Garofolo and Clark on Crossfire on CNN at 4:30PM/3:30 Central 8/22/03

is a DU username. He asked me to include the date in the subject line so when he searches through the archives, he can spot it because of the date.

Especially for threads about shows that are on daily.

showing off the tat on the right shoulder too... she's a radical babe

I think I'm in love.

Twice :evilgrin:

that was so cool

Tucker just announced Al Franken co-Hosting next week :bounce:

They might be getting back into campaign consulting since things are heating up.

I wish they would

1. Make her a full-time host.
2. Put Crossfire back on at 7:00
3. Give Crossfire an hour again.

Now I never see the show - can't have everyone hearing the other side ya know.

~

Great guest hosts .

Clark is Not annoucing ..All Hype !

.. that idiot hosted on both sides.

thought I heard Tucker say in opening credits there was a rumor he might announce on their show...

apologies if i didn't hear right

on edit: never mind, must have misunderstood

Clark Kicking Butt .

I don't like that at all.

If you want someone to say Republicans suck you are just playing into Republican hands.

praising your enemies helps you win a damn thing.

You know, a lot of everyday folks are into magnanimity and civility and all that. And they often vote for it. Especially, recent studies have shown, female voters who aren't into ultra-aggressive machismo confrontation.

Jesus sometimes did OK with that turn the other cheek thing, too, if you're into that kind of thing...

be vague and unconfrontational cause that worked so well in 2000 and 2002 :eyes:

You confuse civility with critical edge. Clark has levelled possibly the harshest yet still grounded critiques of Bush's foreign policy of ANYONE, including Dean.

But you can say someone's policies are very, very wrong without accusing them of being horrible people. That's a distinction more radicals need to learn: being more angry doesn't mean being more progressive or more critical.

P.S.: And who won the only 2 Democratic Presidencies in the last 25 years?

all I heard was a bunch of vague statements ment to hide his intentions. I agree being vague and centrist makes you very popular at first (like powell), but eventually if he runs, he's going to have to take a stand on some issues (and that will involve taking on the republican party) and then like it or not some of that support will fall away because they have differing views.

In my opinion, he's only serving to divide the party further with this coy party dance. If he cares about anything other than his own public image he'll jump into the fray or shut up and fade away.

I didn't catch the whole segment today, but you tell me if this clip from Sunday was nonconfrontational:

http://www.digitalclark.com/#Late%20Edition%20-%20CNN%20-%20August%2017,%202003

"he's only serving to divide the party further with this coy party dance"

You are helping very little in this respect. There are plenty of people on this board--Deanies, Kucinichites, etc--who are happy to see Clark enter their race and place him 2nd, 3rd, or whatever on their lists.

Unlike some of the Democratic candidates, he has not attacked the Dems currently running, even when offered the bait. He is only divisive to you because you don't like his strategy, or tone, or whatever. Many people here are very happy to see him enter the race, even if he would not be their first choice, and many people who see him as their first choice also like many of the other candidates and would not abandon the Democratic Party if he didn't run or lost.

but he's not my first, second, or even third choice. I believe he's a centrist, and I think another DLC-type candidate is the last thing we need right now.

I've seen Clark before, and this is the most centrist I've seen him. Also, seems kind of subdued. Not saying "I'm a democrat" is starting to both annoy me... and scare me just a bit. The DLC must be loving this appearance.

I wonder if junior were to suddenly fade from the scene and wouldn't run if Clark would run on a Republican ticket?

:puke:

The Democrats are the party of the common people but have lacked the resourses the GOP has... So they've been defined in Republican terms...

oh you mean the part where he was patting himself on the back for being asked by the repukes to run for congress :eyes:

The Democrats are the party of the common people but have lacked the resourses the GOP has... So they've been defined in Republican terms...

:eyes: to you, too!

I disagree with that completely. Nothing said after that can change that statement

Clearly, the kind of leader we need should advocate sending 49% of the people (45% if you don't count swing voters) to Outer Mongolia or at least to reeducation camps because they are of no redeeming value whatsoever.

:eyes:

doesn't mean good people politically. I like republicans just fine as long as they're not running the country

..and not the party leaders exclusively....

I know many fine people who are republicans.

We should have something akin to The Great Cultural Revolution where we send Republicans into the ghettoes, barrioes, and poor rural areas for reeducation.

The ironic thing is 90% of so called liberals would go nowhere near these places either.

will only take you so far. I never said anything like that. You can call me crazy, but I think America would be a better place if republicans were out of power as opposed to what we have right now.

in my desire to see * sent back to TX but it's counterproductive in the extreme to bash the entire Republican party on TV.

