How could ANYONE think Clark entering is a bad thing?

[vi5]

Honestly, whoever you support in this horse race...given the climate of this country and given the tactics of the admin and the (R) party, how could you think having another decorated vietnam veteran and a former NATO allied commander stand up and say he's proud to be a democrat and possibly throw his hat in the ring as being a bad thing? He's going to be on so many shows talking about being a democrat and talking about democratic issues and the democratic primary. He may or may not stand a snowballs chance in hell but as far as I'm concerned anyone viewing this negatively is effectively advocating shooting ourselves in the foot.

I can't see myself being a Clark booster if he enters the race, but welcome him with open arms and treat him like any other candidate I say. If you like one of his policies or stances then say so. If you take issue with one of his policies or stances then by all means raise a flag about it. But jeez louise in this day and age how could you think this is a BAD thing?

Unfortunately so many people are in the mode of "me...me...me...my candidate and my candidate only...." that it seems that so few people realize that this could be a great thing.

[rooboy]

1. As someone who doesn't "have a candidate"...

it amazes me how important it seems to people that Clark is a soldier. The 'War on Terror' won't be won with warplanes and tanks, and the POTUS' role is not that of a field marshall. He's supposed to be a governor at home and a statesman abroad.

If Wesley Clark has a firm grip on economic and social issues, fine. But to embrace him because of his military service is to embrace the militarization of the USA that the BFEE wants.

[Renew Deal]

2. Check out issues at

www.meetclark.com/faq

:donut:

[vi5]

4. It's about perception...

Don't get me wrong, if it weren't clear that Clark's position on the issues was firmly in the dem camp I wouldn't be saying this. And like I said I can't seem myself getting behind him as my candidate in the primary. But given the smearing and the fear mongering that the right uses so effectively on the american public, it IS an important thing.

I can see taking issue with the militarization thing but there is no indication that Clark has any designs on militarizing the country.

The fact is that a sizable chunk of the american population want to feel safe and the military makes them feel safe.

Again, Clark won't be my primary candidate but my only point is that to complain about having someone of his experience and stature stand up and be proud to be a democrat and throw his hat into the ring is far from a bad thing.

[barbaraann]

14. I couldn't have said it better myself.

n/t

[TheBigGuy]

56. Actually, it is that "statesman" thing that sells me on Clark.

Im undecided, but the fact that Clark would be focusing on foreign policy and defense issues, on "stateman" -type of issues, and that Clark has an internationalist orientation, is the major selling points for me for this candidate.

Of all the candidates I think he is strongest on these policy arenas.

[edward]

57. What is his policy exactly?

[Pepperbelly]

68. From my P.O.V.

Clark may well be the best candidate on economics. He might be the best EVER. He took his MA at Oxford in Economics and taught same at West Point for a period of years. He is also an investment banker.

[Democat]

75. We need a candidate who can win the approval of the scared American people

You might not think his military background is important, but there is little doubt that the American public, scared by Bush's constant talk of terrorism, will care.

Elections are not just about who would do the best job, but who can win, so that he gets the job in the first place.

[Pastiche423]

79. How many scared Americans

do you know? I have traveled my state and spoken w/many people all over the country and not one said there were scared.

Psst... scared Americans is repug bullshit, just like the Dems are soft on defense. IT'S A LIE!

"Elections are not just about who would do the best job, but who can win..."

What a friggin foolish statement! You don't care about our country? You don't care that we should elect the best person to lead our country?

[joeybee12]

3. I'd be concerned for my candidate

Seriously, especially those who support Kerry, whose greatest asset is being a decorated veteran. Clark sort of outshines him in that case.

I think you're being a bit naive in that Clark will be getting great press for the Dems, you know how those media whores who will always simply compare Clark to the other Dems--they'll make him shine while tearing down those the whores don't like. Don't assume he will be always compared to Dumbo.

[vi5]

6. Not naive...I realize this.......

But they are going to do that no matter who is in the race. If Dean is winning they will say he doesn't have the stature and experience of Kerry...if Kerry is winning they'll say he doesn't have the charisma of Dean. It's inevitable so rather than fearing it I would welcome the chance to show yet another side of our party.

[DealsGapRider]

5. I don't have anything against Clark...

...and I don't really care whether he runs or not. But after reading that piece on Salon.com this morning, I'm inclined to believe that it would be very, very difficult for him to win the nomination. Unless what he's really after is the Vice Presidency.

[vi5]

7. I think it will be next to impossible....

But I guess I didn't make myself clear in my initial post. My point wasn't that he should or could win. It's that his presence in the race and his willingness to stand up and say he's proud to say he's a dem can only be a good thing IMHO.

