Bathtub Epiphany about Clark

This has been a VERY trying week for me, so I bought myself a can of hot chocolate mix, some bubble bath and an "Oprah" magazine.

I haven't read Oprah for a long time. Perhaps since 9/11/01. Not that I didn't try, I used to have a subscription, but after 9/11, I couldn't focus enough to read it. I was more interested in reading about the boogeymen who are all out there waiting to get us. That's how I found this place and Truthout and Common Dreams and AlterNet and Environmental Defense and Verified Voting and the PNAC and Wes Clark. Well, I'd watched Wes Clark on CNN. I found "Draft Clark" on the Internet.

Anyway, tonight, as I lay in my cucumber and melon scented bath, reading this and that in my "O" magazine a couple of things nudged at me and then this hit me over the head, "Some people claim that all danger exists simply in one's mind, or contend that terror threats are merely the strategic tool of a political machine bent on distracting the populace." (from "River View, Fear Optional" article by Sharon Salzberg, The Oprah Magazine, November 2003.) I subscribe to both of those views, but as I lay my magazine aside I realized we are all a terrorized people. We're all afraid - even the contributors to "O" are afraid.

September 11 did a real number on the psyche of the people, not only in this country, but around the globe and the Bush Administration has worked relentlessly to ensure we stay afraid. Every minute of every day, every word that pours forth from the mouths of the people in the Bush Adminstration, and from the mouths of all the dirty flies that buzz around it, is intended to keep us terrorized.

Wes Clark makes be feel not so afraid. Clark is the guy on the battlefield, cradling the top half of a fallen soldier whose other half lies somewhere over there, reassuring him everything's alright all the while summoning every bit of aid he can summon to put the boy back together again. He makes the soldier not afraid, he brings him peace and solace and whether the boy can be made whole again, or not, he will live, or die, at peace and feeling like somebody cares enough not to make things worse by causing panic. It's SOP for Emergency Medical Personell - Keep the Victim Calm. You can't save a dying man, or a dying country, if he, or it, is freaking out.

This really isn't a commercial for Clark. It's just how I feel. Can any of the other candidates perform CPR on this country of ours, without killing us with the procedure? Perhaps and probably. But Wes Clark is the one who makes me feel like I WILL live through the operation. Whether it's true, or not.

I'll start paying more attention to how I feel from what he has to say, in addition to what I think about what he has to say. Thank you for that.

At least, many people feel the same way, I am sure. I have thought about what is the appeal of Wes Clark and I think you may have found the secret source of his appeal? It was almost instant, although he had no political experience. Whether or not he will be successful is another question. But he is carrying a very valuable component in his candidacy.

By the way, it is very admirable that you are so attuned to your feelings and surroundings.

to my feelings. Most of us don't. One night, though, about three years ago I watched a guy sit in a hotel room stomping his feet about how one cable network had given Florida's election results to his opponent. "Ah, no. Get Jeb on the phone!" he said.

I started tensing up then. I'm really ready for a little pressure release!

I remember it well...and that nightmare of counting the votes over and over and over but never really counting them at all...

that nite and what happened in that hotel room in Florida, right there on camera. Our country changed in that moment.:mad:

big difference.

clark should push the analogy..."who do you trust to lead when the chips are down?"

I had never considered it before, but I do feel strangely calm when Clark is speaking... I also find myself smiling a great deal.

Maybe he's hypnotizing us with those eyes. :P

I met Clark here in Phoenix after the debates last month. Now, if you knew me, you'd know I don't get star struck very easily. When Clark walked into our debate watch party and shook my hand I was gone! I started screaming and jumping up and down, "We want Clark! We want Clark!" Soon the whole room was chanting and when he spoke it was mesmorizing! I felt like a teeny-bopper at a rock concert!

Does he make you actually WANT to hear what he has to say? He does me. I hope he never loses that quality.

(with no experience in politics) makes me shudder. Maybe it is from reading the history books about countries run by military leaders. My husband went through the military government in Argentina. The thought of Clark (what do we REALLY know about what he'd do as president? He's got NO track record) scares the hell out of my husband and scares the hell out of me.

I'm living through Ashcroft's America. I am not sure I really want to delve into the forrays of a military-run (or even military-style) government. If you don't think that ALL of Wes Clark's years in the military as a commander wouldn't play out at all in the White House, you are deluding yourselves.

Don't Trus' It.

have been military men.