He would only serve to marginalize himself while telling his supporters and potential supporters what they already know.

It's like cursing the sun.

is the first step. the second step is presenting competing ideas. you can't present real ideas without saying the opposition is wrong. if you do nothing but praise them then you imply your support for their ideas, and you don't give anybody a reason to vote for you.

but I ain't running for pres.

If I was running for pres I would say I'm not questioning your character just your judgement.

he's done neither. so far he hasn't taken a stand as simple as stating his party. you can't be opposition if you don't oppose.

not take the trouble to see if what you're saying is true?

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

To be consistent, I hope you'll start posting that Michael Moore and Janeane Garofolo are too centrist for you since they think Clark is fine on the issues.

on the issues for the most part. There's no doubt he's lightyears better than Dubya, but he's a centrist according to his own words."The majority of this people in this country really aren't affiliated with parties. They're independent. They look at the candidates. They assess the issues at the time. And they don't want radical policies on either side...And so we need a vision to pull us together. It should be a vision that's centered." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/22/cf.00.html

But that's not even the point. I'm saying he won't take a stand on his party affiliation, and I and many others have a problem with that. I want a proud Democrat not some coy centrist who avoids a party label.

as for Garofolo and Moore, I've never said I agreed with them on everything. They seem to be progressives, but that doesn't mean they couldn't support someone who's not. On top of all that Neither one of them has thrown their support behind Clark. I doubt Moore would endorse anybody except for Kucinich and maybe Dean. Jeneane has said repeatedly she supports Dean, and I doubt she's going to change her mind. Besides I really wouldn't care either way. My political choices are not dictated by what famous people, who are no better informed than me, think.

Posted by DemocratSinceBirth: "The ironic thing is 90% of so called liberals would go nowhere near these places either."

That's a completely absurd statement. A lot of liberals live and/or work in such communities. What are "so-called" liberals anyway?

is attempting to be a true uniter, instead of a divider. It dosen't bother me at all.

I said that from the very beginning along with a lot of other people. The democrats HAVE been defined in republican terms... Right now he gets people to listen to him without putting a label on his ideology. If you listen to him you know what his ideology is. Why does he have to state the obvious at this time?

then why do they keep asking the same question? I think he is a democrat (a centrist one) but admit it and stop saying stupid things like "there are good things about both parties"

You hate half the population, I see.

are mistaking distaste for a person's politics for distastee for a person. I have many family members who are republicans. I don't hate them. I love them very much, but I do hate what their political ideology has done to my country.

As far as Clark is concerned, if you have distaste for a political party then logically, you wouldn't praise that party. That seems pretty obvious to me

... you admit there are good republicans.

Clark said there was, too.

Why do you object to him saying it when you say it yourself?

Unless you KNOW something we don't - that he was referring to the republican leadership - which he didn't say at all.

in a political sence there are no good republicans. on a personal level it's a different story. you got that yet? :eyes:

... and the little eye rolls you use really don't help your case.

Clark said there were a lot of great people in both parties. And there is.

So :eyes: back at you.

he praised both parties in order to remain vague about his status, and I think that that hurts our party by drawing attention away from candidates who've had the guts to announce and run.

I believe all this self-serving coyness will backfire if he doesn't announce soon. If he intends to run, he can only remain independant for so long, and if he does run he's going to have to take on the rupuke agenda. He'll lose his independant charm when that happens anyway, so why not just go ahead and get on with it?

and sense you seem to like it so much here you go :eyes:

OK, we've established that you don't like Clark.

But don't pretend you knew what he meant when he didn't say what you are accusing him of.

Screw that BS you just posted. You have NO IDEA what his motives are. Just your theory. Yours alone.

He said there are good people in both parties. And that is true.

He didn't praise the republican leadership as you keep implying he did.

If he gets the nod, don't vote for him.

If you know he's on TV, don't watch him.

Put yourself out of your misery.

that if he became dubya's personal slave you'd still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I don't know his motives, but I sincerely hope he's just trying to remain coy about his party and he really doesn't think there's something praiseworty about the republican PARTY.

I will vote for him if he is the nominee, but I will work for my first, second, third, or fourth choice first.

I'm not in misery, but apparently you can't stand the fact that someone would accuse His Holiness General Clark of having less than pure motives.