[dfong63]

33. so what took him so long to say he was a democrat?

it's not that hard, most candidates can say the word without choking.

[Starpass]

8. I think people are losing focus of big fat point that they wish to ignore

You may think your candidate is bringing America to it's feet shouting----he isn't/or she. Not when 2/3 cannot name even one of our candidates. Not when (as C-Span article this a.m. pointed out)Dems surveyed STILL pick "someone else" over the nine candidates. You may get your horse nominated (and maybe not) BUT who the fuck cares, in a word, if you can't sell him to the American people. The mainstream Dems still are not buying. Therefore, any attention that can be just plain given to the fact that "ya, duh, we do have candidates" is a giant step up the ladder from the pits we are in at the moment. You know it's like people wild about their high school homecoming queen and just sure she's going to be the next big movie star but no one knows her outside their small town or if they do, think she's a dog. Let's start reality football here.

[joeybee12]

9. Part of the Recognition Factor

is simply that it's very early in the election cycle. Whoever comes out on top will pick up name recognition very quickly. This happens every time--most people don't focus. That said, Dumbo is vulnerable, when people do start looking, they will be eager to embrace someone else. As long as the dems don't nominate a dog (think "Holy Joe") then he will get known very quickly.

[Pepperbelly]

72. Good point ...

I saw some Zobgby polling on Clark which indicated that his positives were higher than his negatives but a whopping 70%+ did not know enough to form an opinion. That presents him and his team, if he in fact assembles a team and runs, with both an enormous hazard AND an enormous opportunity.

Keep in mind, I really believe that Wesley is getting political advice from Bill Clinton. If it is in his heart to run, I think it could well be Clinton's idea to put off the announcement as long as possible for several very good reasons. It creates a buzz which is undeniable. It gets him free face time on network and cable news and creates newspaper articles and profiles in abundence. In addition, right now, while not part of the field, Clark is apart from it, an individual rather than one of ten candidates.

What all of this is leading up to is when (if) he announces, if his team is in place and is of high caliber, they can take the initiative i.e a new product rollout, if you will, and define himself BEFORE the gop starts trying to define him. Both of them are going to be trying to set the impressions for that 70%+ that Zogby identified.

If Wesley succeeds in defining himself before the gop does, it will be sunshine and puppy dogs. If not, it could be cold and bitter. I think that Gephardt set the proper tone for Clark to use: Bush is a monumental failure in all regards as President and Clark would be a momumental success in the job.

A failure vs a success. Nothing against people failing. It is a growing experience that everyone must face but ... I don't want our President to drag us down with his sorry ass.

[zeemike]

10. You make some good points

But I still think that behind it somewhere is a Repug operative cheering him on. And the objective being to further dilute the vote for the front runner (Dean and Kerry) to give there choice (Liberman) a better chance to win.
Now Liberman is not a bad guy, and would make a much better president than Bush, but the Repugs see Liberman as another Ducacus and they think they can make him look foolish in the press just like they did Ducacus. Plus if there is a large voter turn out and Liberman actually gets the votes he will give up easy with out a fuss if they have to steal it.

[Starpass]

13. zee--that "republican" operative is Bill Clinton

There have been several articles alluding to the fact that it's the Clintons (you know the folks that were--well at one time--from Arkansas just like Wesley)who are working with him and promoting his candidacy. If so, then it does tell me something about the DNC which is Clinton's baby run by Clinton's man Terry. It means that they are worried that none of our nine can pull it off and/or that one of our nine will positively bomb on election night and take all the Dems running with him. I think more is afoot than we know.

[finecraft]

15. Hillary as Clark's choice for VP?

I've been thinking about this....She says she's not running for President, but would she run as a VP with Clark? He's got the "strong defense" issues covered, and I think she would bring the "Clinton economic prosperity" issues to the table. I don't think the country is ready to elect a woman president, but maybe as Clark's VP. If they could win against Bush, 4 years to sort things out and get the country back on track, then Wes decides not to run for re-election, leaving the door open for Hillary to run for Pres. Thoughts anyone?

[zeemike]

21. Have you ever asked yours yourself why?

You even bring this up? Is it because it on the news? Are they the ones that raised the question “Is Hillary running?” She said positively no but they cover that question over and over. And they did it for Gore as well “Is Gore running/ Is Clinton running? Is Gore-Clinton running?
All of this is to have a corrosive effect on the front runner and why not it is cheep the press will pick up anything corrosive and play with the minds of the public.

[zeemike]

17. I don’t by the Clinton thing

I have heard him often enough and my instincts are pretty often right, and I do not get that feeling from Clinton.
I think Clinton is a pragmatist and he learned in college just what the rules are in coming to power. And so he played the rules to get there, but in his heart he wants to change things and make it better by slow steady steps. I think he thinks that is the only way you can do it.

