The coveted Finnfan endorsement Pt. 1: Wesley Clark

I have not decided who I am going to support for the Democratic nomination for President. I am hoping, with your help, to change that within the next 10 days. The "winner" will get my support in terms of time and money.

What I want to do is have one thread a day that examines each candidate in depth. Hopefully, this will help many on DU, including myself. I am going to go in aphabetical order, and, using the candidate's website and debate performances, list several of my personal pros and cons. Then everyone can have a chance to comment, add and critque that list.

A few details before we start:

1. I am a liberal, and support the liberal position on almost all important positions. I am looking at each candidate with that in mind. YMMV (Your milage may vary).

2. Links would be very helpful. If you insist a candidate supports a specific postion, I would like a source for that.

3. Please try to avoid flame wars. I tune them out, so if you want me to support your candidate, please be civil to others.

4. I am an "anyone but Bush" man. I will support whoever the eventual Democratic candidate is.

With that said, let's start with the alphabetically first candidate, Wesley Clark. Remember, the pros and cons are my opinions, and should not be regarded as general truths.

PROS:

-As a Four-star General, provides an effective alternative for undecided voters most concerned about homeland security;

-Proudly proclaimed "I'm a liberal", something many Dem. candidates are reluctant to do;

-Outspoken in his criticism of the Iraq war and of Bush's tax cuts and their effect on the economy, also on the Limbaugh scandal.

-Economic plan calls for repealing Bush tax cut.

CONS:

-Website has few details about his positions, such as gun contol, gay rights, the environment;

-There are questions about his past commitment to the Democratic party;

-No experience as an elected official;

-Economic plan calls for investing $40 billion into homeland security.

Ok, let's see if this experiment works! If it does, I'll do the next candidate tomorrow.

the most liberal and pretty much liberal on everything. i think everyone else would agree. sharpton is also liberal but don't know about him on as specific issues as m uch as kucinich.

I'll get to them in coming days. Today the focus is on Clark.

all this in Australia and there are 1000's that echo what you are saying. A good suggestion as we need to know as well..it's 'anyone but Bush' for us but now our destinies are linked help us out and give us all the info on which Democrat can lead the world out of the dark ages.

Didn't he say in a speech that was for equipment and training of local police and fire as well as some port protection?

I thought that's what it was about but I will allow that I may be wrong.

Can anybody else enlighten me?

Not black ops stuff - it's part of his job creation plan.

Real homeland security issues - ala this DU article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/05/p/17_democrats.html

First: The Homeland and Economic Security Fund would invest $40 billion over two years to directly fund jobs that immediately improve our security. The Bush Administration has shortchanged vital areas of homeland security. The Council on Foreign Relations released a bipartisan study this summer that said that the nation is dramatically underfunding efforts to prepare police, fire and ambulance personnel for terrorist attacks. This fund would improve our defenses against terrorist attack by paying to train more firefighters and police officers, hire more Coast Guard, customs Service, and law enforcement personnel. The fund would also pay for construction projects to safeguard bridges, ports and tunnels; and fund high-tech efforts to develop ways to detect biological and chemical weapons and materials.


It's listed as a "con" for me because I think the whole homeland security thing is just a red herring. Just my opinion.

...remember, Gary Hart first posed the idea in the Clinton commissioned Hart-Rudman report. Bush's implementation of it is what has failed.

I believe 9/11 proved a need for it done properly and Clark's plan is light years ahead of Bush's in terms of vision.

That has not been talked about as far as I know.
What kind of a signal will we send to the world if we elect a general right after being the aggressor in the war in Iraq?
What will the Chinese think? They already know that there military is no match for there own even though it is the largest in the world. Will they do the logical thing to protect themselves from what they could consider a hostile action by building a nuclear threat to the US?

What does everyone else think?

I don't like the idea of civil liberties being curtailed, as in the Patriot Act, but I think that homeland security is a serious matter and we need to do it right. Plus, anything that funds jobs and helps the states meet some of their current needs is a good thing in my book.

As to the message in electing a general, well, it depends on the general. Clark knows the people that we have to deal with to repair our alliances. He understands the international situation that we face as well as anyone. I'd refer you to the talkingpointsmemo.com interview and let Clark tell you himself why he's uniquely qualified for the presidency at this moment in time"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

It's a mixed bag.

I think a lot will be determined by his actions in the first weeks (if he is elected). And, that, of course, is what a lot of people are nervous about.

He was so passionate about halting the genocide in Kosovo that he went around the cronies at the Pentagon and appealled directly the the secretary of state.

He lobbied heavely for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda to halt ethnic cleansing.

His passion for making humanitarian missions the main goal of the military (with great power comes great responsibility) made him plenty of enemies in the pentagon.

