I don't want a general for president. So sue me.

I think we have suffered enough already from the fact that the White House and the Pentagon are now virtually indistinguishable and war has become our entire domestic and foreign policy. I think we need to seriously reconsider the role that the military has played not only in our foreign policy but in the domestic arena and I don't see that someone who has spent a lifetime working inside this particular box is going to be the one to get us out of it.

Plus, there is the fact that since Selection 2000 I have increasingly gotten the impression that America has devolved into a banana republic. Having a general at the helm is only going to increase my anxiety on that score.

Apart from Lieberman, I have no particularly strong negative feelings toward any of the other Democratic candidates, although I will admit to being kind of tired of hearing about Dean all the time. But I don't see myself getting over my aversion to bringing the military and the White House any closer together than they already are.

I don't think that we need to worry as much as we once had to about the 'electability' of the candidate. In fact, I think that as long as we do not actually nominate a trained seal, we have an excellent chance of beating the crap out of Bush. He is in a tremendously weak position right now and it is not going to get any stronger; they are in a hole that they dug for themselves and they have no prayer of climbing out of it. I think at this point we need to be much more focused than we seem to be on replacing Bush with whoever will have the best shot at undoing the damage and putting us back on track. I just feel very strongly that whatever is going to save us from this is not going to come straight out of the Pentagon. Thanks to Rumsfeld and Cheney, I have already had quite enough of being governed straight out of the Pentagon.

Of course I will vote for whoever is running against Bush, assuming s/he is not the Devil Himself. But I really, really hope that I can vote for someone that I feel good about. I don't feel good about Clark, and I don't think I'm ever gonna.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

Please take notice:

That you have been named as a defendant in the above and entitled lawsuit. You have 30 days to file an answer or other response to the complaint which has been filed against you.

/sarcasm

Me either. I'm an unreformed Deaniac.

In fact, I'd rather have a general from a middle class family than yet another fortunate son from one of the countries wealthiest families ... so sue me :)

:hi:

How does a four star general really see the world?
Especially after leading American, self serving persuits for so many years.
I have to say, Clark talks well but how in the world is it comming from a carreer military man?

to convince the public that we see the world through the same barbaric lens of brute force, strutting uniforms, rigid hierarchy, & ever-present fear that they do. We need to prove that we can out-fascist the fascists; that there is no social principle we won't happily flush right down the toilet, in our desperate pandering to the worst elements of our society.

You must not be very patriotic. Bad Plaid Adder!! :spank:

:shrug:

But what the dems do need is to correct misconceptions. We need to show people that we are not anti-military and weak on security. It may not matter to you but it makes a difference with Joe sixpack, and regardless of how little you care for such people their votes count.

The US military is not about fascism, it's about honor and service to a great nation. It's been misused for too long and it's time the it regains it pride and direction. We can do that with the right guy in power. I guy they respect, that speaks their language. I man that can change the trend of GOP only in uniform.

You may return to your Ivory tower now, I know it can be frightening down here in the real world.

as you say, is not in adopting Republican ones. It is in offering an alternative view that we emerge with a valid identity. Why, you might ask is our party unwilling or incapable of formulating an alternative view? Perhaps because in their reach towards the Right, they have lost any conception of their own purpose.

what you envision as the real world.

We are not running to win by catering to the lowest common denominators of ignorance and fear.

I don't trust a man who has devoted his life to leading US military adventures.

Eisenhower was such a fascist.

eom

Not. Replying to the previous post-- I would vote against Eisenhower in a skinny minute. Your post-- George Washington was NOT a career militarist-- he was a wealthy land owner, a "nobleman" in a culture in which such men served as military officers by default and by birthright, even in the upstart colonial army. Obviously a good tactician, but not, in any way, the equivalent of a modern professional soldier.

chickenhawk who inherited the presidency from his father, the former head of the secret police (i.e. CIA) as the result of a thinly disguised coup in 2000.

Anybody but Bu$h. Yes, I'd prefer Dean -- but Clark will do just fine.

Wish I'd though of that, thanks for the post.

Watch him on video at www.americansforclark.com. The guy is inspiring. That's the only word I can think of.