[QC]

11. Any new candidacy is threatening

to the small but very loud personality cults that have developed here.

Whether Clark can get the nomination or not, which is a whole other question for a whole other thread, he is in an excellent position to rip the bark off Bush and his carefully cultivated warrior image. That's to the benefit of all the candidates, because it's all Bush has to campaign on--well, that and opposing same-sex marriage, a remarkably weak issue.

[Racenut20]

12. Graham/Clark gets my vote anytime

[DoveTurnedHawk]

16. It's Total, Pants-Wetting Fear

Fear that Clark will demolish their own chosen candidate.

You know what? Even if Clark enters, he might not win. I certainly acknowledge that. But we'll all have to wait and see, these predictions of "it's too late" and "he can't win" are all so much hot air. We'll see how we Democrats vote, and we'll see what happens.

That's democracy for you.

DTH

[Cocoa]

18. my only concern...

right now I'm happy with the level of substance in this campaign. I hasn't been an overly nasty campaign, there is a wide range of choices from Kucinich to Lieberman, and the Dems have a huge advantage on substance.

I read here that one of the dems pointed out that all nine dems had a health care plan and Bush doesn't. That's a huge advantage, imo, over Bush. The general election can be a bloodbath.

Ok, so we have all these great candidates, then this mystery man comes in. Does the campaign turn from substance to vague ideas like "change" and "leadership"?

I don't know if this is going to happen. Maybe Clark does have something concrete to offer, and he just hasn't chosen to share it yet for some reason. Or maybe he is as empty as he appears now, but he won't have an impact.

But if it does happen, it wouldn't be a good thing, imo.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

20. Clark Offers Leadership AND Good Positions

Please see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=96425

These are positions, and they're great ones.

DTH

[Cocoa]

23. that's exactly what I'm talking about

He does take a concrete position on Bush going to the UN, though that position has yet to be challenged, as Dean's was last night.

But then he goes on to the vague crap I'm talking about, that could come from anyone:

And, weaving the themes of his military service and his vision for the country together, he said: "I fought for the right of people to disagree. I fought for the right of people to protest. I fought for the right of people to question the president, and not just to question, you know, what did he eat today and how far did he run."

"I fought for the right of privacy," he went on. "I fought for freedom from government intrusion of our personal lives. I fought for the belief that every American is a human being who is worthy of respect and who should be treated fairly and equally, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation or any other discriminating factor."

If he wants to be concrete about privacy rights, he should go into detail on his work at Acxiom, a company that collects private data on citizens, and which offers "Patriot Act Compliance" services, and which was given the Big Brother Award by a privacy rights organization.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. He Ain't Even Running Yet

But I have little doubt that if he runs, he will have very coherent and credible positions for any progressive. Why would he have position papers before that time? It's premature.

In any event, what he said there was a lot more clear and substantive, IMO, than most current candidates' stump speeches.

DTH

[Cocoa]

25. I doubt that last claim

I'm not a big fan of stump speeches, so I haven't been following them too closely, but I seriously doubt that you could find a stump speech that has less substance than what Clark said right there.

Like I said, just on health care, all the candidates have plans.

Maybe you're right, maybe Clark will turn out to be for real. I don't know what is leading you to think this, let alone be certain of it, but who knows?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

27. Fair Enough

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'd be curious what the rest of the speech entailed, however. Still, the excerpt described by the article was quite good, at least to me.

DTH

[Terwilliger]

19. because its more right-wing mandated choices for the Dem ticket

because the Republicans have effectively intimidated Democrats, and all most can do is run to the most right-wing candidate in fear for their lives.

[robbedvoter]

22. Besides bush, whom you want to keep?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[robbedvoter]

28. Name calling doesn't alter your stand that bush should be kept

which makes all your comments on our candidates grossly irrelevant. (Or rather, we should apply the 180 degrees we apply to GOP advice on the same)

[Terwilliger]

46. heh

I see you didnt answer the charge

[Kahuna]

59. If the right wing get their way...

Dean will be the nominee. They're chomping at the bit for Dean. Just so that they can compare Dean's LACK of national security bona fides to chimp's. Even though we know what a disastor Chimp's foreign policy has been, Mr. and Mrs. Clueless America don't know.

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Okay, here are a whole bunch of reasons. What do you think?

It's like we're a bunch of panicky victims waiting for some Knight on a white charger to save us from the mean old dragon.

He is very unproven in debates.

He will be used to show that all Dems are useless losers, so we had to draft a non-dem with a military record to dispel the reality that we're cowardly traitors.

His very existence shows us that we hate ourselves for being lefties and are trying to pull a fast one.