"Despite his credentials as a warrior - 34 years in the Army, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart earned in Vietnam - {Clark} argues that the U.S. military must learn how to perform such nontraditional functions as peacekeeping and even nation-building, because that's what it will be doing in the 21st century, like it or not. And, since it's no small task to turn gung-ho soldiers into order-keeping policers, it's all the more urgent that the entire military start rethinking its doctrine immediately.

Paradigm-shifting views such as these did not make Clark popular with his superiors at the Pentagon, including former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. "

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=528

...General Barry McCaffrey told the Washington Post: "This is no insult to army culture ... but he was way too bright, way too articulate, way too good looking and perceived to be way too wired to fit in with our culture."

Quoted in "Clark aims for the Wes Wing"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1044318,00.html

Exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.

> I've just watched on CNN here in Amsterdam Anthony Grayling of UK's
> Prospect Magazine being asked his views on what Clark can contribute
> in terms of Europe-US relations. Basically he said that Gen. Clark
> is a very well known and respected man in European political circles,
> as we know. He added that, more than any other canditates (including
> Bush), Clark knows how to work with Europeans and they really
> appreciated here his leadership during the Kosovo crisis. Even
> without previous political experience, Europeans for the most part
> think he's better qualified to lead the US out of this isolationist
> corner the Bush people have painted themselves in...
> Well, over here in Europe, the General is our man."

His announcement was broadcast live in about all the world.
They seem to all root for him.

but the "Clark is the highest US decorated..." thread is actually news stories from before he was even thinking about running - a good source for getting a bit more unspun information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=470552

I had a hard time with it though, due to all of the sniping. I tuned out after about 10 posts.

Perhaps the most intelligent of all the contenders. Graduate of Oxford University, 1968 MA Philosophy and Economics. Rhodes Scholar.

Decorated with an honorary knighthood by the UK and the Netherlands.

Beats Bush hands down on national security and economy.

I am pro-choice.
Source: Interview on CNN Crossfire Jun 25, 2003

Clark, who said he does not consider homosexuality a sin, said the military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members. He suggested the military should consider the "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy the British use.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

I'm a believer in full equal opportunity. I don't believe in glass ceilings for women. We need that talent and that energy and that creativity in America in whatever way that women want to live their lives. You know, I'm for it. If they are stay-at-home mothers, I think that's wonderful. If they're career professionals, that's great.
Source: WCGU-FM interview on "Sound Off With Sasha" Jun 27, 2003

"I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health care, and pro-labor."

That's great, and makes my happy to support him if he gets the nomination, but to get my endorsement I guess I'm more interested in specifics. Does he support gay marriage? Drilling in ANWR? Partial birth-abortion? That's the kind of stuff I'd like to know.

He is against gay marriage, for civil unions.

Against drilling in ANWR & cutting old-growth forests "in the name of fire suppression" and when asked about partial-birth said he was pro-choice, period.

I can find and post the links if need be.



-ph :smoke:

...He never said he was against gay marriage. In fact, his response indicates the opposite.

*

"He is opposed to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and supports same-sex civil unions."

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/905409

Opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the grounds that "the gains in terms of US energy independence are relatively marginal."
Source: The Diane Rehm Show, reported on DraftWesleyClark.com Aug 1, 2003

Undecided on Partial Birth Abortion:

Q: Would you sign the partial-birth abortion bill, which is about to be passed by Congress?
CLARK: I don't know whether I'd sign that bill or not. I'm not into that detail on partial-birth abortion. In general, I'm pro-abortion rights.

Source: CNN, Crossfire Aug 1, 2003

... and widely respected, especially in Europe, so we needn't worry about his election sending the wrong signal. Moreover, his criticism of Bush and his policies is being covered by the foreign press, so his election would be understood as a clear repudiation of Bushism. The election of any Democrat will be applauded across the world, but Clark's election more than most, I think.

He's opposed to ANWR drilling and not only favors but is knowledgeable about alternative energy and propulsion systems, so I'm confident that he'll be a good environment president. He's kind of a technology wonk, like Gore. He's for civil unions, doesn't support gay marriage. AFAIK none of the major candidates supports gay marriage, nor should we expect any of them to. It would be political death. The fact is that the only way we'll approach equality under the law for gays is by dis-electing Republicans and electing Democrats, and making gay marriage a litmus-test issue when the large majority of Americans oppose it will do the opposite.

"He is opposed to a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and supports same-sex civil unions."

http://www.chicagopride.com/news/article.cfm/articleid/905409

Sounds to me that, despite any personal feelings he may have (and I've seen no indication of them anywhere) he rejects the rightwing stance on gay marriage.

Saying he is a opposed to a ban on gay marriage is not quite the same as saying he supports gay marriage, and would fight to make it legal.

... because there is no other indication, wouldn't you bet on it if you had to?

Supports gays in the military.
Supports civil unions.
Opposed amendment barring gay marriage.

