get this straight....

Everyone who is or was in the military is a War monger baby killing white male.

They aren't allowed to use their life experiences as a part of framing who they are.

Anyone who has spent 10 + years in a job is not supposed to talk about their experience and if they do they aren't being sincere. Oh wait only people in the military who have spent 10+ years of their life in the military who talk about it are insincere.

You're afraid because Clark is scaring you and he is making you afraid.


All Clark supporters are white males who have been in the military.
So they couldn't possibly know anything about anything other than white male stuff and guns.

Just wanna make sure I got it.
OH yeah almost forgot. So, Clark can't possibly do peace cuz that is all he knows cuz he's in the military. So, if Dean has never been in the military you should also conclude that he'd never be able to lead a country at war because he's never been in one.

[Justice]

47. Clark is The Man for The Job --

I went back and read the Blitzer interview. First of all - Wolf only asked Clark about foreign policy (the media likes to keep Clark away from domestic policy so as not to let him speak to those issues). That said, the original post was wrong and mischaracterized Clark's remarks. Read them yourself --

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/30/le.00.html

Clark's focus is not on the military -- but on his foreign policy experience overall - which includes both diplomatic and military experience.

At every turn, Clark focuses on how he would bring people into the issue - the Middle East for example - to work thru diplomatic channels to resolve the issue.

Clark speaks of intervention by personal involvement - not of military intervention. In fact, he advocates turning over Iraq to Iraqis as quickly as possible.

Whew, we can all breathe easier knowing that Clark is NOT the man described in the original post -- and rather he is the man for the job.

[LoneStarLiberal]

48. I Disagree, But Good Points, Eloriel

While I do not concur, you raise good points.

Yesterday with Wolf Blitzer, he blatantly insisted that we need a military man -- a CINC -- to protect us in this day and age. I frankly reject that. We need to DEmilitarize this nation.

I would like to point out here at anyone who becomes President is also CINC. Any President is going to have the role of CINC regardless of his or her views.

Not only that, but it sinks to the level of demagoguery: playing on people's fears to gain support. That's what Bush has done, and it's unsettling in the extreme to find it in a Dem candidate.

With all due respect, I really don't see this in Clark's rhetoric. One of the reasons I've always been in Clark's corner is that his message consistently has a message of hope to it; that's fundamentally what the whole platform of "A New American Patriotism" rests upon.

Finally, if he's sincere -- that is, if he himself believes that -- then I'm all the more unsettled and would worry about someone who (a) sees the world thru a military lens and (b) believes only a military person can handle things right now and (c) is that fearful himself (which would certainly make him prone to all those military solutions at his disposal).

I do believe that there is a very subtle but grossly ignored difference in leadership and military leadership. Wes Clark has exhibited both, both during his time in the military and since his military career ended. There is a very important component to leadership that does not consist of following orders by rote from higher up, a component that urges you to take care of your people, be they your troopers or your fellow citizens. It's very possible to have both of these and exhibit both of these in the military.

No, even aside from his questionable ties, Clark is not the man for the job.

I understand and appreciate your reasoning because I arrive at the same conclusion about Howard Dean, John Kerry, Richard Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Caroline Mosely-Braun, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman when I look at each of them and apply my criteria to them.

With defeating George Bush in 2004 as the ultimate litmus test of the Democratic nominee, I sincerely believe that Wes Clark is the best candidate to do that not simply because "he can beat Bush," but because he offers a better alternative to Bush that I simply do not see the other candidates offering.

[wyldwolf]

51. Ah, no...

In one of the debates, he framed so many of his answers in terms of the only real life expereince he had: the military. Military allusions, military solutions.

Just as the other candidates frame so many answers in terms of the only real live experience THEY have - governance of a state the size of a medium sized city, congressional/sentorial legislation... Come to think of it, NONE of the nine have experience doing the job they're applying for. So why does Clark's experience bother you? Military. You hate the military.