I'm sorry that makes you miserable. Please accept my sympathy in your time of sorrow.

that if he became dubya's personal slave you'd still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

pathetic

I don't know his motives...

Well, you seem to think you do. Did you not write in post 149 "he praised both parties in order to remain vague about his status."? That certainly sounds like someone who thinks they know Clark's motives. I mean, you did state for the record WHY (what his motives are) he is being vague.

but I sincerely hope... he really doesn't think there's something praiseworty about the republican PARTY.

You just can't get this through you head. I and another on this thread keep correcting you but you just don't understand.

Clark said there were good PEOPLE in both parties.

YOU said there was, to, in post 87...

Why do you keep misrepresenting what Clark said?

apparently you can't stand the fact that someone would accuse His Holiness General Clark of having less than pure motives.

pathetic

Actually I think he is backed into a corner and just doesn't want to concede - which is why his replies have gotten increasingly attacking and off topic.

...look at his other posts in the thread. Faulty logic, assumptions passed as fact, etc.

you attacking me first.

You said I should put myself out of my misery. I was naturally offended by the suggestion that Clark's appearances make me miserable when I actually enjoy watching his political dance around the hard questions so I responded. I hope that clears a few things up.

I believe (get that part, that means it's my opinion) he's trying to run a campaign without actually running. In my opinion, that's dishonest, and it damages the REAL candidates by drawing attention away from their campaigns. In short,I believe he should run if he intends to run and shut up if he doesn't intend to.

The minute he decides to become a REAL candidate, all my criticisms for his vagueness will end. After that we can get down to the business of talking about what's important; the issues, but until then he's a distraction not a candidate, and he's one distraction that I've spent enough time on today. No hard feelings. Have a :beer: on me.

...just like you (for some reason) remember the Clark statement on Crossfire different than anyone else.

Me telling you to put yourself out of you misery was not an attack. If you feel the need to complain about him and misrepresent what he said - even with no less than three people on this thread telling you you were wrong - then you do seem to be miserable about something.

I believe (get that part, that means it's my opinion) he's trying to run a campaign without actually running. In my opinion, that's dishonest, and it damages the REAL candidates by drawing attention away from their campaigns. In short,I believe he should run if he intends to run and shut up if he doesn't intend to.

It's well and good now that you're stating your opinion. Before you were (attempting) to state fact.

Might I remind you that Bill Clinton didn't announce his intention to run until the October before the election year. So, in reality, it is still early and proper for him to be taking his time.

The minute he decides to become a REAL candidate, all my criticisms for his vagueness will end. After that we can get down to the business of talking about what's important; the issues, but until then he's a distraction not a candidate, and he's one distraction that I've spent enough time on today. No hard feelings. Have a :beer: on me.

Once again, if he's a distraction, tune him out (or, put yourself out of your misery.)

in the Republican Party.

And I should also add that Janeane herself proposed the (somewhat odd) idea that a moderate Republican and a moderate Dem should run together. Perhaps a bit weird and naive, but possibly not so ridiculous in today's environment, if that would make some GOPers who don't believe in this stupid neocon foreign policy stand up and blow the doors off of this thing...

Er, I'm biased because I like Janeane too much...

but if she really believes that we need a centrist dem and a centrist repuke to run together she's crazy.

with OPEN MINDS know that he has been sought after by republicans as well as democrats. That leaves a subliminal suggestion that Clark has wide appeal.

Ike to run as a Dem and hated him the rest of his life when he didn't.

Clark/Dean, Clark/McCain...although i wouldn't be able to support a- Clark/Liddy Dole??

She didn't mention him picking a Veep. Remember he hasn't announced his candidacy.

:7

Meh, I missed it. My (moderate) Republican roommate got the remote a moment before I realized that Crossfire was on, and when he flipped through CNN, I felt too sheepish to make him stop...guess I'll have to wait for it to post on Digital Clark...

Democrat

~

that Clark handles with aplomb. Clark haters can stop your whining soon because the door will be closed in 2 weeks. It seems you can't find any reason why you don't think he'd be a good candidate.

I kinda get why he wouldn't get into the race yet, but anounce your PARTY at least.

He's getting the most effective possible Bush bashing out of his TV time--some posters who don't realize they're helping the GOP might not appreciate that.

the more it makes the liberals in the party skeptical about supporting him. 2000 should be enough to remind us of what happens when you don't have the full support of the base of the party. I didn't hear much Bush bashing anyway.

Isn't this the very reason why he won't be asked to be on Lou Dobbs to make commentaries anymore?

TAKE THAT!!!!!