The process of his deciding up to now is NOT leadership, no matter how valuable prudence is as a trait of command.

It shows us as monumentally fickle.

He is not dynamic.

His intelligence will be used against him. (Personally, I hate that about our politics, and there are other very smart ones in the race too, but it is a factor.)

He is not a seasoned politician. Yes, he has diplomatic experience, but most of his leadership experience is in the military, where one HAS to obey you; politics is a sharp shock for ex-servicement.

The Bushies are going to play rough, and I don't think he can dish it out and take it.

He has absolutely no political record to run on. Save Braun and Sharpton, all of the others can point to legislative and executive records of some distinction. They can show how they bucked the system and made things work. All we have from him is his word of how he'd have voted; like some of Dean's proclamations, that only goes so far.

He has no experience at all in getting what he wants from the legislature, no favors to call in, no alliances to rely upon and no foreknowledge of how anyone's going to really respond to him. Smart though he undoubtedly is, he is the biggest beginner of the bunch. That's no job for neophytes. The jungle has eyes, and they belong to some real monsters.

There's an undeniable flavor of narcissism about the whole thing from his part. He should have some respect for the others and the process and not wait another two weeks; it's getting selfish and abusive. Sure, all's fair in politics, but milking a special advantage isn't right and it tends to come back to haunt you.

If he does run, when asked a question he'd better NEVER pull any of this Schwarzenegger "we're studying it" crap, he'd better make a stand right there and then. We don't need General Hamlet at this point. If he runs, he'd better make a big damn one-eighty and be decisive and personally powerful; I've seen precious little of that so far.

I think the whole thing stinks. He seems like a decent enough chap, but so many questions about his business practices remain unknown as well as what I've just stated. It reflects pretty lamely on the party, on him and on us as individuals.

Okay?

You asked for reasons, and although some are annoying, all will have an impact. The pathetic nature of us hating ourselves and looking for some big daddy/savior to come and rescue poor little us is a nauseating element of this. It's already bad enough that we're going to stampede into making a decision on a candidate in the NEXT FIVE MONTHS, but to have this guy enter and suck all the attention for awhile is not a good thing. We're already losing a month over this California catastrophe. If he enters, he'll suck all of the attention for, say, another aggregate month spread out through the time. (The media will gleefully run stories about him, his impact and the idiot dems, sucking the already dreadfully small amount of airtime dry. Trust me, the Bushies will do everything possible to create "news" to suck even more attention.) The holidays, all told, will suck three weeks of our attention. So, there you have it: we have about NINE WEEKS now until we will have decided our candidate. That's just plain stupid. Sure, if you love Dean, it's great. If you want anyone else to get any airtime, it's a disaster.

Overall, it just seems hand-wringingly juvenile, and I guarantee you the nazis will jump up and down screaming how all of our politicians are so worthless that we have to pull in some non-dem to run against George-allmighty. It will be shown as proof that our party and our very essence is worthless.

See? There are lots of reasons.

The only people who should be happy about this are Deanies and Clark supporters. It may hurt Dean a tad, but it more likely will guarantee his momentum to carry him through the storm.

[zeemike]

35. Yep

you said it good. And there may be even more than that

[Cocoa]

36. wow

very well said.

I lied above when I said I only have one concern. I agree with everything you said there.

I'll even add one more. Regular DUers probably remember that week or so when a whole bunch of obnoxious pro-Clark newbies suddenly showed up here and tried to ram Clark down our throats. That reflected poorly on Clark.

[Julien Sorel]

50. LOL

The opinion of someone who agrees that the foolish phrase 'self-hatred' actually has meaning is about as valuable to me as the insane conspiracy theories that the moderators of this place refuse to address do.


Ram Clark down throats? I can go right now and find dozens of threads that try to ram Dean down peoples' throats. It's actually become a joke now, to the point where people are making tongue-in-cheek posts wondering when Dean will be put up on Mt. Rushmore. But Clark's supporter's reflect poorly on Clark for 'ramming him down our throats.'

[RichM]

52. I totally agree with this observation.

It's very significant when a group supporting a particular candidate uses bullying tactics, & attempts to convert the whole DU board into a barrage of mindless commercials for their guy. There's a quality of brownshirted thuggishness about it -- very different from the attempts of, say, the Kerry supporters. I don't support Kerry, but I feel that his supporters here have done a high-quality job of trying to advocate for their guy on the issues & on the merits. Most of the Clark advocates are basically at the level of "Support Clark or we'll kick yer ass."

[Kahuna]

61. C'mon Rich. Please post just one post with the attitude that

you describe. Clark supporters are mature and do not result to the childish tactics of other supporters. We believe in our guy. We don't need to tear down others to prop our guy up.