Yesterday with Wolf Blitzer, he blatantly insisted that we need a military man -- a CINC -- to protect us in this day and age. I frankly reject that. We need to DEmilitarize this nation.

Your premise is laughable. Sure, our military budget is overblown and should be cut BUT strong national defense credentials are plus for a candidate today...

Not only that, but it sinks to the level of demagoguery: playing on people's fears to gain support. That's what Bush has done, and it's unsettling in the extreme to find it in a Dem candidate.

Come now, Eloriel... ALL politicians play into people's fears. That's how the game works.

The mantra on the left has been to incite fears of fascism.

People against Clark try to incite fears of militarism and corporatism though unproven.

Finally, if he's sincere -- that is, if he himself believes that -- then I'm all the more unsettled and would worry about someone who (a) sees the world thru a military lens and (b) believes only a military person can handle things right now and (c) is that fearful himself (which would certainly make him prone to all those military solutions at his disposal).

People see things through their life experiences. Dean, for example, will experience culture shock if he wins when he sees that Vermont's economy is like grade school math compared to the national economy. How about Sharpton being a reverend? Kucinich - gives all indications to me that we could be occupied by a foreign power before he would ever give the order to fight back - if he even would.

Petty? Sure.

But we all know, Eloriel, that you just don't like Clark period. Whether it be because he is military, has a better chance than your boy Dean in beating Bush, or that subscribe to all the far left conspiratorial rumblings about him

No, even aside from his questionable ties, Clark is not the man for the job.

Fortunately the decision doesn't rest with one person.

[Kahuna]

53. You managed to get a very diverse headcount of Clarkies...

Read 'em and weep. Men, women, black, white, rich, poor, middle classe, Christians, Jews, Muslims, athiests, young, old and every age in between. We're crawling out of the woodwork. I hope this helps to alleviate your "fears" about Clark. Seems he has a very diverse array of supporters.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. This is why I don't buy that even though I am not FOR anyone yet

While there was MUCH to admire about Clinton, he armed the entire world ( see Mother Jones archives on this). He CLEARLY was not a military man but made concessions as did Bush and Reagan before him to vet sales through commerce rather than the state department...thereby foregoing some of the second looks some of these sales may have gotten.

Clark may be playing on fears but we would be blind to suggest people's fears don't exist.

Frankly, I think someone with Clark's experience would think twice before approving or promoting sales of weapons to certain areas in the world. He KNOWS the problem they create.

Clark was also very respected at the Center for Defense Information which is one of the more admirable groups monitoring America's arms sales.

Again...I say this as one who is NOT in anyone's camp yet but leans more towards Kerry and is sad that Graham didn't garner enough support.

[eleny]

56. *Yawn* - What an old dried up ploy

Better to just talk-up your own candidate. That might give you the appearance of confidence in him. Taking out after Clark only makes me wonder why you don't have confidence in Dean.

[Forkboy]

63. you gotta be kidding me

Eloriel lacking confidence? We should all lack confidence like she does!

[eleny]

65. Well then she might stop this kind of silly posting

"Uneasy" about Clark. You can stop kidding me.

[Forkboy]

67. what's wrong with that?

many people,myself included,are "uneasy" with Clark.

[Pastiche423]

68. This is absolutely

nothing wrong about being uneasy about a candidate. She explained why and I agree w/her 100%.

[eleny]

70. I'll tell you why this tactic gets me riled up

It's because it reminds me of when George Bush ran against Dukakais. And GB went around saying "He's scary" about Dukakis. It's that sort of mild mannered meme crap that turns me off, royally.

So, go ahead and push it. But I think it's a thinly veiled way of putting down a good candidate who can probably whoop GW's butt in the election. And I think you and Eloriel know it.

And get this - I don't have to like the tactic or keep quiet about how I feel. I've never once posted a sour thought about Dean, himself. No matter how I feel at times, I refuse to even chime in with others. As far as I'm concerned, this "uneasiness" is a walk on the low road. I'd have respect if she took her time to go after Bush.