I spent nine years in the Army and my husband's retired Army. There are a lot of good men and women in the military and a lot of bad ones. Everyone should be judged on his, or her, own merits. Not what happens in Argentina, or anywhere else.

Wes Clark knows our government is not supposed to be run by the military. Right now, it seems it is.

After all is said and done, though, we all have only our gut to trust.

You will trust yours, and I will trust mine.

The problem with military merits is that they relate to the execution of missions. All of his adult life, Clark has been taking or giving orders.

Politics is about defining missions in the first place - democratically! - in a messy civilian world where the politicians are not supposed to execute a battle plan. The politician's most precious duty is not to play drill sergeant, but to protect the private's right to leave his bed unmade and dress in a tutu, if the private so wills.

Clark may have merits in the military world, but he has zero experience in the civilian political world. Aren't you disturbed by the idea of a general going straight to the presidency, without holding any previous elected office?

And sorry, the military men who ran this country have been lousy presidents! I can hardly believe the absurd nostalgia for Eisenhower - on this board! - the man who only denounced the military-industrial complex after chairing it for eight years. (At least Clark has done so already, however based on his resume he seems no less willing to work for it.)

Or consider the Grant presidency! A military career is no guarantee of good leadership. A general as president in a time of faked war is a frightening idea.

Please don't characterize politicians who were also military leaders in a time before the permanent military institutions (i.e., Washington, Jackson) as "military"; they were landowners first, militia leaders second.

between a real military man and one that pretends to be a real military man, prissing around on the deck of carriers, with the walk of a long hard ride, daring the world to cross his line in the sand, because he will send his warriors to die for him at the drop of a hat - all hat and no cattle.

and he wasn't a Democrat or Republican until he tossed his hat in the ring. Both parties asked him to run for them.

A great many of today's GOP leaders, most of them rabid, war-loving Bush sycophants, have NEVER served in uniform ...

ASSKKKroft included ....

Cheney included ... Hell: he is one of the prime instigators of total, infinite war, ... and a prime benefactor ...

I would say that, given the current state of affairs, ... a LACK of military credentials is hardly a true indicator of a reasonable and peaceful nature, and may in fact indicate otherwise ....

Clarks military career, though not perfect, is an asset a great many Democrats will feel comfortable with .... Myself included ....

Men that know war first-hand rarely wish to revisit it ....

He became an insanely popular two-term president. Was he "perfect"? No, not hardly, but he did enforce desegregation, he continued implementing FDR's New Deal, his tenure was mostly prosperous and peaceful (shocking when one considers the xenophobic McCarthyist Korean-war atmosphere that prevailed when he took office), and he did leave us with a memorable warning about the military-industrial complex which Americans have thoroughly failed to heed. On the down side, he did put the obnoxious undergod into the pledge, but I'll forgive him that particular excess.

Not too shabby, overall. He's one for whom the republicans can be rightfully proud.

And I betcha Clark could do just as well, if not better, for the Democrats if they nominate him.

his tenure was mostly prosperous and peaceful (shocking when one considers the xenophobic McCarthyist Korean-war atmosphere that prevailed when he took office)

McCarthyism and the Cold War sounds a lot like our current climate of the Patriot Act and the War on Terror.

... of "military men" in your head. I know some "military men," including my older brother, and believe it or not they are honest, sensitive, and intelligent people. This isn't saying that all "military men" are like the ones I know, but they aren't all like the guys in Dr. Strangelove, either.

We've had career generals as president before, and they did NOT suspend the Constitution and turn the government over to the military. In fact, a President doesn't have the Constitutional power to do that, even if he wanted to.

that the majority of USians truly do have Daddy Syndrome. They need daddy to protect them. They need daddy to make the boogeymen go away.

Yep, they've sucked down all of the fear that whistleass et al have been feeding them and now they need a big strong general w/lots of shiny medals to protect them.

but I'd say Clark is Captain America, not daddy.

What does that make you?

Pockeymon?

:evilgrin:


on edit:
emoticon clarifier

Captain America = fiction. Of the most jingoistic kind.

Beware the daddy who thinks he's Captain America.

If we must go this way, couldn't we at least have Reed Richards?

The man you want is Charles Xavier!

With Matt Murdock, aka Daredevil, as Attorney General.

Stretcho would make a great Secretary of State, though.

Don't know what I was thinking. Quite obvious.

Let's see. Stark Industries will be nationalized. Dr. Peter Parker (who's older now) runs the CIA. Who else?

