Full text of Clark's policy speech here...

[wyldwolf]

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/

[wyldwolf]

1. Wish I had heard this!

[RandomUser]

22. Me too!

He's definitely growing with every speech. It's not just the ideas, but the way he brings them across. He's growing leaps and bounds as the campaign develops.



We've only been at this for four weeks, and already I have seen an outpouring of support unlike anything I've ever seen before.

Just arriving in New York, I saw people with flags and banners, celebrating, flooding the streets with a sense of excitement and anticipation. I commented on this to , and he said, "Wes, they're Yankees fans."



From this short snippet, we see he's able to to use humor to connect with the audience while thanking them for their support at the same time.

[knowledgeispower]

2. "A new patriotism" sounds a lot like...

The New Deal

Consider me a Clark fan.

King's vision is what the New American Patriotism is all about. It's about tapping into the power of our ideals and the generosity of our service. We must give back to this country the same way we have given to our children - the same way our immigrants built this land. By collective responsibility and sacrifice. New American Patriotism is about bringing renewed life to Dr. King's dream, to those here at home, those abroad, and to future generations.

On edit: included quote from speech

[RandomUser]

4. I like the Civilian Reserve

He draws from the good that came out of 9/11, while Bush draws from the bad. Since 9/11, Bush has used that as his trump card to anyone dissenting. Clark is not afraid of 9/11, he's attacking Bush at his strenght, stealing the card of 9/11.

Bush draws from the rage, anger, frustration, despair and fear that came from from 9/11. Clark draws from the goodwill, self-sacrifice, civic duty, volunteerism, helping others, and sense of kinship and community that came from 9/11.

Where Bush looks at 9/11 and offers up the Iraq War. Clark looks at 9/11 and offers up the Civilian Reserve -- a way for civic volunteers to knit together.

[Renew Deal]

30. Funny

because I was thinking the same thing today about the civilian reserve and his job plan. I was thinking that they should call it "the new and improved deal" or the "New New deal."

[RandomUser]

39. I'm glad he calls

this "New New Deal" the "New American Patriotism"

Let's see Bush attack that :)

[LizW]

102. No, the New Deal provided jobs

this is talking about volunteer work.

I may be the only one who thinks this, but I think it's weird that a candidate is proposing having Americans provide government services for free.

There's a forest fire in Colorado. Instead of the state and federal governments hiring and flying in paid firefighters to put it out, the President calls up a few hundred volunteer Civilian Reservist firefighters who leave their paying jobs to do this one. Great deal, for the government -- not so much for the Civilian Reservists, though.

Before you call me a grinch, I have done thousands of hours of volunteer work since I left the paying workforce. I understand how very important volunteerism is to every community. At the heart of volunteerism is charity. Volunteers step up and take care of needs that government, for whatever reason, doesn't fill. And it's a wonderful and richly rewarding thing.

What I feel, though, is that this plan asks citizens to give up their paying jobs to provide services that the government once might have provided.

It sounds (dare I say it?) almost Republican.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

105. I Disagree

In times of emergency, there are never enough personnel to go around. This program would make available and more importantly coordinate thousands if not millions of volunteers. Moreover, not only is it voluntary to put your name in the hat, each individual job is also offered on a voluntary basis.

The only exception is for true national emergencies, such as another 9/11 or something, and even that is limited to 5,000 callups unless Congress explicitly authorizes more. I'm sure that any President who abused this power would be committing political suicide.

Finally, there is no "cut in federal services/emergency personnel" aspect to this plan, so it's a question of more resources being available, not less.

DTH

[LizW]

109. You're looking at it very optimistically

and that's good. I just think this program would have to have LOTS of restrictions to prevent its abuse at the hands of, say, a President Jeb Bush. We have seen first hand how much a Repug president can get away with that any reasonable person would think was political suicide.

You are predicting thousands or millions of volunteers through this program, and I hope you're right.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

110. Oh, I Absolutely Agree There Need to Be TONS of Safeguards

But in concept, I love the idea. :-)

DTH

[Khephra]

3. The overseas part that many of us were wondering about IS there

"Members of the Civilian Reserves could also aid overseas in response to our ambassador's calls for assistance in helping nation's deal with environmental disasters, political and legal development, and economic growth."

But this is nice:

"Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action."

But then it is followed by this:

"Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare."

Hmmmmm....

Under Clark or any other Democrat, I could probably deal with this. The problem that arises is what happens if someone like Jeb Bush gets in there with a tool like this?

[wyldwolf]

5. I doubt that portion would pass...

...it would be seen as a form of draft.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. I would hope

that a mandatory call-up provision would have a required "Approval by Congress" provision attached to it. Good question...

[knowledgeispower]

10. You mean the rubber stamp Congress?

Supposedly Congress has to declare war for that very same purpose, but we all know how that went.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[bicentennial_baby]

11. Oh I know

I really have no idea, Kheph's got a good point. It's just my nature, to hope people will do the right thing, even though I generally assume that they won't :-)

[Khephra]

16. Thanks!

I'm not against the idea, but a hell of a lot of safeguards need to be built in so it is never abused like the National Guard is being abused at the moment before I could get behind this.

But it is possible that I could get behind it, if those safeguards are in place.

[bicentennial_baby]

20. I agree

The potential for abuse has to be a high priority concern when looking at this proposal. I really like the domestic aspect of it, in terms of natural disasters, etc. When it comes to Crisis Responders, there's no such thing as having too many! :-)

[Renew Deal]

32. I agree too,

I was thinking the same thing. But to have a list of projects to work on would be great. I can see how this could work adn also be abused. I think a good 8 years of Clark would help set the trend. Then another 4-8 years of Dean or whoever the VP would be.

[RandomUser]

18. Yeah, good point

Safeguards can be tacked on, and I wouldn't be adverse to them, but this concept seems to be nice starting point for new domestic and foreign policies.

[knowledgeispower]

9. I thought about that too

But these neo-cons can use just about anything for evil, so no matter what the Dems do that will always be a concern.

[StephNW4Clark]

7. JFK+FDR

That's what it sounds like. The concrete works that FDR proposed in the New Deal coupled with JFK's call of "not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Thank goodness SOMEONE is finally saying that.