As in....

Reagan, Clinton......great CANDIDATES - would present their ideas well. It was NOT an endorsement. That's my take on her comment anyway. Could be wrong!

. . .people like him and you do not like that. Plain and simple.

Hate to say it - but she just confirmed what I said and also confirmed she's a "Dean person." Rationalize THAT!

. . .yes she is a Dean person, but she just said she liked Clark, so obviously she is not as offended by him as you are. She basically welcomed him to join the race. So even though she supports Dean, she is not repulsed by Clark like. You. And she just stumped for Dean/Clark ticket.

. . .she just mentioned it again. Obviously she knows he has the goods.

~

Admit it, the thought of Clark scares the shit out of you because you know he is the real deal.

Your changing who she said should HEAD the ticket is NOT nit-picking!

former Dean supporters she may have had an instantaneous change of heart.

at the end of the broadcast.

She probably meant Dean/Clark, although I'm sure she'd be happy either way. Heck, she said she'd like to see Clark/McCain--which actually would be OK, since as long as they didn't put more than 1 or 2 Republicans in the Cabinet, we'd get all of McCain's fire yet little of his conservativeness with him in the VP spot...things would probably get very messy in 8 years, though...

Not that the Garafalo endorsement is, you know, a make or break, as much as I lurve the gal...

the video that will soon be available on digitalclark.com and transcript will bear this out.

ticket. She put Clark in the top positon. Rationalizw THAT! Freudian slip maybe, but she said it.

Janeane has that effect on me...maybe Clark has that effect on her...just being silly...

:loveya:

I think she sprizted a bit. }(

She reiterated at the end of the show that she hopes he runs and that he would be a great addition to any dem ticket. She also slipped and said she would love a Clark/Dean ticket. She put Clark in the front position. Did you miss that part?

~

Wonk should have the mp3 file available soon. What do you wanna bet?

. . .I just played the tape back.

At the beginning of FIREBACK she said she would like to see a Dean/Clark ticket, she then said she wold like to see a Wesley Clark/Howard Dean ticket, then she said she would like to see a Clark and . . .but before she named a running mate she said likes the idea of a Republican and Democrat working together.

to accurately present what actually occured.

~

~

I wish I was there to help them....

Yugoslavia was not a war against the states, nor was Yugoslavia a war for American independence!

disagree with you entirely. If all you read are Serbian blogs, you will come away believing that Milo is a martyr and Bill Clinton and Weley Clark are demons. Consider the source.

The demonization of the Serbs was all about monopoly capital and inroads into the last hold-out in that part of the world.

What former head of leader is on trial for war crimes there? Who sent him there? That's right, his people did.

If the Western world and the Muslim world can agree on one thing, it's that Milosevic and his gang of nationalist crazies were responsible for a lot of evil...yes, it takes many to tango, but they did a lot of awfulness and I would say that almost all of the world's liberal democratic nations are very happy that NATO finally stepped in.

Bosnia. Srebrinica. Kosovo.

Meh...another day...my Canadian side doesn't have time for this right now... :eyes:

I'm still interested to know why you are so interested in promoting Clark - you can't even VOTE in the USA!

I live in the USA as a long-term resident, I am affected directly by its laws, I am in avid student of politics (full time), and I work on political campaigns, and I feel I am part of the civic life...and that's about all I think I need to say to justify my motivations to you...

You have a lot of interesting things to offer here at DU.

...although that's probably just me, and not the result of an effete national character...:P

in a cage....

He succeded.

Don't you have a scintilla of empathy for the masses of Muslims Milosevic persecuted.


Don't you have a scintilla of empathy for all the Bosnian women who were raped and impregnated by Milosevic's thugs.

Wouldn't you lift a finger to help someone else.

As Christ said "there is no greater love than to lay down your life for another man."

There are JUST as many Serbs TODAY being persecuted by Islamic nuts as anything that happened - in Kosovo - and that's a truth you just don't hear about. The so-called "genocidal" business is ridiculous. Plain RIDICULOUS. The Corporate Nation has used "demonizing" adversaries very well the last ten years. He wasn't the greatest - but he was no "genocidal maniac." RIDICULOUS.

read that Serbian goons purposely raped and impreganted Bosnian women.

I don't think I was misled.

As so many still believe.

Michael Parenti's book, "To Kill A Nation" should be must-reading for ANY PERSON considering Wesley Clark.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859843662

I won't take this any further besides to say that there are many non-Muslims of other Balkan ethnicities who justifiably have strong grievances against Milosevic...if we have been bamboozled, then so has just about the entire UN, and the entire Muslim world...