If he is true to form, he is someone who can unite the country.

and i share your sentiments... painfully so in fact.


we must not let the bush cabal set the boundaries and rules... and nominating a general is doing just that... ((not to mention announcing your candidacy with a carrier as backdrop, barf))


i want someone with a message of hope, someone who inspires and ignites the masses who are sickened by what our country has become, someone who's a fighter, but in policies, not the battlefield, someone who brings a new agenda to the table, not one who only panders and succumbs to our soured and pathetic current national attitude of war war war.


DEAN all the way!

Dean isn't perfect, but there's just a whole lot there that I can live with. As for Clark I'd pretty much say the same, actually, but I'm still in the Dean camp.

One thing about Clark, though. Considering that we're collectively being driven into a ditch by a stinking shithead who embarrassed, and frankly, SOILED his country's uniform from the moment he decided to shirk his duty with the pansy-ass Texas Air National Guard, up until he SOILED it yet again for his Top Gun photo op, and considering none of his panty-waist "bring 'em on" pals in the PNAC and the Defense Department and the rest of his garbage government, I have a new regard for anybody who actually gave a damn enough to go out and do the heavy lifting and get his hands dirty, actually out there putting his ass on the line and seeing combat.

That does speak to me, I must admit.

I do like a lot about the guy. HOWEVER, I remain a Deanie.

go Howard!! :bounce:

I would much rather have somebody who's previous career involved saving lives than somebody who's all about killing. Maybe it's a girl thing, I don't know, but I just am not impressed by military service. At least not in the context of elections.

but I am very scared of hierarchy, patriarchy, and authoritarianism, all things that are basic to military culture. The army is run the way it is because that's what makes armies work. I don't want my country run according to the same rules; I don't think it would work.

Maybe it is a girl thing. But you know what, maybe we wouldn't be where we are if people paid more attention to girl things.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

But if it were well known that Clark is quite aware of Eisenhower's warning about the Military - Industrial - Congressional Complex, and he vowed to end it's domination of our society.....I might be glad he showed up, eh?

More women should run things. We don't have dicks that we simply MUST wave around in other people's faces all over the world. These folks in power right now not only have dicks, they ARE dicks. Except for people like CONdoleezza, who is no credit to her gender.

This is exactly my take; I haven't been coherent enough to express it nearly so well. Thank you, Plaid Adder.

:hi:

eom

:)

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

;-)

eom

Man, you are a walking contradiction of yourself.

The last time I checked, being black was a genetic thing. Whereas, being a general has nothing to do with genes, and EVERYTHING to do with the kind of choices an individual makes in life.

If you are an authoritarian who gets very excited by medals, saluting, rank, hierarchy, blindly following orders, and killing people, you might well choose a military career. If you get along well with the kind of fans of brute force that inhabit offices at the Pentagon, you may rise high in the military.

If you rise high in the military, it means you never really question the system; you don't think independently; you are considered a "team player" by an unusually reactionary crowd.

Thus, being a general says a lot about what kind of person you are. Being black says essentially nothing about what kind of person you are.

Would you like to defend your ill-considered position, upon reflection?

it really interferes with my adrenaline/righteous indignation rush. :-)

;-)

ROFLMFAO

;-)

All you're doing is looking at the title without looking at the person. Same way people used(and still do) look at the color of someone without actually knowing what type of person he/she is. Your entire post above is based on so many assumptions it is unbelievable. Why don't you actually listen to what the guy says, instead of jumping to conclusions because of your preconceived notions.

I don't think that it is a valid one.

Being a general means a military life and background. It means a life spent dedicated to becoming a general. Its the same as saying "I don't want Howard Dean because he was a physician."
Or, as I like to look at it, "I don't want Bush because he is a drunken moron with cowboy diplomacy".

That in no way compares to any sort of preconcieved racist notion, such as "I don't want Sharpton because he is black" (which is a pathetic stance, one which I doubt anyone here has). Being black is a matter of genetic background.

Granted, its not fair to generalize Clark as "a general" and start comparing him to Jack D Ripper. But such attacks would be more justified than saying "I do not want a black president".

All you're doing is looking at the title without looking at the person. Same way people used(and still do) look at the color of someone without actually knowing what type of person he/she is. Your entire post above is based on so many assumptions it is unbelievable. Why don't you actually listen to what the guy says, instead of jumping to conclusions because of your preconceived notions.

I don't think so. People have suggested maybe Clark for Vice President, so I don't think he's being dissed out of hand.