[RandomUser]

13. JFK + FDR = Clark

I like your equation :)

[StephNW4Clark]

14. Isn't Math fun?

[RandomUser]

26. Imagine what this equation looks like in electoral math

Fun indeed :)

[Julien Sorel]

8. Textually, it was a very good, maybe a great speech.

I wonder how he did delivering it. He's really firming up a positive vision for the country -- he's stealing stuff from Kennedy, and drawing heavily on Democratic traditions that stretch back to Roosevelt. Of course, by doing these things, he's also subtly re-inforcing his Democratic credentials.

3D thinking -- the joys of having an intelligent candidate to support.

[jumptheshadow]

12. Just got back from the speech

Clark was good, his voice is flagging, the crowd loved him. Unfortunately the pictures you will see in the newspaper tomorrow will be of the young man who went into a dead faint and crashed hard on stage right behind Clark as he was speaking. I'll be back with more details but must attend to work first.

[RandomUser]

15. Thanks

Looking forward to your firsthand account.

[wyldwolf]

17. I think that would have been much more effective if the fainter was female

[Donna Zen]

19. Just talking to my husband

... and if this ever came to be, we would sign up. Each year we volunteer two weeks of our time to work with a team that is building a hospital etc in Nicaragua. Sure, we'd do this.

[wyldwolf]

21. I think I would, too...

...not only because I like volunteering for things and do often, but I would imagine the training you would receive would be valuable.

[RandomUser]

23. I don't think you're alone

A lot of people will sign on to this, I think. It appeals to the good in us, rather than the fear and anger.

[TexasPatriot]

24. i would too

it's a national barn building exercise

it's been so long since I've seen 'the vision thing'... the only other candidate i see with it seems to be Kucinich - but whereas I agree with his vision in an idealistic sense this seems more grounded.

Clark really has the 'why does rice play texas' thing going for me. There's amazing positive energy coming from that man. What the hell is in the water in Arkansas.

[StephNW4Clark]

25. I don't know what's in the water in Arkansas...

...but they should make it a national park!

[Renew Deal]

33. Training and personal experience is what it's all about.

This isn't just a a program to save the world, it is also a resume builder.

[RandomUser]

38. I like the fact that it works

on more than one level. Smart planning.

[OKNancy]

42. I'd like to volunteer but....

do you think they would need a tap and ballet teacher?

[wyldwolf]

44. You would probably be taught things like CPR..

...maybe things similar to volunteer fire fighting.

What else can anyone picture?

[Renew Deal]

58. Sure...

That could be part of some community building program.

[FrenchieCat]

72. A ballet and Tap Teacher??

Of course that is needed. Even I need that.....

Clark is on the board of the Arkansas Theatre for the Arts. So the guy is into the arts! So is his wife, I understand.

[OKNancy]

73. I forgot to put

a :-) after my post. Although that is my profession, I think I could be useful in a number of areas.

[KittyWampus]

45. My Father Does Earth Watch and Global Volunteers

He's helped build playgrounds in Jamaica
Count Birds in China
Protect Bandicoots and Bettongs in Australia

You get to travel and mix with locals and do good deeds all in one shot!

It'd be great if the government helped more people do something like this.

Post Script:Kephra's right about safeguards though. Even the most wonderful programs can be subverted when in the wrong hands.

[Donna Zen]

63. With enough voices involved

and there would be, an abuse would blow into a scandal very quickly. The thing for citizens to monitor would be legislative changes meant to breakdown the safeguards against abuse.

And a refusal on the part of anyone to serve against their will would provoke outrage. Remember, this is a Dem proposal so the rep's would be on a constant lookout for error.

[jumptheshadow]

27. One-hour Clark interview

Clark apparently sat down with NY1's Dominic Carter after the speech. The one-hour interview will be streamed twice tonight.

For more info, go here:

http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=33953

[RandomUser]

35. Thanks for the heads up

I'll be sure to tune in for the online streaming video tonight. I hope they ask him lots of questions about this new speech. I loved the concept and I want details :)

[Renew Deal]

28. I just finished reading it.

I like the ideas presented. It would be terrific to have a national database of projects to work on. It would make it easier to volunteer. And it is all volunteer. You can opt out of almost any project.

Volunteerism helps build community and gives people the chance to do the little things to make people's lives better. Let's see...

[DemCam]

29. Was terrfied when I saw

the first postings. And thought, Oh, no....here we go. This is a really, really bad idea. This is gonna give his opponents of all stripes enough ammunition to blast him into orbit.

And then I read the whole speech...and found tears in my eyes.

It just makes me...for the first time in a long while...finally...proud to be an American again.

[StephNW4Clark]

31. Hey - Welcome Home.

It's nice to have found America again, isn't it? Land of promise and inspiration. We may have taken a detour through hell for 4 years, but it's good to know we've found our guide back to our country.

[DemCam]

36. Here they come again...

those spontaneous tears.

Yes...it's good to be home. :)

[RandomUser]

37. Feels good to be a Democrat and an American

He makes me proud to be an American. And that's no easy feat after the crap Bush pulled.

[Kool Kitty]

68. If you thought it was good to read,

you should have been there to hear it. It was that good. (I felt bad for him, though, he has an awful cold and the fainting kid didn't help.)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. This Is an Inspirational Speech

I was a bit awestruck when I read it.

I hope it sounded half as good as it reads.

DTH

[Mz Pip]

40. This is a terrific idea

Both my sons were in NYC on 9/11. Both wanted to do something to help out, but there was so much chaos and little coordination. Having an organization like Clark proposes would be of tremendous value, not just in times of National emergencies, but for local work as well.

What a wonderful idea to bring people together in the spirit of community.

MzPip
:dem:

[RandomUser]

41. It's like yin & yang

Bush draws from the anger, despair and fear of 9/11 to give us Iraq. Clark draws from the good, self-sacrifice, volunteerism, and civic duty to give us Civilian Reserves to help volunteer groups organize.

The contrast tells you a lot about these two men and the way they view the future, and the types of visions they will use to craft it.