I'm just SO SICK of the anti-Serb PROPAGANDA being swallowed by people (here) who should know better.

I will step aside for a reader comment on Michael Parenti's book:

Reviewer: A reader from La Verne, CA United States
Parenti's book is not a historical account of Yugoslavia's conquest by the West. Few dates are mentioned and only a rough chronology is followed. Instead it's a valiant attempt to set the record straight following years of drumfire propaganda aimed at toppling the Yugoslav federation and its non-western economy. By no means, is Parenti attempting a whitewash of Milosevich, his regime, or real crimes against non-Serbs. He is combatting the vicious, one-sided campaign waged in Western media against all things Serb or Yugoslav. That NATO has finally succeeded is testament to an overwhelming military and political superiority, not to any inherent rightness in the cause, ( consider the spate of international law violated by NATO's attack). This is the burden of the book and the author handles it well, with documentation and sources outside the usual CNN-NATO axis.

Two key points are worth mention. The vaunted killing fields of Kosovo never materialized despite near hysterical reports all over Western networks. Turns out that many of these claims were based on rumor, exaggeration, or KLA mendacity. That these reports of Serb massacres were circulated as fact by an uncritical media testifies to a level of subservience to NATO war aims, which , not incidentally, work to strengthen European prospects of this same corporate media. Now that the conquest is complete, backtracking is quietly underway, but so what, the damage has been done, and more of the same cheerleading can be expected next time Western peace-keepers go after some rogue nation or crazed foreign devil.

A second point: Parenti documents terms of the Rambouillet conference, a NATO-Yugoslav diplomatic meeting that set the stage for the armed attack on Serbia. Seems this parley was sabotaged from the outset. To meet Western terms for peace, Serbia was required to permit NATO forces to occupy the country, renouncing in effect sovereignty over its own territory. In short, it was a demand Serbia could not afford not to refuse - just as NATO had calculated, and the air attack got underway against what was now portrayed as an unreasonable regime in Belgrade! (This is reminiscent of the diplomatic trickery surrounding talks between April Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq, and Saddam Hussein, prior to the Gulf War, in which Hussein was told the US had no interest in the disposition of Kuwait or its royal family, thereby setting a trap that Hussein immediately fell into.)

What should be apparent to critical observers, is that truth, goodness, and fellow feeling mean nothing when power and wealth are at stake, regardless of the regime involved. Western transnationals see an opportunity to gobble up the world economy behind a facade of "free trade" and "democracy" and, by god, they're going to do it, whether people like it or not. That's their version of democratic thinking. If this seems an exaggeration, read the book. The truth is out there, but don't expect to hear it on the six o'clock news. --

That's an exercise in crediblity right there.

Let's see what more humane Stalinists have to say about Parenti:

Divorcing Marxism from freedom all too easily leads to lending support to tyrants who claim the label "socialist." In a letter to the SAN FRANCISCO BAY GUARDIAN (3/21/01), Michael Parenti claims a nostalgia for "the guaranteed income, free education, medical care and affordable housing" of the Milosevic era, and dismisses allegations of ethnic cleansing, rape camps and mass atrocities. He contends that only 70 bodies have been recovered from the supposed massacre of Srebrenica. This last contention openly conflicts with the report by the UN Commission on Human Rights on Srebrenica, issued 11/15/99, which provided pages and pages of evidence on the massacre, including an account by one Croat member of the Bosnian Serb Army, Drazen Erdemovic, whose unit by itself executed over 1,000 Muslim men and boys on the Pilica state farm.

...

Parenti consistently downplays the extent of Joseph Stalin's crimes. He recently claimed on KPFA that the number in the Gulags may have been as low as in the thousands. And he dismisses counts of victims in the millions, presented by the likes of Russian Marxist Roy Medvedev, as exaggerations and propaganda.

The politics and program of state capitalism and social democracy espoused by Parenti have already been tried, and proven disastrous, for both working people and the socialist movement. To succeed in getting rid of capitalism, a move necessary for both humanity and the planet, we must disavow this program and the wreckage left behind in its wake.

(from the Marxist-Humanist News and Letter; link http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2001/000121.html">here)

Parenti's claim, by the way, about Srebrenica, can only be described as willful blindness so intense that it's either disgusting or pathetic or both.