[RichM]

70. OK, Kahuna. Let's examine the following Clark post from 2 days ago --

Please tell me if this is your idea of a "mature Clark supporter."

==================
Poster: ****
Date: Sept 3

Subject: Wow. Looks like some folks sure are filling their pants over Clark!

Message: Check out all our new friends on DU!!! Hmmm....is it other dem campaigns? If so, why not come out and say it? After all going after clark is totally legitimate primary politics...
Hmmmm....The only people who'd have reason to sneak around are KKKarls little E-fools and/or the Greenies, all of whom know they just may be toast if Clark is on the ticket.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=271063

==============
Now, this post seems to be calling anyone who's against Clark either a "KKKarl's little E-fool" or a Green. Isn't that sort of an unpleasant, less-than-wholly-rational accusation? Notice the subject line about "filling their pants?" This seems to represent the upper limit of verbal ability for this particular "mature Clark supporter."

He didn't write this to "discuss." He wrote it to try to bully people. If I was a Clark supporter, I would try to muzzle this guy -- his thuggishness is not going to win you many friends.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. I thought the "would you like some cheese with that whine" was telling

That was on that weekend when the whole silliness burst like a summer squall. This is a pure Limbaughesque bit of taunting ridicule that typified much of the "discourse".

That's why I called them "Clark-barkers". Some of his supporters are very sincere, but the others are like the old "Nixon's the one" chanters who didn't know anything about the man other than their Nelson Muntz "ha-ha" superiority.

[Kahuna]

60. What?!? Says you.

Doesn't make it a fact though. Keep spinning.

[MiltonLeBerle]

40. Clark doesn't have the baggage of a career politician.

Put Wesley Clark up against John Kerry in a debate mano-a-mano, and most people in this country are going to be more impressed with Clark, because he hasn't learned how to talk like a politican in the way that Kerry has.
A big part of the electorate is more turned off than ever by career politicians, and would welcome someone a little less "seasoned" to vote for.

[Cocoa]

43. it's different in a post-Bush world

we have a living example now of a candidate who posed as an outsider, was vague on positions, and turned out to be a puppet for big business, specifically the oil industry.

Maybe people will wonder if Clark as president will just be trading the oil industry for the defense industry?

Not saying this is true, just saying that the "outsider" thing has real drawbacks now. The long records of public service of many of the Dems I think will be an advantage for them. Secrecy is out, after 2 1/2 years of this tight-lipped crew.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. nor does he know how to tip the skycap

He doesn't know the world into which he's attempting to not only enter, but control.

He doesn't know how to talk, period. Yes, of late he is more willing to answer questions, but the time for "we'll discuss that later" is long since past.

It's a two-edged sword, this politicospeak. It's easy to get tripped up if you're a newbie.

[indigo32]

49. Wow

all true.

[RichM]

51. Absolutely spot-on right. Bravo, Purity. *** applause ***

There's little left to add to that.

I'd underscore the idea that turning to a military figure as a "white knight" tends to validate many elements of the rightwing conception of the world. It is based on the idea that the military is an institution so worthy of respect that we should turn to it in times of trouble. This idea works to obscure public awareness that the military-industrial complex lies at the heart of some of our most terrible problems. By pretending that the military is a savior, we in effect deny that there's things grievously wrong with it.

Furthermore, nominating someone mainly because he's a general, as opposed to mainly on the basis of his explicit program, is an attempt to exploit ignorant celebrity-worshipping tendencies in the population. It has much in common with running Arnold for governor.

[sandnsea]

64. And he had a hard time deciding to BE a Democrat

That alone is enough for me. If you can't look at the two parties and make up your mind in about one minute flat, you're not really a Democrat. Wesley Clark is a nice man, but I don't see what the hoopla is about.

[juajen]

84. Come on folks, be fair

He was always a democrat. He walked like a dem, talked like a dem, he's a dem and always was. You know military is not supposed to be political. As a military expert on CNN he was also not supposed to be political and that gig ended in June, I think, because he was considering a run for the presidency. So for about two months there has been a buildup of suspense as to what he was going to do. You could just take him at his word and accept that he had to get his ducks in a row.

If everything you say and other posters here say is true about Clark, why are you whining? We will soon have the answers to all questions, i.e., his viability, his honesty, who's supporting him, vp or p, and on and on and on.

Welcome Clark like good democrats and wait and see. It is dastardly to tear down a good dem candidate whether he's announced or not. I don't hear a lot of you complaining about Hart not having declared yet and he still talks as if he wants to run.