[jumptheshadow]

43. Wesley Clark at Hunter College

He couldn't have picked a better venue for this particular speech. Hunter College, as many of you know, has produced hundreds of thousands of graduates who have gone on to careers in public service. It has nationally recognized social work and teachers' schools. It is part of the City University system, which has served as a platform to prosperity for many hard-working immigrants and children of immigrants.

Three congressmen were in attendance: Charlie Rangel, Steve Israel and a gentleman named Mathison (sp?) from Utah. Clark was introduced by two 17-year-olds from the Bronx. They have served as volunteers and were publicizing a program that enables Internet donors to contribute items specifically requested by NY teachers.

The speech started late. Every seat was filled, despite the lack of publicity about the event. I sat near a group of Columbia University students who each held an individual printed letter that spelled out "Columbia Loves Clark." When the general came up on stage, beaming that charismatic smile of his, one of the Columbia kids spiked his hand in the air, shouting, "You da man, Wesley! You da man!"

The stage was festooned with 10 American flags complete with eaglehead stands. A slide projected the words "New American Patriotism," and you knew he was going to reclaim both patriotism and the flag from the demagogues of the far right. And he did. I suspect this will be his campaign slogan.

Twelve young people were standing on stage behind Clark. They had been there for quite a while because of the late start. Clark was a few minutes into his speech and was just getting to some quips about military life when boom! a young man in a hooded sweat shirt crashed hard into the floor behind him. A circle of people quickly surrounded the kid and a public call was made for a doctor. It took a few minutes to revive the poor kid and then he was helped out, still looking dazed.

Clark started his speech again. "When I was talking about the military I didn't know we would have casualties on stage," he said.
The event, frankly, had been disconcerting, but Clark was unrattled. However, the speech seemed to come as an anticlimax after the obvious distress of the young man. Clark hurried through it and, toward the end, his voice was breaking with exhaustion.

The audience was attentive to every word. As I listened to the speech I realized one of the many things I like about Clark: He reminds me of the WWII era folks -- one generation older than mine -- who had fought a just war and were committed to a higher value of public service that almost seems old-fashioned now.

When Clark finished the speech, the Columbia kids started sing-songing a military march. The last two lines went something like this: "Wes Clark is fab. And he has chiseled abs." Clark looked up and waved at them.

As I was leaving, I heard two young college women speaking to each other. "I haven't been able to get into any of the politicians, but this guy grabs me," one girl said to another. "Have you ever read JFK's inaugural speech? You must read JFK's inaugural speech."

By the way, I took a cab to Hunter. My cabdriver was born in Ghana and is a naturalized citizen. I told him I was going to hear Wesley Clark speak. "He's my man!" the cabbie responded. "Where is he speaking? When is he speaking? Do you need tickets?"

Thanks for the heads-up, wyldwolf, I never would have attended the speech unless you had posted about it this morning.

[RandomUser]

46. Wonderful personal account

Thank you!

Ghana cabdrivers are rooting for Clark! He's gonna beat Bush.

(of course, the typical Clark bashers will say the Ghana cabdriver is really a stealth republican and DLC stooge and part of the stop Dean brigade)
:eyes:

[Zorra]

47. "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

This sounds like a reinstitution of the draft in sheep's clothing to me:

"Here's how it would work: Every American age 18 or over will have the opportunity to register for the civilian reserve. If you register, you'll be asked to list your abilities and the types of service that interest you."

"By registering, you commit that those skills can be called on at any time - domestically or internationally -- for the next five years. Every five years thereafter, you will be given the opportunity to re-register."

"Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more."

"Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare."

"Still, if called, this service will not necessarily be easy."

So, you sign up to help earthquake victims, but you end up getting a rifle and get told to you have to shoot the Zapatistas or the Venezuelans or whatever country is not acting in the best interests of global capitalism? Like Iraq? Like Vietnam? The government has a bad track record recently. We have gone to war when there is no clear and present danger or imminent threat to our nation. How can anyone in their right mind expect me to trust the motivations and intentions of the government? It's all about money.

Look at the position our National Guardsmen are in right now. They are involved in the unreasonable and senseless occupation of Iraq, and are dying for no reason. They hate it, they don't want to be there, and they want to come home. Some of them are committing suicide. Again, it's all about money.

IMO, it seems to me that Clark, because of his lifetime career in the military, has a tendency to view existence from a military standpoint.
His concept of service seems to have a narrow and imperialistic ideal.
Mr. Clark seems to me, after having read a number of his speeches, to believe that the United States has an obligation to impose the "American Way of Life" on other countries and cultures. A "rolling revolution" of American consumerism.

I love Democracy. I'm struggling to get it back in my own nation every day. When we get it back, perhaps other countries will look at us and say, "Yeah, that's cool, let's try it." But right now, they are looking at us as a threat to the world. We are making "Democracy" look pretty bad. I live in an international community. I speak with poor or middle class people from other countries on a daily basis. America is universally despised throughout the world, and people from other countries are immediately suspicious of prejudiced against me because I am an American. I hate this. After speaking with me, however, these folks accept me because of my views, because I can see US policy from their perspective. I want my government to do good things. I want other countries to respect America. We need a new, non-imperialistic, cooperative, non-interventionist approach to international relations.

"And even today, we are vitally engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, and so many other states where governments are struggling to emerge ... or survive ... as they deal with internal challenge."

"In the 21st Century, heavy demands will be placed on America and Americans -- but we're going to rise to meet them."

What are these demands, why will they be placed on us? Demands to expand markets for multi-national corporations through economic imperialism and military coercion? Our country needs to solve its own problems before we can effectively help others, and we should only help those countries on their own terms, according to their wishes as to how they desire help.

Personally, I am an individualist that does not trust the government. I am not a sheep. I think about everything that I do, and try to conduct myself in an honorable way, in accordance with my personal sense of ethics and moral values. To the best of my ability, I do not allow others to have power over my life that may coerce me into taking actions that are against my conscience. I can think for myself. I would never voluntarily put myself in a position where the government could punish me for refusing to go to another country and impose American values on, or even kill, people that I don't know.

As Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Everybody can be great because anybody can serve ... You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love."

Service to others is wonderful, if it is welcome. I can perform it on my own terms, according to my own beliefs and values.