His record is solidly pro-gay.

I have never seen this quote. What I saw is quotes of him saying the word "liberal" has a fine history, that we are a liberal democracy, that it's not a dirty word, etc...

I'm sure Clark supporters will correct me if I'm wrong, but please post links to actual quotes. A lot of people claim it, but never with a link.

want to read you a quote,
because Howard Dean said "...In Vermont, you know, politics is much
farther to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right
now." And then his campaign manager came out and said "That's not an
admission he's a liberal!" Which, quite frankly pissed me off. Somehow
they hijacked that word. And you're a Democrat, you said that last week.

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)
Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could
get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.
Maher: Good for you!
Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this
country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this...
this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was
the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss
the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck
by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People
who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they
believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose
that in this country. We've got to get it back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=284779&mesg_id=287760&page=

(the Maher show doesn't publish transcripts - DU-er did one )

...because Clark didn't actually say, verbatim, "I am a liberal."

Maher: OK. I'm just wondering, of all the people who have the
credentials to say "liberal" is not a bad word, I'm wondering if I could get you to say that.
Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

But everyone listening knew what he was saying...

nt

What does he propose about health care? Education?

Thanks everyone, this is great.

Education includes job transitioning for adults
educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition form job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives.
Source: Campaign website, AmericansForClark.com, "100 Year Vision" Sep 18, 2003

Increase teacher training & teacher pay
I'm looking at American education today, and I think we've got to treat our teachers with more respect. I think they've got to have more pay. But I think also, they have to have opportunities for professional enhancement and professional advancement. There's a program in San Diego where a man is doing that and he really got teacher coaches out there working to improve the skills of teachers and the classroom performance. I think that's the next step in American education.
Source: Speech to the New Democratic Network Jun 17, 2003

Decries lack of funding for No Child Left Behind
decried the lack of funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, saying `we should stop beating teachers over the head and start supporting them.'
Source: Matt Stearns, The Kansas City Star, Apr 28, 2003

Supports funding for all-day kindergarten
provides logistical support for 118 schools and 50,000 students. Funding new programs such as all-day kindergarten and improved student-to-teacher ratios are extremely important. Your support for this funding is crucial. Our children deserve a world-class school system with curriculum and programs to match the best. Athletics, music, art and associated after school activities are as critical as the core academic subjects of math, science, history and English.
Source: Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee Mar 17, 1999

More high school vocational programs
Many schools do not offer vocational programs. They have been forced to choose between college preparatory or vocational offerings, because their budget cannot support both. We must take aggressive action to expand vocational, technical and school-to-work programs.
Source: Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee Mar 17, 1999

Establish 18:1 student-teacher ratio for grade school
We must work toward establishing an 18:1 student-teacher ratio for grades 4-12. We also need to push for program-based staffing. More counselors, technical support and special-needs teachers to match curriculum requirements not school size.
Source: Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee Mar 17, 1999

Supports universal health coverage
Clark said he supports universal health coverage that includes preventive care.
Source: Jim VandeHei, Washington Post, p. A5 Sep 19, 2003

Promote good health through public health measures
promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits. All Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life.
Source: Campaign website, AmericansForClark.com, "100 Year Vision" Sep 18, 2003

Healthcare safety net works in the army
I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got healthcare, and the army cared about the education of everyone's family members. It wasn't the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn't work.
Source: Waging Modern War, by Wesley Clark Jul 15, 2001

All of this sounds great, it's exactly what I want to hear. Any idea as to why he hasn't moved this stuff onto his current website? I THOUGHT I remembered seeing all of this before, but when I checked out www.clark04.com, it wasn't there.

... is placing a higher priority on public appearances, organization, and fundraising...

One thing he's said is that prior to deciding to run, he didn't have a staff, unlike those who are already in public office. I think that the first couple of weeks the priority has been solidifying a base of support and getting his campaign out there. Took a while for some of the others to get their positions up on the web, too. I remember looking for some things and finding only vague generalities on the Issues sections of some of the candidates sites when they'd been running a lot longer than Clark. They're fleshed out now, though and so will his be. For Clarkies like some of us are, we'll hunt up his speeches and interviews to find out what his thoughts are on a subject, but it's not to be expected that everyone is going to do that.

will not have them posted on his official site until he is certain that it has been carefully addressed and researched in person. He will not just throw up some hastily conceived platitude designed by poll takers.

His campaign is less than one month old. That's a fact, not just some story for the press.

Clark will post detailed policy positions and plans one at a time, and you know what? The beauty of this is that each time he releases a position it will make news.

If you have not seen his town hall meeting in Hannikar New Hampshire, take some time to check it out.

This is where you will get a feel for the REAL Wes Clark.

http://c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Wesley+Clark&image1.x=38&image1.y=16

should be about the second event down.