Any dem candidate who can't hold his own against Clark is not a candidate that could win against the * machine. BTW, I am still a Kucinich supporter. However, I like Clark and do not like to hear this divisiveness among people who should be working hard for the democratic cause, as well as the candidate they prefer.

[leesa]

30. More of the same military industrial complex trap

All war all the time...we need to grow up and quit playing soldiers. How do we escape the trap of the MI complex if we appoint one of their members to yet another position of power?

[QC]

32. Interesting thing about that phrase

"military industrial complex."

It was coined by a retired general. A lot of people here who love to throw around the accusation that Clark is a tool of the M/I complex seem not to be aware of that or to prefer to ignore it.

The assertion that Clark is a M/I complex mole, generally made without even any attempt at providing some evidence, seems to boil down to the notion that anyone who made a career in the military is automatically unfit to hold public office.

It was Eisenhower who warned of the danger of the M/I complex, and it was career pols and chickenhawks like Nixon, Reagan, Cheney, Shrub, etc. who have sold the country out to the arms manufacturers.

Seems to me that one can't really draw a conclusion from the mere fact that a candidate has a military background.

[dfong63]

34. not really

The assertion that Clark is a M/I complex mole, generally made without even any attempt at providing some evidence, seems to boil down to the notion that anyone who made a career in the military is automatically unfit to hold public office.

it's not so much that "anyone who made a career in the military is unfit", it's more like Clark has no track record outside the military. he's no more qualified to be president than Arnie is to be governor.

Clark's military background is the number 1 qualification cited by his supporters. it's practically his only asset. but a lot of us simply don't think it's a plus. the pentagon doesn't run on a real budget, for one thing. they essentially have a blank check. they live in a world of hundred-dollar toilet seats, billion-dollar airplanes, trillion dollar (yes, that's 12 zeroes!) accounting errors. cmon folks, this is the US, not some two-bit banana republic. or at least we don't want it to be a banana republic. we don't need a general to run the country.

[MiltonLeBerle]

39. WRONG!

Do your homework, and take off the blinders.
As the Supreme Commander of NATO, Clark definitely had to be a politician, in that he had work with a number of different countries, as well consider the political ramifications of his decisions and actions.
General Clark is much more qualified to be president than Ahnuld is to be governor.
And he's also more qualified to be president than the one we have now.

[edward]

54. That seems to prove how irrelevant military experience is.

Bush evaded alternate service, becomes president.
Americans-besides all the chatter-really don't care about military experience. (and rightly so I would add. Why an elected office commands the military)

[juajen]

85. Eisenhower didn't have any experiece either

Seriously, folks, right now, I think we need a general. I am afraid that only a general can straighten out the mess the *ies have made and the messy pentagon. Like it or not, and I don't, we are in the middle of a huge war with another one looming. We need someone who can handle this. I am not sure that as much as I like Kucinich that he could. I daresay none of you can be certain of that either. If even Carter is warning about war with Korea, I think it's eminent. God what a mess! Clark is looking better and better.

[VolcanoJen]

91. May I admit that the Eisenhower quote bugs me?

For cryin' out loud... right or wrong, Eisenhower uttered that celebrated phrase FIFTY FREAKING YEARS AGO. What other fifty-year old buzzphrases can we quote? Can't we come up with our own phrases? You know? Are we that terribly uncreative and irrelevant in our arguments?

I'm proud of my generation (Gen X, I guess, in my case - came of age in the '80's) and wish we could be more original, is all...

I'm not saying it's bad or good... but I'm screaming for relevancy... how many of today's voters will truly be affected by that phrase?

Just another thing to throw out for discussion (ducking),
Jennifer :-)

[barbaraann]

37. Eisenhower warned us AFTER he let the military-industrial

complex solidify its control during his term. Talk is cheap.

[Terwilliger]

47. true

but at least he recognized a serrious problem and ssaid something

Now the Democratic party wants to bring a Pentagon general into the power of the White House....

I'd say Dwight was right, wouldn't you?

[MiltonLeBerle]

55. Dwight might have been right, but Clark isn't the proof in the pudding-

Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Raygun, Clinton, and Bush & Bush- None of them were "Pentagon Generals", and all went out of their way to help champion the growth of a military-industrial complex, and I have faith in Wesley Clark's ability to be a better president than any of them.

[Terwilliger]

67. I have no idea why you feel that way

since Clark's only record has been as a general.

[Julien Sorel]

78. You left Carter off the list.

Carter increased military spending by quite a bit during his administration, something that is often overlooked by both his detractors and his supporters. Carter was a closet hawk.

[juajen]

88. Hey, BillyB

My historian hubbie tells me that Carter was also a navy commander. What do you know about this? I guess I must have known, and it just slipped my mind.