"Or you could also serve in distant lands, where the struggle for social justice and equality demands our immediate aid. As a village struggles to overcome isolation and hardship, a tribe works to preserve its ancestral territory, or a nation tries to piece together a government of laws"

Believe me, indigenous cultures have had their fill of imperialistic European and American "missionaries" who claim they are there to help the tribe, when in reality they are there to impose their way of life in an attempt to displace and assimilate the culture. They want to be free to live their own way of life, according to their own customs, and free from the threat of cultural and environmental destruction brought on by global capitalist exploitation.

The US, through agents trained at the School of the Americas and other training facilities, deliberately disrupts the governments of other countries that are not favorable to global capitalism, and that wish to retain their self-determined sovereignity and cultural identity.

IMO, this "policy speech" by Clark smacks of an ulterior, imperialistic agenda. A similar policy may be found at the DLC website.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=115

[DoveTurnedHawk]

48. I Bet You See Imperialist Agendas Under Every Bed and Around Every Corner

:eyes:

I am sure this plan entails no military component. That is not hard to specify explicitly.

Moreover, this is a "double-trigger" voluntary plan. First you have to volunteer to be part of the force. Then you volunteer for each case-by-case opportunity presented to serve.

The only narrow exception is for times of true national emergency: earthquake, hurricane, acts of war (and this does not include an elective invasion that never would have happened if Clark was President), etc.

DTH

[Zorra]

51. I don't need to do that

I lived in the US most of my life. I've been lied to repeatedly by a government with imperialistic motives.

By the way, I'm curious -- why do you call yourself "DoveTurnedHawk"?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Visceral Response to 9/11

I was emotional and upset in those days, and that's where this screen name was born. Since then, I've mellowed, and I strongly opposed the Iraq invasion, participating in various anti-war demonstrations.

But I racked up a lot of posts here under this name, so I decided to keep it.

Thanks for asking politely.

DTH

[rucky]

53. If we are the "greatest country" what is our obligation to the world?

I know you feel obligated as a decent person - you don't need this kind of motivation. But what about all of us who need to broaden our horizons - especially the ones who think patriotism is the same as nationalism. So they're "called to serve" for humanitarian purposes - put up or shut up, I say. If they sign up, they'd be in for more than they bargained for. This program would really be attractive to curious and concerned folks like me who want to get out there and help, but don't really have a financially secure means to do so - or more practically, a good excuse to give to my boss.

I've always wondered why our military has bases in depressed areas of the world and spend all their time on training exercises instead of humanitarian missions. I think Clark has wondered the same thing - if we already have all these global resources militarily, why can't we apply this for good instead of evil, so to speak.

Any organization has the potential to be misused and misguided - what makes the system work as intended lies in the commitment of its members. So you don't trust Clark...I see no reason not to, other than a generalized mistrust of authority (understandable). If this program were offered, I would sign up - I doubt my college chums with MBAs would do the same (too busy making money). I wouldn't support global corporate imperialism...in fact, I'd be a hellova ambassador of peace and goodwill. I would be honored to have that opportunity. If that makes me a "sheep," then baa-baa-babbidy-baa.

[BeHereNow]

55. And just WHAT

do you think rebuilding Iraq is, if
not supporting corporate imperialism?
Can you not make the connection between
Carlucci and Clark?
Do you ACTUALLY believe this is about
civilian efforts in Amerikkka?
WAKE UP!

"Members of the Civilian Reserves could also aid overseas in response to our ambassador's calls
for assistance in helping nations deal with environmental disasters, political and legal
development, and economic growth."

The Civilian Reserves would work in partnership with the professional first responders as well as
other non-profit and non-governmental organizations.
(Can you say Dyncorp? Halliburton?)

Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by
Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more.

Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the
call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members
could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.
("for the most part???? And which part is that?)

Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to
issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare."
(Rare my ass, since Carlucci sincerely plans to creat chaos
world wide...)

Oh for fucks sake, somebody tell me this is a bad dream...
I simply can not fathom that my DU family is actually
buying this crap!
It's as if Faux news implanted everyone with brain freeze implants!
Next you'll be telling me that Saddam has WMD's and planned 911!
BHN

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. I've Met You, BHN

And I'm sorry, I just do not agree with your point-of-view. You call us insane; I call your position paranoid.

Clark is an internationalist. He wants the UN to come in, just like most of our other candidates. He has criticized Halliburton's contracts, and he would put them out to true international bid or even better, have the Iraqis themselves rebuild with our support.

Clark is unknown to some people who haven't followed him as much as certain of his supporters. We supporters know about him, and we're inspired by him.

Even if he's a big unknown, as you claim, how could he be any WORSE than Bush? We know what he's about. He's a nightmare. Clark is the best candidate to beat him.

DTH

[BeHereNow]

76. If you've met me...

It would be in Southern CA? No?
Well then I ask you to consider doing two things:

1. Attending Craig Hulet's lecture in November
Details: http://www.kcandassociates.org
2. Provide the evidence that anything Craig has on
his web site is NOT true about Clark, and therefore, tinfoiled.
Fair?
I think so.
The lecture is free, what do you have to lose?
BHN

[DoveTurnedHawk]

78. We Met at Doug Decker's Party

It was great to meet you, your husband and your daughter. I was the trendy Asian dude. ;-)

Regrettably, I can't make that seminar, and after reading the site, I don't think I would go even if I was available. Statements like this make me roll my eyes: "Clinton maybe assures the general's Democratic primary nomination because Democrats these days are as bereft of intelligence as your local county country white trash."

From the start of his article on Clark, he starts by telling untruths. Clark was not a "lifelong voting Republican," he voted for his friend Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and for Al Gore in 2000. He campaigned for Democrats Max Cleland and Katrina Swett in 2002, and his sole donation in recent years was to Democrat Erskine Bowles, also in 2002.

The rest is a predictable series of tired smears, including more of the same "secret Republican/PNAC plant" accusations, even though he is the only candidate, to my knowledge, who has called PNAC out by name and criticized their agenda. There is also the standard, guilt-by-association smears involving various, supposedly nefarious organizations and companies (even though many of them are left-of-center).