:-)

For example, take the idea of
competition in
schools. OK now, what is
competition in schools?
What does it really mean? Well,
competition in
business means you have somebody
who's in a
business that has a profit motive
in it. It's measured
every quarter. If the business
doesn't keep up, the
business is going to lose revenue,
therefore it has
an incentive to restructure,
reorganize, re-plan,
re-compete and stay in business.

Schools aren't businesses. Schools
are institutions
of public service. Their job--their
product--is not
measured in terms of revenues
gained. It's
measured in terms of young lives
whose potential
can be realized. And you don't
measure that either
in terms of popularity of the
school, or in terms of
the standardized test scores in the
school. You
measure it child-by-child, in the
interaction of the
child with the teacher, the parent
with the teacher,
and the child in a larger
environment later on in life.

So when people say that competition
is-this is sort
of sloganeering, "Hey, you know,
schools need this
competition." No. I've challenged
people: Tell me
why it is that competition would
improve a school.
Most of them can't explain it. It's
just like, "Well,
competition improves everything so
therefore it
must improve schools."

If you want to improve schools,
you've got to go
inside the processes that make a
school great.
You've got to look at the teachers,
their
qualifications, their motivation,
what it is that gives
a teacher satisfaction, what it is
a teacher wants to
do in a classroom. We've got to
empower teachers.
Give them an opportunity to lead in
the classroom.
Teachers are the most important
leaders in
America. All that is lost in the
sloganeering of this
party. And the American people know
it's lost. So
you asked me to give you one thing
about this party
that's in power -- it's the sort of
doctrinaire ideology
that doesn't really understand the
country that
we're living in.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html



> Decisive force
>
> We must target and destroy the terrorist network. There is no room for
> half measures
> Special report: terrorism in the US
>
> Wesley Clark
> Saturday September 15, 2001
> The Guardian
>
> snip
>
> For the US, the weapons of this war should be information, law
> enforcement and, rarely, active military force. The coalition that will
> form around the US and its Nato allies should agree on its intent, but
> not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be
> anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes
> because the populations and economic structures of western nations will
> be at risk.
>
> And the American public will have to grasp a new approach to warfare.
> Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will
> achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the
> complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack
> not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported
> and executed these and other attacks.
>
>

that based on Clark's ideas about fighting terrorism, we would not have gone to war in Afghanistan.

Anybody know about this?

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en40752&F_catID=&f_type=source



Headline: Bush administration plans
to attack seven Muslim nations: Wesley Clark
-- Detail Story






LONDON: General Wesley Clark, the
front-runner in the Democratic race for the White
House, in a book due for publication
later this month, Gen Clark will accuse the Bush administration
of having a five year plan to attack
seven nations across the Muslim world, a British daily reported
on Saturday.

This thread has turned out exactly the way I hoped. I think it shows the very best of DU. I hope that the threads for each of the candidates go as well as this one.

I'm going to bed now, but please continue to post if you feel like it and I will check this out in the morning.

Again, thanks. You've made my desicion harder, exactly as I had hoped. :hi:

Would they see a former general as one that wants to make peace with the Moslem world?
How about Iran and Syria? Or does it matter what they think? If I were the leader of China or North Korea and paranoid as they have often been, I would see a general as president a real threat. And I would know I would louse in a military conflict and would build nuclear weapons as fast as I could.
The threat is not in Europe but the eastern world Why not talk about how they would like Clark as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world?
Am I being to pushy on this?

Clark's campaign has mostly been built on gimmick and rhetorical nonsense. I have yet to read any thing that Clark has written or said that contains any substance. It's been two weeks now, and still vary little. Some times page after page after page of rhetorical nonsense.

The problem with this is that Clark is into retail politics. He will sell you, what ever it is you want to buy. Are you pro-choice? Done. Are you pro-affirmative action? Done.

There has been a lot of skeletons coming out of Clark's closet of late as well. Here is just a few of the things that I have been able to capture in my notes.
Red Flag here! Clark's so called "anti-war" stand was outed by FAIR and several others.
Links:
FAIR: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html
Truth out: http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml
Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/index_np.html


Red Flag here! Clark was a lose cannon during the Kosivo war, he even wanted to attack the Russians. But it has been shown that Clark bombed several civilian populations into submission, the blamed the resulting refugees on Molosavitch.
DU links:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=467400

Red Flag here! He was invited too, and accepted an opportunity to speak at a Republican dinner, where Clark spoke glowingly of the current Bush administration. Even said that he looked foreword to working with them in the future.
DU links:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423723
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=465833

Red Flag here! He tried to step into Chenny's shoes to run as Bush's vice president for the Republican ticket.
DU link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=423723

Red Flag here! Clark is also a board member to the National Endowment for Democracy. A right wing organization that bankrolled the destabilization in Venezuela.
DU link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=460511