In spite of the fact that Clark's name has been bandied about for a while, a lot of us haven't taken a hard look at him simply because he hadn't declared himself a candidate. Now that he has, we will.

He is a general. For those of us who oppose the war on Iraq and wars generally, that fact, on the face of it, is problemmatic. We are willing to keep an open mind and listen more carefully now that he has declared. We will listen to what the guy says.

But FAIR published an article about Clark just this week that indicated that he hasn't been quite as consistently anti-war in the Middle East and such as some of his supporters would like us to believe.

No one is set against Clark. He just has some "'splainin'" to do. I'm listening.

I know some career military officers, and they are less "team players" than most people who rise up the ranks in big corporations.

Come on. If you are going to say that, something that juvenile, then at least back it up.

come on, ROFL! It is completely different.

that is no different than saying "I don't want him because he's black."

Being a career soldier is a choice. Being black isn't.

That alerted me to the fact that no matter how much this guy says he was against the war he is not on the same wavelength as the bulk of those who truly opposed it.


You can't claim to be anti rape before the act and then applaud the technique of the rapist during and after the rape.

What?

and he criticized the war.

on CNN, whats the difference, I saw it, it made me sick. He also believedd we would find WOMADS.

cuts right to it, eh?

thanks for the insight.

not really.

i dont know much about clark. never even considered the guy. but what i have seen on this site is a shrillness in the arguments against the guy that is pretty fascinating in a rubbernecking past an acident way.

it is not because of my political stances on an array of issues, which leans almost entirely towards kucinich (actually i voted for john hagelin in '92 & '96, might again in 2004), but the level of intellectual argument against clark seem to me so visceral, so loopy and devoid of cogent anaylsis of why this guy should not be considered as a legitimate candidate for president that it makes my hair stand up on end. i feel like i have been transported to monty python's life of brian movie and i am sitting with the pythons listening to them arguing over whether the man named loretta, has a right to have a child even though he is a man, and anyone who points out that men can't have babies is oppressing his, rights.

there is this strange disconnection here with reality where people who have essentially the same belief system in social action thru government can't see that their differences are minor compared with what they face.

i think the federal courts will be the people's last resort as the new patriot act laws become reality and only moderates and progressives on the federal bench can save our rights. we cant count on congress to protect us, we saw that in 2001 with the passage of the aformentioned act. you should want a democratic president if for no other reason that the likeihood of a republican president generating a radically right leaning federal judicary that will drive this country into the american equivalent a police state.

none of the democratic candidates, including clark scare me anywhere near as much as the sight of 6 or 7 antonin scalias sitting on the SCOTUS, and in case anyone forgot, scalia is bush's favorite justice.

I think at this point we need to be much more focused than we seem to be on replacing Bush with whoever will have the best shot at undoing the damage and putting us back on track.

And I like this thought. Very much so.

I am very fearful of a militarist president.

Plus, I don't take orders well.

I'll take the General now.

I don't want any actors or wrestlers making decisions that affect my life either. Although, in the case of General Clark, at least he has a brain between his ears, and should he become President, I am sure he will use it. And, he certainly is a big improvement over Dumbo.

:thumbsup:

Defeating Bush.

As I said before. I feel the same way about a certain former governor of Vermont.

to the point of cynicism about the human condition is Clark has officially been in the race for ONE DAY and we virtually know nothing about his positions, yet folks are jumping aboard like lemmings off a cliff. When asked, he avoids the difficult or controversial issues, leaning to trite, tested sound bite responses and standard cliches. He even admits he is clueless on domestic issues.
A pleasant, convenient candidate is presented to us- as if he was cast for the role from the party machine, while the other candidates have been doing the hard work for months, battling it out, honing their message, developing policy, interacting with voters---working, and sometimes stumbling toward a goal with human spirit, courage and hope. And they have gotten banged up and abused along the way. I have gotten quite fond of the lot of them and their dynamics and interplay and I resent this "perfumed prince" who has finally assented to descend down from on high, a supreme general crowned royal elect by our masters without lifting a finger or raising a bead of sweat on his brow. And the royal subjects crawl to kiss the hem of his robe- without ever noticing that it is just the general's uniform that dazzles their eyes in an era of never ending war.