The claims that Clark is new to pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment positions are also verifiably false. He wrote an amicus brief in the Michigan affirmative action case, he has always been an environmentalist, even during his army days, and he has always supported a woman's right to choose, again from his army days.

This author even tries to use the old Hackworth attacks on Clark, without realizing (or perhaps deliberately realizing but declining to clarify anyway) that Hackworth has since repudiated all of the bad things he said about Clark.

In short, this author is nothing new to DU, and nothing new to this Clark supporter. I'm not really interested in the paranoia that this author exhibits. As far as I'm concerned, Clark's positions are sincere, and he is our best chance to beat Bush.

DTH

[Renew Deal]

60. The simple answer is don't sign up.

According to the plan, you would have to sign up first. Then you would have to say yes to go to a place like Iraq. What are they going to do if they make it mandatory to go? Throw people in jail? I doubt it. But if I was asked to go to Cali for 3 months to rebuild after an earthquake for 3 months I would do that. If I was asked to plan a park in my hood, I would do that. You are an example of what this f'd up gov't of Bushco has done to us.

[Zhade]

87. Clark's on the board of NED?

Jesus. That's really fucked up.

[RandomUser]

88. Rehashed

The NED thing has been resolved to my satisfaction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=474693#477042

[Zhade]

90. I wish I could be satisfied as easily...

So Clark worked for Kissinger, too?

This is not putting him in a good light in my eyes...!

[mikehiggins]

112. Whoops!

Another vote gone.

[BeHereNow]

54. At Last...

A sane person...
I was beginning to think I was alone...
Thanks for breaking the frothing waves
here at DU.
BHN

[TLM]

99. We are here... and we are scared of what Clark is.

Clark seems to have a mass of people so cowed and afraid that they can't win without those shiny stars that they are willing to vote for a guy who is nothing but a liberal whitewash over republican scams.


This guy worked for Kissinger and is codirector of NED with Frank Carlucci, the head of the carlyle group. This guy is just another insider war profiteer, just like Bush and Cheney.

If any other candiate has said things Clark said or done what Clark has done, they wouldn't even be in the running.

I get the feeling some folks behind Clark would vote for W if he just changed the letter behind his name. Clark has a good script... that's it people. There is nothing democratic about this man, nothing. The man has a great hype going, but if you look at the real man behind the hype, he is anything but a democrat.

[RandomUser]

103. Spreading FUD again?

Contrary to what you may think, most of us Clark supporters are NOT blinded by the four stars. There was a poll of Clark supporters asking what their primary reason for supporting Clark was. The top two answers were NOT "military resume" or "electability."

As of blind faith, if you'll read one of my other responses in this thread and in others, you'll find I make a distinction between faith and blind faith. I think people should have faith, but not blind faith. That goes for Clark, Dean, and all the others.

I've been taken aback by developments with Clark, but each time I've investigated and found those issues resolved to my satisfaction. I switched from Dean to Clark, and I would have no compunctions about switching to yet a third candidate if I find it necessary. Blind hate can blind you as much as you accuse blind faith of blinding us.

You do us diservice to think that we have not examined our candidate and come to a reasoned decision just as you have with yours. What gall. Just because we disagree with you as to who the nominee should be, we're obviusly blinded and stupid and not able to think? Sheesh.

Believe or not, it's perfectly ok to dissent. And I've encouraged supporters of other candidates to keep supporting their (non-clark) candidates. If anything, you smack more of militarism and dictatorial thinking than you accuse us of.

You don't have to agree with us, and we don't have to agree with you. Each individual has different political views and attributes different weights to different factors. No two people on DU have identical views. Guilt by association smears do not concern me. Did you raise the same issues with Graham? Considering he was also on the NED board. Besides Kissinger, Clark also worked for Clinton, Bush, Reagan and tons of other people in Vietname.

Open your mind. Don't let blind hatred cloud your thinking. For I assure you, blind faith does not cloud mine, nor hold much weight with me.

I suppose it's understandable, that you've worked so hard for your candidate and would hate to see Clark steal the limelight. Believe it or not, Clark supporters are not lemmings. There was even a poll on DU that showed it. Run a forum search if you'd like. So please stop spreading this falsehood -- though I doubt you will, since I've asked this of you once before, and referenced this same poll. Wallow in blind hatred all you want, but don't expect us to join you there.

There is some good in Dean, and there are many good people amongst his supporters that I respect and express so in many threads. Unfortunate that you can't open your mind and acknowledge that anyone who supports Clark might do so of a reasoned principle choice.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

104. He Certainly Didn't Raise These Issues About Graham

No one did, because Graham wasn't a threat to their candidate.

It's very cynical, this negativity I see on behalf of certain candidates. Why can't people maintain a positive message, like Clark?

DTH

[andym]

106. Because Negative attacks work

Because Negative attacks work...


Gore did it to Bradley
Bush's campaign did it to Gore
etc etc

Most of the negative posters only post to move forward
their own candidate's chance of winning.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

107. I Know. Sad, Really. (eom)

DTH

[RandomUser]

108. Indeed (eom)

end of message

[Donna Zen]

61. A suggestion:

And I mean this sincerely; don't sign up. Really_it's no big deal. Let it go. It is a volunteer program.

[Zorra]

74. I would never sign up. However,

I fear for those that sign up, thinking they are going to do humanitarian work and get benefits, and end up fighting in another unjust war that they do not believe in. If the very war does not kill or maim them, the experience will.

We have a lot of troops in Iraq right now that never expected to be there, and there is no good reason for them to be there. And while these troops were volunteers, and would gladly fight for our country if there were an actual threat, they realize the occupation of Iraq is BS. Not a healthy situation in any way. A lot of innocent blood spilled and lives shattered, only to feed corporate greed.

[RandomUser]

75. This isn't about war

This is not the national guard. Those who sign up are not going to be trained to use weapons or sent to shoot people.

[Zorra]

80. Maybe, maybe not, but

I think Clark should clarify that civilian reserves will absolutely not be obligated to perform military service. The fact that he did not clarify that in the speech is what worries me. This in particular made me wonder:

"Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more."

"Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members could choose whether or not to accept the call to action."

"Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare."

"Still, if called, this service will not necessarily be easy."