[Forkboy]

71. I'd be willing to bet

that Eloriel does more to rid us of Bush than 90% of the rest of us DUers.Maybe you should ask her before deciding if you should respect her or not.

I also hope to see you complain about this when a Clark supporter posts their "unease" with Dean.

[eleny]

78. Seems like going after Clark supporters is your thing

And as for Eloriel, you seem to feel that she expressed herself well enough. So do I. And I happen to have disrespect for her tactic. Get passed it.

[Forkboy]

82. touchy touchy

:eyes:

[eleny]

86. Not touchy - I'm angry

Now, I'm out of here. Dean is on with Tweety. So, take the last word if you wish.

[Pastiche423]

84. It isn't a tactic to me

I honestly feel more than uneasy about clark. It is similar to the uneasiness and foreboding I had about Nixon and whistle ass.

My uneasiness is derived from multiple issues regarding clark that I have posted here and will repeat, if you like.

[jpgray]

73. The reason you continue to be uneasy is that you are wholly for Dean

That is actually much briefer than your original post, but more to the point, I think.

:)

I won't point out the obvious hypocrisy (Dean won't demilitarize us any more than Clark will), but I share unease about Clark, albeit for different reasons. More than any other candidate, he is a mystery to me--he has some political skill (being high up in the Army), but there is no discernible record for him on domestic issues, we only have what he says he will do. Though Dean's Vermont record is vague, at least the general indicators in the state showed that Dean did a good job governing--it's hard to get a similar feel for Clark. I won't take statements at face value unless there is something to corroborate them--primaries are necessarily full of exaggeration, after all.

[Forkboy]

75. I'm not a Dean supporter

so what's my excuse for this unease? :)

[jpgray]

79. I don't know, perhaps it is similar to mine

I don't remember including you in my post to Eloriel, but based on posts I have seen of yours, you seem to be much more of a Dean fan than a Clark fan. Who knows? I could have the entirely wrong impression--I don't have a "Deanies" "Clarkies" "Dennies" list that I constantly update.

:)

But as Cocoa says below, Eloriel isn't considering Clark over Dean--I only made the slightly obnoxious comment above because I don't like that "undecided" camouflage sometimes used in negative threads. I have unease about Clark, but then I am still undecided between Kucinich, Dean and Kerry for the primary.

[Forkboy]

87. For the record

I do like Dean more than Clark....but not by much :) So your impression is correct,though neither thrills me.

I also don't like many of both candidates supporters who act exactly the same all the while complaining about the other side doing the same thing they are.

I only responded to you because I've seen the charge that anyone against Clark must be a Deanie (and vice versa) here before and I don't think that is correct.

[Kahuna]

116. Who would be your ideal candidate?

Just curious. :shrug:

[Forkboy]

121. My ideal candidate doesn't exist

:)

But Kucinich and Braun come the closest out of this bunch.

[Cocoa]

74. do you write for the Nation?

this concern is an obvious one to have about a retired general. I share the concern to some degree, but if it's still a big issue for you, then you've already ruled him out. To act like he's still "in play" for you is laughable, you're a committed Deanie.

Same goes for your analysis of Biden-Lugar. I seriously doubt you supported that at the time, it's obvious your opinion on that is driven by your Dean support.

[jpgray]

77. The "concerned undecided" camouflage is widely used for negative threads

"Obviously Clark is far inferior to my candidate, and I would never consider him over _____" somehow doesn't flow as well.

:)

(no offense to people who use the camouflage--some of them I honestly do respect, but in this case I think honesty is the best policy. That camouflage is pretty transparent)

[blm]

80. But you believe Dean's 11 month old populism is sincere.

No populist record in his entire career in politics, yet all of a sudden the guy is a populist.

[gulliver]

81. True, but...

... we all tend to do that. Dean uses medical analogies, for example. We use what we know.