Sigh, but I really think we need to leave this for later...or maybe you can start a thread elsewhere and you, me, and a bunch of pro-/anti-/whatever-Serb/KLA people can duke it out...

because there were MANY untruthful statements in the quotes. And you're right - you have to have the energy for it.

on edit: Something I don't have going into a nice weekend. Hope you have a good weekend!

I doubt I have the energy for it either...:hangover:

Best,

ET

can you imagine the shredding he would give * in a real debate?

They could hold it in the SuperDome, and sell tickets.

Bush might just resign. I can't imagine Rove letting him in the ring with a real thinker!!!!!

Just spitballing, here. But what if he does? Would the Republicans line up solidly behind the Dim Son, given a strong alternative like Clark? How much damage would a Clark run do to the massive war chest Bush is assembling?

Just thinking out loud, here.

just like oj never took the stand.

they'll dodge any debate they can, then spin the ones they can't as irrelevant.

stick to the script.

They have resources, etc, BUT if you don't agree with their ideas or suggest things that aren't with the party norm, they'll just take your money and forget your ideas.

... are very worried he's going to surpass Dean if he announces as a democrat.

Donna Brazile says he's in as a dem.

He sounds like a dem.

I like Clark. Why would I be worried that he gets the nomination? I hope he is one of the candidates that do get the nomination, I just want Dean to get it the most.

Good news!!!

Is that the first we've heard ..Cause that's news to me ..
WOW ....:bounce: That's great ...hehehhahahahahehehehehe !

that's the best news I've heard all day

if he actually appears on it. btw, Janeane said she is a Dean person.

They have a habit of mentioning the judges name when a decision doesn't go the Rethugs way.

I think she hinted that she was supporting Dean now.

and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong when the transcripts come out.

~

She would like to see a MODERATE repub and MODERATE dem join together on a ticket

WAZZUP with that ?

ICK !

He's the whole package. ;-)

He was a moderate Repub, who chose a moderate Dem as his running mate, and ran against Carter and Reagan in '80 as independents. They only got about 5% of the vote, iirc, but they changed electioneering by alerting people to the existence of a large center of people who were not being appealed to by either party. With a real party machinery behind it, the strategy could produce huge results against a Bush who is considered the most right wing president in history. The lady ain't dumb.

Of course, its just their audience, 30% of Reps said they would vote for Clark

if he enters the race."

We love it here but alot of Americans hate politics and partisanship.

Look at Ross Perot. For all his defecits he ran a non partisan campaign and garnered 20% of the vote.

He even led Papa Bush and Clinton in 92 Summer polls.


General Clark is smart to run above the fray.

makes sense-more articulate

When will the rest of you liberals get on board?

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

I'll get on board if he wins the nomination. Of course he'd have to ACTUALLY run in order to win.

. . .however she obviously supports and is excited about his running. Now Dean supporters will deny she likes Clark, they will only hear that she is a Dean person.

So I'll take it!

Woohoo!

:bounce:

Clark is not running, as of August 22, 2003.

As in Michael????

LINKS???

I know your head is about to explode!

Here's the exact quote:

"As I suggested to people at the press conference earlier, Dennis
Kucinich is good, Al Sharpton is good, but there's a ... I would
love to see this. There's a four-star general . . . he used to be
the commander of NATO. His name is Wesley Clark. He was a Rhodes
scholar. He's a Democrat. He would repeal the Bush tax cut for the
rich. He submitted a brief in support of affirmative action to the
Supreme Court. He's pro-choice. I could go down the list, and he's
actually quite good on all the issues -- and he's a general. I would
just love to see the debate between the general and the deserter.
(Applause.) So if the Democrats really wanted to win, they should
run somebody who could win -- and that would be an interesting race."

And here's a link to hear him on audio:

http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7594

It's in the Q & A section, at about 14:35.

should be the truth about the war on the PEOPLE of Serbia.

Too many of you Democrats bought into all that. The "mass graves" were the "weapons of mass destruction" of the Iraqi war! They never found them! Except to discover some that turned out to be full of SERBS - killed by terrorists from the Islamic-backed KLA. I hate to argue among Dems about this - but it's true!

What's next denying the holocaust?

The holocaust HAPPENED.

Mass graves of muslims - killed by Serbs? NO!!!!! Absloutely NOT! As I said in another post, the so-called "mass graves" were the "WMD" of the Iraqi war. Those they DID find were possibly centuries old, and others turned out to be filled with SERBS murdered by the islamic extremists of the KLA. WHY does THAT surprise anyone?

I don't want another Lieberman who is ashamed of his party.

in a new army based on how the election goes. He's only been a civilian for 2 years.