I'd really like to see this completely clarified. What type of service would be required under these circumstances, under what circumstances would a citizen reservist not be permitted to refuse service, and what constitutes a grave national emergency?

Please understand, I just recently heard the Resident of the US tell me, day after day, hour after hour, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that if we did not go to war, the US would go up in a mushroom cloud. Of course, I knew it was a lie -- but the Resident convinced congress and a lot of Americans that there was a grave national emergency, one serious enough to go to war over, when there was, in fact, no emergency whatsoever.

So I ask for clarification. In writing, no fine print. I don't think that is too much to ask for.

[RandomUser]

81. It's disingenous to state

I fear for those that sign up, thinking they are going to do humanitarian work and get benefits, and end up fighting in another unjust war that they do not believe in.

There is no evidence that these volunteers will be armed and sent to kill. These are not military people.

As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I'm not opposed to additional safeguards or modifications being added. I fully expect the plans of any of our presidential candidates to be modified as they go through congress. But I do not see this plan as a nefarious war machine. And it's dishonest to cast it as such, as in your quoted statement. I do appreciate your point of wanting to know more. The plan was just released in the last 24hrs, and as he gets questioned about it in the press, I'm sure he'll clarify and elaborate. So far, I'm rather pleased with this plan.

[maha]

82. Civilian is not military.

Civilian is civilian.

[RandomUser]

83. Exactly

Many seem to ignore this.

[Zorra]

84. But the National Guard

calls it's reservists civilians also. This is from the National Guard website:

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is one component of The Army (which consists of the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves.) The Army National Guard is composed primarily of traditional Guardsmen -- civilians who serve their country, state and community on a part-time basis (usually one weekend each month and two weeks during the summer.) Each state, territory and the District of Columbia has its own National Guard, as provided for by the Constitution of the United States.

[RandomUser]

86. The national guard

is trained in weapons combat. These volunteers will not be. This is not the Army. Note the name "Army National Guard." When you join the nation guard, you're joining the Army. This Civilian Reserve is not the "Army Civilian Reserve."

[CWebster]

62. Bravo

Thank goodness some kept their head and retained their clarity of vision and were not Bushwhacked by the fearmongering exploiting post 911 hysteria. Unfortunately many ignorant of the resent the US instills due to US imperialism, US military bullying, US support of Israel, imposition of punitive sanctions causing suffering of innocents, were so shattered post 911 they were led to believe that the very policies that foment terrorism are the preferred solution.

Really works in Israel, doesn't it?

[RandomUser]

64. Ridiculous

How you can spin a humanitarian relief and community building civic volunteer program into Israel occupation of Palestinian lands is beyond me. It's voluntary. Even after you volunteer, you can still refuse specific projects. You can quit at any time. You're not going to be given firearms and sent overseas to kill people. Goodness.

The only time you can be called up and have the call be mandatory is if there's severe national emergency, and even then, the call is limited to 5000 people who have volunteered to be in the program. And it better be damn severe like 9/11 or it will be political suicide.

People helping after a California earthquake or a Florida hurricane or in a local fire or sent to help a famine in another country will not destroy the world. You can take off the tinfoil hat now.

Just don't sign up. Really. No one's going to force you.

[wyldwolf]

65. sound advice...

don't want it, don't volunteer

[CWebster]

67. You lap this shit right up, don't you?

In his stump speeches the general encourages young people to join the military. I don't want anyone with a lifetime in the military conjuring up ANY recruitment projects with a hints of a call up. I don't want any damn inroads into this mindset. I don't support kneejerk hysteria to go out and kill Muslims or Arabs after a "terrorist action" without studying US policy and a thorough investigation into the context of events.

The Peace Corps doesn't need to be reinvented with a twist.

[RandomUser]

69. Open you rmind

That's what I try to do. I believe in having faith in candidates, but not blind faith. There have been developments and issues with Clark that have taken me aback. But each time, I've investigated and found those issues resolved to my satisfaction. I've switched candidates before, from Dean to Clark. So I will again if I find it necessary. Thus far, the more I learn about Clark, the more I'm convinced I made the right choice.

Bringing up the same debunked arguments that have been resolved to my satisfaction will not win me to your side. Take off the tinfoil hat and open your mind.

[mikehiggins]

111. So, I guess

we can't count on your vote?

[BeHereNow]

49. Good idea?

Better think again-
Please read and understand the subtext revealed in
this portion of the speech!

I am starting to think 90% of the DU posters are
as insane as the freeps...
do you REALLY not comprehend the implications of this passage?
Somebody pinch me..I must be dreaming.


"Members of the Civilian Reserves could also aid overseas in response to our ambassador's calls
for assistance in helping nations deal with environmental disasters, political and legal
development, and economic growth.

The Civilian Reserves would provide a basis for marshaling and coordinating their efforts.

The Civilian Reserves would work in partnership with the professional first responders as well as
other non-profit and non-governmental organizations.

Under my plan, the President will have the power to call up to 5,000 civilian reservists by
Executive Order, and with an act of Congress, would be authorized to mobilize even more.

Members would be offered the opportunity to serve as the need for their skills arose. And the
call to serve would, in almost all cases, be voluntary. For the most part, Civilian Reserve members
could choose whether or not to accept the call to action.

Under circumstances of grave national emergency, the president would have the authority to
issue a mandatory call-up. But this would be exceedingly rare."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

50. It's Voluntary

Not just to join, but for each opportunity presented to serve.

Mandatory call-ups will not happen except in the times of the gravest need. It would be political suicide for any President to do so without that need.

DTH

[kiahzero]

57. You're not dreaming

You've just been reading tinfoil-coated websites.

[BeHereNow]

77. Prove it.

In order for it to be tinfoiled, there must be
contrasting FACTS.
Go- ball's in your court.
BHN

[Renew Deal]

59. It 100% voluntary.

barring a national crisis. If there is a national crisis, then there may be voluntary 6 month service. But you don't have to sign up in the first place. And I don't think ballet teachers are going to be sent into gunfire. It's not that sort of thing.

[TLM]

100. All this have faith talk is scary too

No answers, no sound sources, nothing but smoke and mirrors... and we're supposed to just trust that Clark is right and will do what is just.