[Julien Sorel]

90. He graduated from Annapolis. I think his degree was

in nuclear engineering, and I'm pretty sure he was a submarine officer before he moved back to Georgia to take over the family business.

I used to have a list of things Carter did when he was in office that I'd post to prove he wasn't 'soft on communism' and all the rest of the anti-Democratic smears, but I think it was on my old computer. One of the biggies was that Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's NSA, kind of cooked up a plan to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan, hoping that they'd get bogged down in a guerilla war, which might end up breaking them. Of course, that's exactly what happened. I'm a Carter fan, as you can probably tell, although it isn't only for the reasons most people here would be. There was a lot of steel in him, and he was pretty ruthless -- many people who like him here because they know the post-presidency, 'dovish' Carter would recoil at some of the things he did in office. He could be dovish, and he believed in peace, but he wasn't the softy people think of him as. It's too bad he didn't inspire people, because he had all the rest of what it took to be a great president.

[TacticalPeek]

92. And he trained up under Admiral Rickover.

And in brilliant, visionary style, he and Harold Brown worked hard to kill the B-1 boondoggle, and instead focus resources on true stealth (F-117) and cruise missle technology. Damn good decisions if you ask me.

[TheBigGuy]

58. William Perry, a Clinton appointee, comes closer..

...Perry spent his career as part of the M-I complex..he worked for a defense contractor prior to being appointed as SecDef.

Clarks career path wasnt quite like that.

[Kahuna]

62. They don't know what the hell they're talking about period.

Their desperation shows when they make mindless ad hominen attacks like that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Not all generals are against the military-industrial complex

Colin Powell, for one, seems quite content to serve it dutifully, regardless of his personal feelings. Remember how he was supposed to be a moderating influence on Bushboy? Then remember how he fronted for the "attack Iraq" offensive?

[chadm]

31. It's not

if he wins the primary it will give the Greens a real shot.

[diplomats]

38. I think he is a welcome addition to the field

may the best candidate win.

[Capn Sunshine]

41. This is all wool spinning

I just heard Clark declare he's a democrat the other day for cryin' out loud.

If we apply that timing to the general election, Clark should announce some time in Oct 2004.

Beyond that, hey, if he EVER decides to run, it will spice up the race.

He'd make a great VP candidate.

[fla nocount]

42. Clark would make a fine VP and running mate.

Would probably bring alot of moderate swing votes along for the ride. Also, he probably has enough dirt on the hounds tucked away in a button-down mode to keep them at bay. Might even be why he's still alive as he's a real and present danger to Bushco and it's affiliates.

[dfong63]

44. how could anyone think Nader entering could be a bad thing?

[AP]

48. Because it'll get like Lousianna Senate race '02 (and CA recall)

When you start getting to many people, the one candidate who could eventually get the most votes against Bush will find that it's hard to rally those voters around their primary race because they're spread so thinly among individuals who are strong in narrow areas, but don't neccessarily have the full package to beat Bush. Throwing in as many candidates as possible has become the modern way to undermine democracy with democracy (ie, to make the logic of democracy cave in upon istself).

[burr]

53. well stated...

bring him on!!! :thumbsup:

most of our candidates are wobbling assholes, and would rather be in shrub's buttkissing cabinet than carry the responsibility of President.

[poskonig]

63. I'm concerned Clark will split the anti-establishment vote.

Gephardt is a *lot* stronger than Duers and the media give him credit for. If Gephardt beats Dean in Iowa, and then spanks everyone in Michigan and the south, Geppy will run away with it.

I really don't want to be in the position to choose between Gephardt and Bush.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. If Being Unwaveringly On The Side Of The Working Stiff

is still a Democratic value than Gep stands head and shoulders above *.


But I'm a yellow dog Democrat... If I can vote for Mondale and Dukakis I can vote for Gep...

[TacticalPeek]

93. Right, I can, too.

But I'll get the same thing I got with my Mondale and Dukakis votes: four goddam years of repug prez.

I pray that Clark enters and drives like an M1-A1 tank to 1600 Penn Ave.

[juajen]

89. My God, that doesn't bother me at all

I like Gephardt. I'm beginning to think that "Deanie Babies" are a little strange or something? We are democrats, not Deanocrats.

[Donna Zen]

66. Is Clark entering the race a bad thing?

This is the primary season and therefore a time for voicing our opinions. Those considerations need to focus on three main points of strength and weakness of any person who puts forth their name as a candidate:

1) Policy and position on issues important if America is to function both as a democracy and fulfill its commitments promised by the Constitution. On a person level, I do not expect to “get” everything in one candidate. Of course I understand and appreciate those who see this as settling for less, however, I stand by my position because I fully believe that the next President of the United States will come from one of the two major parties. Furthermore, the policies and position of the regime cannot not be allowed to continue degrading the democratic institutions of this country, my country.