I find it a bit of a pain when Clark occasionally lapses into military slang. He thinks it is more interesting than I do. I also wish Clark would lay off the "I have a strategy to catch Osama and succeed in Iraq" stuff. It makes him sound like he just wants to run a couple of challenging military operations -- get his old job back.

Listening to Clark, however, I know it is more than that. Clark truly wants to change American patriotism back to what it should be. Clark was the first to propose a fully staffed reserve system for non-military personnel -- a sort of Peace Corps sharing equal priority with the pure military.

Also (it can't be said enough) Clark can unite this country and the world. He is an internationalist with international stature. The reporter from the BBC (on MTP yesterday) said that Wes Clark has captured the imagine of the British who are hoping Bush is not elected in 2004.

The security issue is going to be the major issue in 2004. If we don't have it, we lose. Clark wins the national security issue and can also offer everything Dean can offer in terms of other issues.

[Nashyra]

92. I support him because of his military experience

I think he is the one to use diplomacy and negotiations to the bitter end before he will send our military to war again. He will be able to provide a different point of view then the regular corporate chickenhawks, he will be able to keep from reinstating the draft and if these horsesasses in power now pull out of abrubtly from Iraq for political gain he has the knowledge and experience to hold a fragile peace together and he can campaign on his experience of teaching economics, he is a multi-faceted candidate and a great American.

[Dover]

90. I wonder what aspects of Republican policy attracted Clark in

the first place. Exactly which Republican policies has he changed his tune on and which are still near and dear to him?

I agree with Eloriel, and have voiced my concerns before so won't bother re-stating them here. It is not important to have military credentials at this time so much as vision, diplomacy and the guts to make a difficult retreat. Trust needs to be cultivated both at home and abroad.....a huge task that only one of integrity can achieve. I do not trust Clark.

I am troubled that Clinton has voiced his support...

Edit: Changed my wording so as not to indicate Clark is a Republican...even if he sounded like one in the not-so-distant past.

[wyldwolf]

91. Your post treats "Clark was a Republican" as fact and it is not...

...sorry, ben.

[Forkboy]

94. He wasn't a republican

he just voted for one.

[Pastiche423]

95. He voted for three presidential candidates - one twice

[wyldwolf]

98. Right. He voted for Bill Clinton twice...

But the rest of your post is a fabrication. Clark is on record as voting in 4 presidential elections.

[Pastiche423]

111. No it isn't

"Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html

Funny thing about facts, eh?

[wyldwolf]

99. As Michael Moore said...

"So did most of America..."

[Forkboy]

107. most of America was wrong to do so

and so was Clark imo.It's not a big deal to me,but it isn't a plus either.

[KittyWampus]

101. Dean Just Praised Bush Sr.'s Foreign Policy W/Tweety

Wonder if Eloriel will disavow Dean's statement?

[wyldwolf]

102. No. she'll probably say...

...using that famous Deanie psychic ability, "What Dean meant to say was Bush Sr. had a foreign policy and I was in favor of him having one..."

[PSU84]

96. I know what you mean.

It's the same way with Dean - Vermont, Vermont, Vermont. It's as if he can only think in terms of dairy farms and ski resorts. The man is absolutely CREEPY!

[FrenchieCat]

97. Clark supporter here...

Black/French woman residing in Berkeley for Clark here...

I totally agree to disagree with Eloriel and everything she had to say and I disagree with who she supports and thinks can beat our common enemy, Bush. Eloriel's thread only shows that she is protective of her candidate....Lord, I should know.....as I do the same.

The difference between Eloriel and I is most likely small compared to what we share in common. I believe that we both believe that Bush in the White House for 4 more years will be hell right here on earth.

I have already alerted my family that I will be moving back to France, if Bush is elected. At least there I will find that the majority uses it's common sense. Maybe that's why the Europeans get a chance to enjoy the more important things in life; like food, drink, friendships and other wonderful pursuits. It seems that here many (but far from all) are contrived, superficial, unreasoned, and just plain illogical. It is true that the French suffer from certain flaws as well. You can call me arrogant, as I know that is one of them.