Trust in Clark... damn I see visions of the patrons of the Temple of Doom when I see Clark supporters. It is like this whole group of liberals saw those shiny stars and their brains just switched off.

Now it is all about faith and following the general into battle... there seems to be this longing for more than just leadership, but this worship of Clark that replaces reason.


And not one of them has been able to explain away the fact Clark worked as a lobbyist for Kissinger.

[Bread and Circus]

66. Clark's awesome....

Here's a link for an interview with Clark
today in New York: will be back on at 10:30 pm

http://www.ny1.com/ny/OnTheAir/NY1Shows/index.html?topicintid=8&subtopicintid=31&contentintid=114

______________________________

As far as the speech and Civilian Service program
goes, I think it is awesome. I was skeptical before
reading the speech but I couldn't be more impressed.

As usual, there are naysayers here but let's remember
it is a voluntary program. Both in terms of volunteering
for the program and honoring calls to service (except
in extreme circumstances for the latter).

Finally, there is also concern about "overseas" activity.
Remember it is a civilian program and people would act
in a civilian manner. It could be a way for the U.S. to
spread more good will around the world. Not a bad thing
IMO.

Look for more on the "nation building" and international
support -- I think Clark is going to do one better on
Kucinich in this area but won't call his proposal
"Dept. of Peace".

Clark also received an incredibly favorable op ed
from Harold Bloom in the WSJ. Bloom is a giant in
academic circles so he commands a fair amount of respect.
It's worth a read at least

I am kind of getting tired of DU. It seems like the
same stuff is recycled here everyday with retreads
of negative bits and quotes out of context. People
just bash and bash with very little discourse. We
don't even debate the issues for the most part.
Issues threads sink to page 5 fast while the "hot
qoute out of context" gets floated to the top of the
list ad nauseum.

For people interested in Clark goto www.clark04.com
and participate in the blog. It's getting busier
and better everyday. The site and Clark's campaign
is starting to come together.

There are many anti-Clark Democrats here who make
me want to throttle their necks. But I understand,
your guys have fought a long hard one and I can
see how it would be frustrating for you that Clark
has come and grabbed some of the limelight. As far
as I am concerned, Clark is still a long shot for
the nomination. However, if he were to win that
he will win the Presidency. I know it seems like
an empty assertion but everything I have predicted
in the 5 months has come to pass, even my bold
assertion that Clark would be on top of the polls
within a month of announcing
(even though in my mind I thought "man, I am being arrogant).
Search my threads from then
until now and you will see how the march of time
has brought the predictions of many Clark supporters like me
here on DU to reality.

Yeah, I know, I am not making friends by being arrogant
and cocky. It just needs to be repeated that us Clark-Bars
have had to deal with an enormous amount of prejudice
because Clark's background is military, which seems to
make him a pariah on DU (but a hero with the rest of America).

When ya'll go around prancing about this and that legislative
policy your candidate espouses, remember at the end of the
day that the Supreme Court handed Bush the Presidency on
537 votes. We can't afford to take a risk of him getting the
office again. If Clark runs a crap campaign, then I can see
why we wouldn't want him to face Bush. But if he runs an
excellent campaign (something he is starting to do), then
he deserves a fair look with tinfoils hats off.
Clark is a good guy and you know what, he was given
an opportunity to jab at his opponents today and he just
complimented them -- even calling Dean a good guy.

No matter who we nominate, we better stay positive, stay
united, lift each and all of our candidates up. Let them
put their best feet forward and let the people decide.
We need to elevate all of them so that whoever comes out on
top is at a pinnacle, not just "the least worst". If we
tear each other apart, we will lose. If we unite and
synergize we will prevail.

Again, any candidate who wins the nom has $500 dollars
and my vote.

[RandomUser]

85. Well said

You've put a lot of thought into writing such a detailed post. And I find I agree with most it.

[Zhade]

89. Hmm.

We don't even debate the issues for the most part.

Often, this is because people resort to saying the subject in question "...deserves a fair look with tinfoils hats off."

I would really, honestly, like to know why asking to discuss concerns that are never fully addressed without a condescending attitude like this automatically means one is a "tinfoiler".

After all the actual conspiracies that have happened just these past few years (stolen election, coverups, TraitorGate, being lied into two wars, and on and on and on), you'd think that the old "conspiracy theorist" dismissal would have lost some of its impact.

I can't support someone who sits on a board with Carlucci, for example. Ever. Period. Call me a paranoid tinfoiler, it's your right to have an opinion, but allow me my own with some respect. (Not that you, specifically, are doing this. I'm making an overall point here.)

[Bread and Circus]

93. Here's a great example of what I am talking about....

"I can't support someone who sits on a board with Carlucci, for example. Ever. Period. Call me a paranoid tinfoiler, it's your right to have an opinion, but allow me my own with some respect. (Not that you, specifically, are doing this. I'm making an overall point here.)"
_______________

That's kind of like me saying....

I can never vote for some rich guy born with
a silver spoon in their mouth: Dean, Kerry

or

I can never vote for a guy who is purported to
have supported the book "The Bell Curve": Lieberman

or

I can never vote for someone so out of touch with mainstream
America, they have no idea what I, as a regular Joe,
seems to think: Kucinich

or

I can never vote for someone with a thick southern drawl
or someone so young they don't command respect: Edwards

or

I can never vote for someone with blonde eyebrows
that connotes a sense of wimpyness: Gephardt

Basically, all of those statements are ridiculous prejudices
akin to your reasoning. You take a little factoid, present
it out of context, blow it out of proportion, and present
it like it matters and means something. Frankly, 99.9% of the
googling nefarious stories about Clark presented on DU has
amounted to meaning nothing. Furthermore, if similar efforts
were done for other candidates (and in some cases have been
done) none of them would be fit for office. Even Kucinich,
which is kind of like our "purity" candidate or whatever,
would have lots of foibles and failures to expound upon.
My point is that tearing each other down and tearing our
candidates down will be the death of this race. We need
to remind ourselves and our candidates to elevate the debate
and to avoid ludicrous, misleading negative attacks.