The only talking about "perfumed prince" I have seen is on freerepublic. Been slumming?

and I don't define my outlook as kneejerk opposition to theirs. I happened to read about it right here on DU, as a matter of fact. It was report from soldiers who use the contemptious term for the general. Sort of like how some foot soldiers have been repoted to dislike Rumsfeld.

Not every voting Democrat in the United States wants what you want, or evaluates candidates like you do. That's life.

You all crack me up - Clark attacts voters who aren't committed political junkies to a Democratic Party candidate, and that's seen as a BAD THIING.

That wasn't the point.

But since you brought it up- how can you possibly be awake if you are cheering on the officially DLC appointed nominee, who just finally decided that he was in the Democratic party, has previously supported Nixon and Reagan--who possibly voted for Bush, who is clueless to domestic policy, who was fired by the pentagon, who now reveals he would've most likely voted for the war resolution, who has never been tested politically, never ran a campaign, never held office, hasn't answered any hard questions, has been declared for TWO WHOLE DAYS while the rest of the field has been battling for months...

And who very little is known about as of yet---and any and all efforts are shouted down with accusations of unfair bashing.

Interesting that Clark, the unknown entity, swung on the stage just as the media was spreading the word that there were no outstanding candidates in the field that had yet set fire to the base. Where do you suppose that perception was fired from? The camp that did it's utmost to block the rising star of the populus movement powering Dean.

You wake up.

He thinks that:
""The highest calling of the armed forces is
> not to wage war, but to prevent war."
Now, bye-bye!

We've had war presidents, and it has really taken it's toll on our country. They may be aces in international affairs, but hey, how about the millions of us right here? I do respect Clark, and he will probably win the nomination because of his military background, and his handsome looks, but we shouldn't get too carried away with hero worship.

I share the concerns many of you have about having a general as president. However, I want Bush out. Clark could help accomplish that goal. A presidential race has a large, squishy undecided vote. We know we're going to vote for the Dem. The wingnuts will back Bush no matter what happens to our country. BUT what about the middle? Clark changes the face of the Democratic Party. We've been unfairly painted as the overly intellectual, wimpy, earth-muffin lefties who can't defend our country. Not true, of course. We're the patriots attempting to preserve our country's dignity and heritage of freedom. It's like Astaire and Rogers. He gave her class and she gave him sex appeal. We need a team. Dean gives us class and Clark gives us sex appeal. We draw in the Nascar crowd who prefer a four star general to a guy playing dress-up. We draw in the "scared Moms" who want the country protected. We draw in the people we don't usually get. We win. I want Bush out.

This may not apply to everyone with this anti-General critique. For many, I believe it's a valid concern.

But I smell some intellectual dishonest from some using the anti-General critque who previously wanted Clark as Dean's VP, or Edward's VP, or whoever's VP. Some wanted Clark on the ticket as VP to innoculate against Dukakisizing and Chicken-hawk attacks, just because Clark was a general. Now, that Clark is running against Dean and the rest, the tune has changed 180 degrees. All of a sudden they're saying we can't have an ex-general on the ticket even though they were previously rooting for a Dean/Clark or Edwards/Clark or whoever/Clark ticket.

It's sounding like the reason they object is not because Clark is a general (that didn't bother them when they wanted a Clark VP), but rather that Clark is running against "their guy."

Argue one point, or another...but at least be LOGICALLY CONSISTENT in your arguments. If you're gonna say you would vote against a Clark/Dean or Clark/Kucinich ticket because you don't like want a ex-military attachment, then you have to say you're prepared to vote against a Dean/Clark or Edwards/Clark or Kucinich/Clark ticket because you don't want any ex-military association in the Whitehouse leadership.

You can't say that the only reason you don't want Clark as the nominee is because he's an ex-general. Like I said, this doesn't apply to everyone. For some, it may be a serious concern. But before you just use that excuse, examine your logic and your heart of hearts. Does the fact that he's running against your guy bias your feelings so that you're not giving him an opportunity? Is it really the military thing? Did it bother you before when people wanted him as your candidate's VP? Or is that just a reason you've latched onto, whether consciously or subconciously to rationalize your dislike of him?

Don't be intellectually dishonest.

and have not changed my opinion since the day I 1st googled clark's name. I have even gone further by saying (and meaning it), that I will not vote or support Dean if clark is on the ticket.

Can you possibly grasp the concept that some people simply DO NOT WANT CLARK?

But can you say the same of every other person?

who are enthusiatic about Clark. There are those who are not.