I'll blame myself only for ever having left my home in the first place. But I guess I would have never known what I know now unless I had ventured away.

What I have experienced of America over my lengthly stay would absolutely give any rational outsider the chills.

Individuals are so wrapped up in being right, that often they never see it coming. Then it's surprise, surprise, surprise!

I just wish that we all could get along, but seems like we can't.

Whether it's a war of words or a war of weapons, one thing has been proven even here at DU. As long as there are people on this earth, wars will always be fought. It is an unfortunate conclusion, but one that we have'nt the will, nor the strength, nor the inclination to avoid or stop.

PEACE OUT!

[rumguy]

126. Question...

What is the principal differences between Americans and Europeans...in terms of attitudes towards life and others, etc...?

Way off topic I know...but you mentioned this in your post.

[mmonk]

104. Questions of the day

Was Bush a general? Well we've got the Iraq situation. Was Johnson a general? Well he gave us massive envolvement in Vietnam. So where's the evidence we don't get involved in wars with non miltary background presidents? Where's the evidence Eisenhower wanted to ramp up war and violence and was militaristic? It seems the whole thesis here is Clark wants us involved in wars and is using fear. So where's the evidence to the charge?

[xultar]

108. So you feel uneasy about someone who won the medal of freedom and

More specifically...

Wesley Clark received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton after Kosovo (this is the United States' highest civilian honor).

General Wesley Clark was the most decorated soldier since Eisenhower.

Wesley Clark was Knighted by Great Britain for his work with NATO and the Balkans, one of only 11 foreign nationals so recognized. (well I should say so...they hand out Knight stuff at the A&P)

Wesley Clark was Knighted by the Netherlands. (no biggie I'm sure there are plenty of folks here @ DU with one of these)

Wesley Clark received the French "Legion d'Honneur for his service.
(This is just a French snack ain't nothin important. Kinda like a funnel cake) Oh yeah this doesn't count cuz we don't like the French, Freedom Fries ROCK!

[PROGRESSIVE1]

110. Well I'm uneasy about Dean playing up the negatives to...

win support!

[mumishka]

112. ditto

I agree that the last thing we need now is another President who puts the Pentagon over the Foreign Office and sees things from a military perspective.

In addition I question whether Clark has a real democratic perspective. As I understand it, he not only voted for Nixon and Reagan but wasn't registered as a democrat until he decided to run for President. That doesn't sound like a man who will bring back a democratic domestic agenda ----and we need that very badly

I think one of the real dangers of this election is that people focus only on Iraq and forget that "terror" covers the "Bush domestic revolution" John Edwards is right--- Bush has shifted the tax burden in this country from wealth (capital gains and estate taxes and a progressive income tax) to taxing those of us who work. That is a fundamental change in our country and we need to pay attention to this agenda of the very wealthy

[IndianaGreen]

113. I am comfortable with Clark. I am happy with Clark. I like Clark.

I may not like some of his supporters, but I am sure that the feeling is mutual.

Clark has answered most of the questions and concerns I had about him when he first got into the race.

The main point is that Clark DID NOT vote for IWR, wants the US out of that quagmire, and could care less about Halliburton & Co.

[Pastiche423]

123. I never would have thought

that you would support a man that praised the School of Americas.

My mistake.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

124. Dean won't shut down the School of the Americas

No one, save Kucinich or Sharpton, would. The point is Clark is a neo-liberal, like Clinton (and Dean) and not a neo-con. A substantial difference, and it's sad that we have to choose the lesser of two evils, but choose we must. Unless you are of the "don't vote, it only encourages them" variety.