I use the "tinfoil hat" device as a calling card to reason.
Not that I think everybody on DU is nuts, it's just that
if you were to believe a good portion of DU'ers (like 30%)
you would think Clark is about as bad as Rumsfeld or Bush
and is a big faker who is going to take over the Democratic
Party and then hand it to the neocons. It's the end argument
that seem so ludicrous which leads me to believe that all the
little dots in between are manufactured rather than real.

-----

Except for when they go negative and trash each other, I am
very proud of all of our candidates as they all have something
to add. I don't want them to all be President but they are
making the case that Bush sucks. Clark has aided this effort
by giving our party the tie to our Armed Forces, which
probably 95% of Americans (meaning statistically normal) are
in support of.

I just wish people would stop trashing each other's candidates
and stop trashing Clark especially. It's abhorrent and ridiculous.
It makes us no better than the opposition.

Furthermore, I am sick of DU'ers calling Republicans names like
Repuke, Repug, Rethug, etc.... You know why -- three reasons:
One, my mother is a Republican and she is a good person and
I take personal offense. Two, hate language is destructive,
divisive, and alienating (much like racist language which I
am sure we all abhor). Three, it's stupid to drive away potential
allies that can help us turn this country around. I have
been guilty of doing this on DU, but since I have tried
to avoid it. Maybe you think I am a "Repug" (quotes intended)
for "sympathizing with the enemy" but I am a human being
first, American second, and Democrat third. If that makes
any sense to you, then I would also encourage you to
curb this hate language. Having manners and being respectful
will go a lot further to challenge the levers of power than
throwing verbal Molotav Cocktails at conservative windmills.

I apologize for any past inflammatory language or railings
against Dean, et al.

Now is the time to raise the bar on our behavior.

[Justice]

95. Thanks for A Great Post

[RandomUser]

96. Excellent

I agree. I've used "republican" because I find the name calling childish, and it turns off a lot of people who might otherwise join DU. Using the terms repug, repuke, rethug is as childish as those who use dim/rats instead of dem/democrats. This was the reason Orson Scott Card, a well-known SF writer and southern democrat, made his own political board. He wanted to be able to talk like an adult, and he specifically cited the name-calling on DU and FR for the reason he created a new board. I reckon he's not alone in the sentiment. Using such names turns off many potential contributors to DU.

And with regard to Clark being on boards with unsavory characters -- if you're referring to the NED board, there are others on it like George Soros and Bob Graham. And this issue has not been shut down and ignored, it's been discussed in lots of other threads and resolved to my satisfaction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=474693

You're free to draw whatever conclusions you wish. But it's a non-issue in my mind, not because it hasn't been discussed, but because it has been beaten to death (and resolved to my satisfaction).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

97. Fantastic Post

I'm going back to calling them Republicans now, rather than Thugs as I usually do.

:toast:

DTH

[RandomUser]

98. Now we just need the other gazillion DU'ers

to join us in not using name-calling :) Probably a losing proposition, lol, although it would certainly elevate the tone of discussions.

[Donna Zen]

91. Saying what needs to be said!

Thanks

By redefining Patriotism--it's what you do, not how many flag sweaters you've bought--Clark both broadens the message and opens up participation for the citizens. Remember when bushco advised us to go shopping? Yeah_

Ordinarily, the polical use of patriotism is a veiled form of narcissism; however, Clark's approach would be a challenge: are you ready to add your sweat equity to benefit the common good?

[DemCam]

101. You got my vote, Family Doc.....

It is disheartening to see posters who are not novices to this forum continually drop the same acidic comments over and over. I try to remind myself that it is a human trait...but it does get old.

I'm glad you said this, tho I hold little hope for it stopping.

Mario Cuomo, I understand, said this last that we as Democrats had better get our talking points down...and quit destroying our own candidates...or we're going to be in trouble. (big paraphrase and second-hand) I agree.

Let's have the Dean supporters and Clark supporters who bash each other's candidates lighten up.

I, for one, am extremely grateful for everything Howard Dean has said to create public awareness about how this administration is misleading us.

I am supporting Clark in the primary...and will support our Democratic nominee.

[gulliver]

70. A spectacular move by Clark!!!

It's about as completely brilliant as anything I have seen from any politician in my life. And that's an understatement.

1. The idea is inspirational. It stakes a claim to patriotism. It is right in Bush's face (both faces). It is a new patriotism! I'm so goddamned sick of the old, fake, Bushian puke-o-con variety. Clark's patriotism is patriotism. Clark has found a keystone.

2. The idea is functional. It creates a reserve of ability in all skill areas, not just the military. This would be the death of war profiteers like Halliburton et ilk. We would not have to hire "contractors" at premium rates to do non-military work and pay the Halliburtons (aka bastards) of the world through our noses. Moreover, our troops would not be forced to do jobs they aren't trained to do. They could focus on fighting while engineers did the engineering, doctors the doctoring, farmers the farming...

I am very, very impressed by this move by Clark. He never attacks other Dems, he is always a uniter, and he is also brilliant. I now feel more than ever that he will be a fantastic president. His New American Patriotism is powerful as a theme and powerful in form and function. An amazing, great move!

[RandomUser]

79. It takes the wind right out of Bush's sail

A move worthy of a master strategist. Not only is it pragmatically functional and powerful as a theme, but you're right about it attacking Bush's ace in the hole. Let's see Bush attack the democrat's "New American Patriotism." :)

[union_maid]

92. Clark is brilliant. That's one of the things I like about him.

Brilliance is a good quality in president. Even more so when a president is going to have to come in and clean up the unprecedented mess number 44 is going to face.

Clark is the only one that's made me feel like I could feel something like patriotism - in a good way, not a nationalistic, jingoistic way - again. We haven't had that feeling here since '63, seems to me. Clark can not only beat the Republicans, he can make us a better country for a long, long time to come.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

71. Clark is now the man to beat.

I don't know how he can be stopped. I expect big things from this man in the near future (he hasn't even come close to reaching his pre-Presidency peak yet).

[CWebster]

94. Ha... Americorps was Clinton's pet project

what a surprise that it is coming out of Clark's mouth with that added flavor of nationalism and with the underlying hint of military recruitment.