2) Once the question of policy-position measures up with at least some level of satisfaction, moving on to a winning strategy means serious consideration of electoral politics. Can the candidate hold all or nearly all of the blue states? Are there possible “pick ups” in the red states? Where are the wedge issues? Can we force the regime to spend time and money protecting its base? What demographics will the Dem candidate attract? lose? Will the central issues put forward by this person resonate with a majority of American voters. Voters being an operative word.

3) Finally, comes the “who”....How is the candidate on the stump? What kind of an organization will be the candidate be able to put together? This may come down to how many toes have been stepped on. Money is another biggie when you are going against biggie bucks repubs. And if...if...this person gets elected, can they govern given the divisions in congress. What issues are on the table for bushco, what issues are off.

The answers to these questions are meant to produce a profile of the person in question, not a yes or no answer. Each of us has differing degrees of tolerance for compromise.

I’ve looked at every candidate...although some more closely than others. Should Clark enter the race? If one gives honest consideration of the above, he compares very well to the others now in the race. For me, he brings a commitment to “Constitutional Legitimacy” that should be a central issue considering how far we have wandered from the framers intent. So my answer would be “yes.” After all, I want to win. That said, the more I learn about Clark...and I ain’t givin’ any credibility to the shit thrown by those who are Blinded by Medals and willing to cite the lowest and most insubstantial charges including the writings of true Clinton haters, somehow I don’t believe that a man who has already taken four bullets while in the uniform of the country needs to endure the crap that will be thrown at him by the reich machine. Seeing the level of “tin foil” charges provided by the left is disgusting enough. It is unfortunate to see the vitriol aimed at not the concept of the MIC, but rather a person who wore a uniform among the many other things he has accomplished. BTW, I'm leaning toward his not making the run based on the time and money issues involved.

If the voters of this country don’t realize that the 1) the right-wing MIC has no interest in seeing the strongest Dem candidate challenge boil boy and 2) there are no lies too big, no line that cannot and will not be crossed in the coming election.

I don’t know what criteria you are using to measure your choice, I do hope common sense and decency are among them.

[OKNancy]

71. Great post

kind of a threadkiller in the best sense of the word.

[Democat]

76. Good post

Thanks for taking the time to post that. :)

[tomp]

73. there are a lot of democrats i can't stand.

could he end up being one of them? could he end up helping the part of the party i hate. sure, it's possible he could help beat bush. that doesn't mean he's any damn good for anything else. that doesn't mean we won't have to start protesting his administration.

[Donna Zen]

74. Each of us....

must make the decision of how much we can compromise based on our own level of intellectual and "gut" tolerance. I am not a lock-stepper, I am a liberal who can turn over and consider many points of view.

There was a time when I decided that withhold the mandate by keeping the turn out low would be an effective counter to the quality of the two candidates in the race. I guess this was brought on by a stint of manning the phones in a hotel in Chicago and trying to connect the folks in the street with legal services, while the police exerted their authority. So in 1968 while I voted for every other issue and candidate on the ticket, I with held my vote in protest. Two years later the army reserves would be firing live rounds at me on my campus. Clark has argued for the importance of dissent if our society is to remain strong. That means yours too! So by all means protest...Of course you can quickly brush his rhetoric aside as so much GOP mole bullshit, but then his position on free speech predates the draft-buzz by about many months. But go ahead please...say he's lying. Just remember, if you give no trust you will get no trust.

And thanks Nancy, although I really think we need to use a little cyber space to discuss the reality of politics. This is prehaps the most important election of our lifetime for seeds of doom are being sown.

[shatoga]

77. Repubs are scared sh**less that clark will oppose Bush

A genuine General against a deserter?

why are they spending so much time and money to make us all think clark is such a bad idea.
The rightwing NWO media oppose Clark, because they fear Democrats gaining control!

Not NWO minions, but real democrats.

That scares those media minions who sold body mind and soul to Bush.

[Donna Zen]

80. IMHO

...I don't care if they are scared shitless or not. The only thing I can control are my own actions and my own mind. The decision we are making and what we are going to do is what matters.

[robbedvoter]

81. Ha!ha! If you saw his comment to the flyboy bush doll on Maher's

show, you'll understand the opposition.

[sangha]

82. Is that all it takes?

A comment?

I remember a time when a record counted for something.

[robbedvoter]

83. Without the record, the comment wouldn't be worth zilch

The reason he is proud to be a liberal wasn't to shabby either.

[Pastiche423]

86. Not for those

that believe winning is everything.

[TacticalPeek]

94. Ousting aWol IS everything. This is electoral politics, remember?

n/t