[IndianaGreen]

129. I understand where Clark was coming from

I am very familiar with the military mentality. It may come as a surprise to some, but most career military believe in the rule of law and in the Constitution. Clark spoke to the renamed and reorganized WHISC, Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. While it is true that there is a real dark side to the old SOA, it is also true that many career soldiers would recoil in horror if they were told to engage in torture and assassination. Soldiers are not assassins! That's the line that some Green Berets crossed in Vietnam when they worked with CIA.

One only needs to look at the "collateral damage" rate in Bosnia when the troops were under General Clark's command, and compare it to the much higher rate in Afghanistan and in Iraq when they were under Tommy Franks.

[Pastiche423]

136. clark spoke to the graduates

of the School of Americas, five years before it was renamed, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

You may use any excuses you please to try to make its existence more palpable, but it is the same to me. I will continue to protest its existence until it is shut down for good.

Btw, I have looked at the "collateral damage" done when clark dropped DU and cluster bombs on innocent men, women and children. I find that nothing to be proud of. In fact, it sickens me.

Once again, I see that I was mistaken about you.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

125. Clark's 1st take on IWR: "I probably would have supported it"

Yet you are comfortable with him.

Congratulations on continuing to hold John Kerry to a double standard.

[mmonk]

131. But only on the condition

the decision for war resided in congress. It was to go to the UN with bargaining power. But you can continue to leave that out like Lieberman did for argument purposes (though its dishonest). He said he would not have gone into Iraq. But you know that, right?

[IndianaGreen]

132. Kerry had a chance to vote against IWR, and he chose war.

Neither Clark, nor Dean had a vote in Congress. I will note that Dennis Kucinich voted against the war.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

134. History will show that both Bush and Saddam chose war

neither one of whose actions John Kerry had control of.

[Egnever]

114. You have hit on my unease

I could heartily support clark those stars are very shiny and apealing in a fight with bush. However everytime I hear him its all military all the time. I dont want america to be all military we are allready militant enough.

I will keep looking at him but so far I have yet to hear any reaon to suport him other than he is a general. The rest of what I have seen from him is generalities.

When he speeks on military matters he comes across well informed but every time he starts speeking on the domestic front its like the lights go out.

I cant get over the feeling that he is a pre packaged candidate invented for the masses.

Time will tell though. He is on hardball next week we will see how it goes.

[mmonk]

120. Yes, wait and see.

He was pretty specific on what he would do about the tax cuts for the top 2% and where he would shift the money. I don't see him being too vague now at this point in the campaign. Hope your questions get answered.

[Clark Can WIN]

119. What a big fucking suprise from you

1000 ways to say Clark Bad - Scary Man: by Eloriel. At least your positions don't sway every way the wind blows, unlike your candidate.

[arewethereyet]

127. your signature flasher doesn't mention

him being fired as NATO commander. glass houses my friend.

[incapsulated]

128. Hahaha!

Eloriel is "uneasy" about Clark! He's "not the man for the job"!

You post on almost every thread concerning Clark to piss all over him. You despise him.

Spare me the false "concern". At least have the honesty to flame outright.

:eyes:

[Shakespeare]

130. If you honestly think this race won't be run with fear as one of the main

fighting points, then you're either naive or haven't been paying attention.

Is that Clark's fault? No. Bush and the rest of the GOP controls the national dialog right now, thanks to their majority in congress and their manipulation of the media. No matter how much we know it's bogus, no matter how hard we try to educate everybody, there is no way on earth we're going to change that before November 2004.

Bush is counting on us being scared to death, and it WILL be a major campaign tool. The only way--the only way--we're going to be able to compete with that is to pay at least a little bit of lip service to it.

If you honestly expect whoever our nominee is to get up in front of the country and try to ignore the "fear factor," then you've already conceded the race to Bush.

Ignore that bit of Machiavellian politics at your peril, but don't blame Clark for being smart enough to know that it must be addressed in the 2004 race.

[webkev]

133. Dean can't convince on Security..

Clark speaks in Military terms.. because the big issue is going to be the war in iraq..