That's exactly it.

I'll pick the father figure (Clark) when there's trouble.

I'll pick the frat brother figure (Bush) when I wanna get piss-drunk.

The frat brother has gotten the country (or at least half of it) piss-drunk with stupidity. So I say it's time to bring in the father to fix things up. Or, failing that... bring in the Dean. ;-)

:)

So you were taking a bath, and dreamily thinking about the soft-spoken Clark, and fantasizing about him, hmmmmm.

Clark was trying to get a job with the Bush administration until Karl Rove turned him down. Then he started going on all the talk shows, encouraged by Clinton and old Oxford friend (I think) to run, and imitated all of Dean's positions, with General credentials. He was talking right up until the event about how wonderful it is that Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft were in charge in this country during all of this.

Clark is a smooth, well-spoken, and smart guy. Smart enough to adapt, like a chameleon the positions of Dean. He's handsome too, which explains your bubble-bath fantasy.

But no matter how much I want to beat Bush, I'm just unwilling to put a DINO in office to do so.

Howard Dean is the answer to the question of "who." He's been a democrat for over 30 years. How can you trust a guy who either didn't know where he stood, was actually a Republican, or was so apolitical that he didn't know what he was. Saying the right things, doesn't mean he believe them, it only means he knows he has to say that to get elected.

He's handsome too, which explains your bubble-bath fantasy.

Dean for many people is not the answer to 'who'.....you have to learn to live with differences of opinion and feeling.

The original post was a personal account - have the decency to stay out if you can't refrain from insults.

DemEx

I got this from a person who knows Clark, and he gave me permission to use it on DU and elsewhere, so here it is:

The reason for this note is to share with you some perceptions of Wes Clark ... I was in the West Point class behind Wes at West Point (class of 1967); we both taught in the Social Science department at West Point and overlapped one year. I took over Wes’ class in political philosophy after he left in 1974 (yes, he taught Political Philosophy, not economics).

Unlike Hugh Shelton, I have the highest regard for Wes’ character and honesty -- If Wes said he never smoked dope, take that to the bank. Wes is an outstanding intellect who has a remarkable ability to place events in a broader context. I imagine that folks like Hugh Shelton (good ole boy, special operations types) were very wary of someone like Wes. Bottom line: I don’t believe Wes has any negative character or integrity issues, and if Gen Shelton has some, he should make them public.

So why is he running as a democrat? My conjecture: Wes is extraordinarily competitive; he wants to accomplish the highest goals life has to offer--that means he wants to be President. I suspect West looked at the political landscape in the context of his age, and realized he was not going to be able to mount a challenge to an incumbent president as a republican--I am sure Wes has other goals for himself as well (Nobel Prize would come to mind), and waiting another four years would throw him off his personal life plan--and trust me, from what I know of Wes, he DOES have a personal life plan. I will leave it for others to make judgments about his democratic ideological purity. I am merely offering you conjecture about his motivations.

That being said, Clark has come out in favor of abortion rights and in favor of gays in the military, among other things. He says right out that he's a LIBERAL. So, frankly, I don't give a hoo-haw about whether he was a "Democrat" or a "Republican" or a "Whig" or whatever before this year. He's ours now.

whew thanks...

The most interesting is the Nobel Prize. Yes, I would think so too, and it will be the Middle East. In his Iraq plan--which while it gives no time table, gets us pretty much out in about a year--he includes a regional/world council. When he did an extended vocal "think" on NPR a few months ago, he outlined a regional policy body for the ME, that would function as a policy board even while hostilities continue. It would seem he always move to broaden the debate, so that while we remain a player, the share in success has more involvement from those who would wish otherwise if left sitting on the sidelines.

He must have worked on some of Clinton's early attempts to bring peace, because I've also heard him mention the sticking points with a great deal of authority.