We will see how it all pans out.

There is a big differrence in supporting a guy for the Number 1 position, and supporting a guy for the Number 2 position. In theory, at least, the guy for the Number 1 position (Democrat) must already have the qualities needed to lead the civilian government of the US; the Number 2 guy is like a trainee. Clark has never been in any capacity as a politician to lead or represent a civilian population. He has never had to make tough political decisions. Thus, as a Democrat at least, he is underqualified, in my opinion, to take the top spot-- especially given his rather short history as a "Democrat". But as the Number 2 man, he could learn on the job, and show what he understands about being a Democrat during that time, without the possibility of doing a lot of damage if he messes up. As the Number 2 guy, he could also conceivably draw in votes that might not otherwise go for the ticket.

Seriously, let's put this into perspective will we please!

But I refuse to believe that Clark is the only candidate who can defeat Bush. I think that most of them could, frankly, once they have the power of the entire party behind them.

"Better than Bush" may get us through the election but it will not necessarily get us any further than that. A dead cat is better than Bush. As I am fond of saying, so would a ham sandwich be, or a blind pig. All the same, I would not actually want a ham sandwich taking over for Bush if there was a way to avoid that. A ham sandwich is not going to be up to the challenges Bush has created for his successor.

One of those challenges is going to be finding a way to deal with the world without mediating everything through the military. I don't think electing a general is the best way to provide for that.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

acting like Repubs with your vigilance! I have been on this board for some time now, I do not post on every thread I read. I have honestly been trying to learn about Clark and I keep seeing Clark supporters bashing the authors of threads with any information that isn't positive. Why is this? Il n'est pas necessaire!!!!!

And I respect the feelings of those who have honest reservations, and I would never belittle them for it.

But I am annoyed at the ones who have changed their tunes 180 degrees, when they previously wanted Clark as their candidate's VP. When that's the case, then those reservations are not honest and truthful. That's intellectually dishonest. See my post upthread.

If you don't like Clark because he's running against your guy, then come right out and be honest and say that's your reason instead of rationalizing behind a flimsy excuse.

Once again, I respect those who have honest reservations regarding the military issue. I don't respect the ones who are ducking for cover behind this excuse when they previously wanted Clark as their VP. I would ask that you read my post upthread on intellectual dishonest and decide for yourself whether your personal stance is honest or possibly subconsciously biased.

If you can say that you absolutely would not vote for your candidate if he chose Clark as VP, then I would respect that your reservations about the ex-general and military issue is honest and valid and admirable. But if you can't say that, then I believe the some self-examination needs to be done. We all make mistakes, but we must recognize them and be honest with ourselves.

Wesley Clark, in his own words . . . made me wanna hurl . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=11938

Hang in there. His operatives will go away as will the freeper disruptors. The regular DU folk will start to think and realize they are still months away from the primaries. Everyone will vote and we will have a nominee.

Lots of people begging Clark to run, but I'm not among them. I do understand that in order to rein in the "military solution" types it helps to have someone who can call them on their BS and someone they have to respect. Still, anyone who gets elected over Bush ought to compel respect. We've tried it the military way for four years, and if the people aren't willing to keep on fighting... the military will have to listen, won't they? Let's make sure that Bush is defeated decisively. By whomever.

I am also skeptical about the advisibility or desirability of having a former general as president. The record of generals, as I pointed out in a thread the other day, is mixed.

The more I learn about Clark, the more I trust my initial misgivings about him.

so as not to offend anyone, that if Clark earns the nomination none of your misgivings will apply unless there is some terrorust incident or war that unduly sways voters to his military credentials. Theoretically I share misgivings about a Dem president whose choice has been crafted iun reaction to things as they are now and not change things back to the future we are in danger of forever losing. That applies clearly more to Lieberman at the moment. I can't imagine Clark being worse or being suckered into abuse of the military.

The general dissatisfaction one might have with the style of authority and leadership is usually quite open with the top brass and the publicwill get to fairly judge. The celebrity effect and the rah-rah military effect will not suffice in our party. I am just glad he feels good about mixing it up with the pols on an even level. This is the kind of vibrant talent-stuffed and inclusive field we need to overload the GOP bile machine with targets and cognitive dissonance.

I hope we don't blow too much money and goodwill in the process, another reason to play fair and positive.