He's left enough to please Michael Moore and Janeane Garofolo.

It's an asset to get support from both sides, not a liability, if you want to govern. The more one-sided you are the more fun it is to post on message boards, however.

Clark is the vote for *scared* Democrats. Scared they will be called weak on defense, scared that they will be called *Democrats*, et cetera. The classic loser Gephardt-Daschle fuzz strategy does not work, even if you have a cool title. You can ask Max Cleland about it if you don't believe me.

of all the candidates or non-candidates
or non-partied non-candidates.

than Dean. He said he was purposely asked, without evidence, to blame 9/11 on Sadaam.

Look up his issues stands at DraftWesleyClark.com

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

If he's getting Nader support (Michael Moore) and Janeane Garofolo he should not be too modeate for you.

Maybe you just see him as a threat to your candidate. Why not try to win the general election instead? Governing is better than complaining

Clark's shame of it is not an auspicious sign, especially in an election where smaller donations are important thanks to CFR.

away from jumping to Clark from your candidate.

Clark is the most outspoken critic of Bush foreign policy, and he does it without alienating the center. That's smart, winning politics that can mobilize even Naderites like Michael Moore while attracting independents and even Republicans who realize they were fooled by Bush.

You seem to want a candidate to say 'I want the support of liberals, and if you don't see things my way the hell with you.'

My candidate is towards the right of the others on many issues. Yet he is proud to be a Democrat, something which commands respect.

Republicans use it all the time to beat us. Maybe finally more Democrats are starting to use it. Embrace it.

This would be a disaster, given the new campaign finance rules which make small contributions paramount.

...or a liberal who's reticent to call himself a Democrat, for whatever reason? And Clark will run as a Democrat, if he runs, so what's the big deal if he wants to keep the media guessing for awhile? It's obviously working since he's gotten more significant media apprearances this week than most of the declared candidates.

Y'all can send me 6-inch stilettos to eat if he runs as a Republican or Independent and I'll gladly snarf them down...

Though a proud moderate Democrat is better than an ultra-liberal ashamed one any day of the week.

In this time of uncertainty, as Clinton put it, people will support someone who is strong and wrong over a person who is weak and right.

~

by the way? Is he/she even a Democrat? Since you're so severe upon us Clarkies maybe you can give us equal time by announcing who it is that you support.

Anybody else notice that a lot of Clark detractors are awfully silent on the subject of who they support? :tinfoilhat:

I am PROUDLY supporting Dennis Kucinich. However, Dean may be more electable in the long run. I'm not afraid to say - read my posts!

I don't expect him to win the nomination. But I do like him personally.

1. Kucinich. He's my sympathetic favorite. I don't think he will win the nomination, but if he makes it to my state (SC) I'll vote for him on principle alone.

2. Dean. He's my second choice. I don't really think he's all that progressive. On some issues, he's downright centrist, but he motivates the left and I believe he has the best vision of all the frontrunners.

3. Kerry. I like him. He has his flaws, but he also has the credentials to take on dubya. If you look at him on the issues, he's at least as liberal as Dean. On some issues maybe more liberal.

I haven't worked out a detailed list on the rest of the field. I think having a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd at this point is good enough.

Is bubbling over with ideas. He has nothing but praise for The Democratic Party but you can't expect him to alienate the other half of the country. If he runs he'll need votes from more that just registered Democrats to win.

As far as his not announcing his party affiliation or whether or not he's running is a strategy aimed at winning the general election.

He is against the entire bush foreign policy and Iraq strategy and against the entire bush economic policy. What more do you want?

fact he's a Dem.

"another sure thing: Wes Clark is in.The retired
general and Rhodes Scholar increasingly looks like a seer for his pre-war comments. Go back and read what he had to say in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. (Any of the Clark for President grassroots Web sites will do.) Clark, who was leaning toward running in any case, almost certainly can’t now resist the chance to say “I told you so.” And, more than any other possible Democratic candidate (with the exception of John Kerry), Clark could brush off the soft-on-defense rhetoric that GOP oppo experts are preparing to throw at the Democratic Party."




http://www.msnbc.com/news/955091.asp

I was ready to be impressed, but I found Clark's presentation this afternoon very disappointing. His answers were longwinded, vague and unneccesarily generous to the other side. (I mean, it is the "other side," isn't it?)

because he is increasingly thoughtful and precise with his answers that he's going to become a politician any day now. <rimshot> :eyes:

way to lose elections. If you want more of Bushco pick a candidate who makes it clear he doesn't want the support of anybody who ever voted Republican.

primary season. Time to fire up the partisans and rejuvinate the base. This time next year, reach out to the moderate Republicans and swing voters.

Which wing of the democratic party is Clark repsenting? I think it is the Libberman wing.

But that's a general for you. None of them should ever be president.

But that's a general for you. None of them should ever be president.

That is just such an adorable, precious comment! I'm sure the ghosts of Messrs. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, among other notables, will be greatly distressed by your lack of support.

The people here who -- in classic kneejerk fashion -- react negatively to anything and everything that smacks of the military are just hilarious, especially when the facts are squarely opposed to their preconceived notions and prejudices.

But please, keep those laughs coming!

DTH

The wars in former Yugoslavia saw the loss of nearly a million people in essentially genocidal campaigns. Many of the women were victims of rape policy -- gang rape first and then slit the throat. In Bosnia one out of every two persons was forced out of their home by ethnic cleansing campaigns. If they didn't have AK 47's they used knives. If they didn't have knives, they put straw in the houses where they had tied up people, and lit the fire and cooked them. In Kosovo more than a million of the two million Albanian Speakers was forced into exile -- marched at gunpoint along railroad tracks where mines were on either side. Read all about it. That war was extremely well covered by good reporters. And yes, when Clark commanded, the only tools the politicians in NATO could agree on was airpower. So they used Airpower. And yes, it is NATO doctrine to use cluster bombs on troop concentrations. Do they sometimes make a mistake -- yep, they do. We hear about the mistakes -- but we know less about the successes. But if you don't like the rape, and the shelling of marketplaces and disco's -- the cooking off of people and the knife attacks -- and you think those who are doing it should be stopped, -- then the cluster bomb has a context.

In her book, "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide" Samatha Power says this about Wesley Clark:

'The man who probably contributed more than any other single individual to Milosevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return of 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and securing for the Albanians the right of self-governance. Yet in Washington Clark was a Pariah. In July 1999, he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished military service. Favoring Humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move." (see pp. 472-73)

I don't like cluster bombs -- but I also don't like the butchers bill for millions that were paid in the wars in Yugoslavia. What was important in the end was that enough military power was used to force an end to the Genocide campaigns.

Samanatha Powers' book is a wonderful achievement. Both the left and right really need to read it...and it will be a travesty if the left allows the neocons to claim it as their intellectual legacy, because it absolutely does not have to be like that...

After watching Clark today, I believe he is our best chance to oust Bush*. I've been following them all closely and I in my gut I'm 100% certain that Clark can pull it off.

The long term experience he has as a general in the military is priceless in my opinion. If Bush*/Rove try to garner electorial support via "endless wars and fear mongering", Clark will be able to compete with him and surpass him on many levels. Additionally, with his military leadership background, it seems to me that he'd appeal to a certain percentage of the "white men voters" that we'll need to win in 2004.


Janeane did a great job all week - she is awesome. I've thought she was a cool chick since I first saw her on MTV's "Ben Stiller Show" back in the early 90's.

Go Garofalo!

a great deal of pride. Some Independent and Republican veterans must be secretly displeased to have an AWOL Commander in Chief.

....uniter, not a divider.

Wouldn't that be a miracle?

Maybe he wants to peel a lot of Republicans away from Bushco.

You and the person who posted that Clark is a strategist get the awards for hitting the nails on the head.

We live in a nation that is divided 50/50 and is ideologically polarized on most issues.

The only way we will win the next election is by swaying a bunch of folks who voted Republican in the last election.

That's the one way we're going to extricate our country from the bitter mess it is in, too.

If Clark declares then he'll go as a Democrat. Until then, why not flesh out a portrait of himself as a public servant who will run out of a sense of commitment to our nation?

I think it's smart strategy. And it's refreshing to hear somebody who doesn't sound angry, evangelistic or self-righteous.

What I've enjoyed this week is how the conservative talk show hosts interviewing Clark looked like deer staring into the headlights.

They either didn't do their homework (like Hannity who admonished Clark for not trashing Clinton's policies while Clark was still in military service) to Scarborough who acted like he admired Clark.

I only listened to today's Crossfire mp3. But from Carlson's long silences, it's obvious he gave Clark w-a-y more time than he allows guests before he starts overtalking.

Seems to me that all those guys would rather give Clark time to have his say rather than risk looking foolish. I hope it keeps Rove up at night and throws him off his game plan.