Howie Dean was NOT the first one of the candidates to call out Bush on 9/11. That was Clark. And Clark's position on the war is, SHOCK, the same as Kerry's AND Dean's! What a stunner! Oh here's another one, Clark actually IS a liberal in his political persuasion, Dean is a little child of Wall Street who doesn't forget that is how he got going on his political campaign in the first place. While he was Governor, environmental protections went slack and regulations on corporations decreased. That and for him saying that he takes credit for getting every single person in Vermont healthcare or something like that, it sort of helps that the state he pulled it off in was VERMONT and not some huge place like NEW YORK or CALIFORNIA! Also, you forget that not until 1996 could you even declare party preference in Arkansas, and Clark was in the military from '66 or '67 until 2000. In the military you are NOT supposed to be partisan, and Clark has shown by his career that he was NOT. Dean hasn't exactly been forthright either, if he is such a straight-talker then WHY has he sealed his entire record of what he did as governor of Vermont for something like 15 years? Dean may not have served his political career inside the beltway, but he is as much of a politician as the boys from DC. Clark has been a military man for most of his life, and aside from that he was SACEUR and organized the war effort in Kosovo, which probably took a good deal of civilian style deal-making to pull togehter the NATO nations to follow his warplan without serious objection, so I think he knows how to compromise, and aside from that I trust that he WON'T act like a politician.

"Never be afraid"... Wes Clark

So I was sitting in the same chair I'm sitting in now, probably with my legs curled up just as they are now, and watching a video of an old Clark speech. This was during the research early days, when I was trying to get a sense of who Clark is and what he stands for. At the end of the speech which ranged from foreign policy to the economy, there was a question period from the audience, and someone asked about post 911. Clark began with a ramble through an answer that described the conditions in Afghanistan and security needs in the US. Then he looked at the questioner and said "Never be afraid." It was a voice of quiet steel that made moved right down my spine and hushed the audience.

Yes, I've written several times during the late night bashings that sometimes passes for discourse on this board: I'd move that man into the White House tonight if I could. I don't know if anyone can straighten out the mess in which our country finds itself; economically, socially, politically, and militarily. What I do know is that there are very few people with the skill set, the insight, and determination, even walking around that are up to the task. Wesley Clark is one of them.

Clark began with a ramble through an answer that described the conditions in Afghanistan and security needs in the US. Then he looked at the questioner and said "Never be afraid." It was a voice of quiet steel that made moved right down my spine and hushed the audience.

This is the man we need in office. Whether he is conscious of it or not, he does exude this calming quality of responsibility, empathy, an competence. This will play well against Bush in the election. The average voter may not realize it, but they will be affected by this quality.

I don't know if anyone can straighten out the mess in which our country finds itself; economically, socially, politically, and militarily. What I do know is that there are very few people with the skill set, the insight, and determination, even walking around that are up to the task. Wesley Clark is one of them.

I agree.

Republicans need a threat to organize against, to empower their cruel ways, and justify their spending on defense contractor buddies.

They had the Cold War. But when that crumbled, they lost their "glue', and Bill Clinton was elected.

Without an enemy, they made them up. Mostly: BILL CLINTON.

In 2000, Bush came back around, scaring everyone with "missile defense". Well, Osama came around, and gave Republicans something even better: terrorism. It's better then missile defense because it gives them an excuse to exercise authority over Americans, which missile defense doesnt.

So here we are, back to the Republican "Cold War" comfort zone: there be bad people out there, and we must fight them!

They're using fear.

It's SOP for Emergency Medical Personell - Keep the Victim Calm. You can't save a dying man, or a dying country, if he, or it, is freaking out.

And Clark will counter that fear, not just by his resume, but by his demeanor and character, and honest sincerity. This man is gold.

He ran for office, not because he had some lofty presidential ambition, not because he felt groomed or entitled for the position, but because people actually "drafted" him. He genuinely (and I have heard him speak in person) feels like this country is headed down the wrong path and is running for no other reason that to return us to some sanity. I've also seen him in person and his warmth, his genuine concern for the problems that everyday people are experiencing as a result of the current Bush regime, is so palatable.

Bush looks like a facist with all of his flags and red, white, and blue propaganda. Clark looks like a true American patriot who has risked his life for our country, who served to protect those very freedoms the Bush co. is trying to revoke.

His recent speeches, his criticism of the current administration, and his refusal to bash other fellow Democratic candidates make me proud to support him.

is that Clark would cradle the soldier while Bush would run away yelling that it wasn't his fault.

I agree with your thoughts about Clark 100%. I'm the last person to go for a military president. But Clark makes me feel like he's in our corner and will do his best to level with us. I need that.

... or at least I like to think so. Clark has completely won me over. I believe he is an amazingly gifted and honorable man doing this out of a sense of duty.

I would suggest that a Clark supporter might want to copy the link to this thread and send it to the General's campaign. If he is for real, it could enlighten his campaign.. :)

As an after thought:

What I most trust about Wes Clark is that he is not trusted by General Norman Schwartzkopf or General Hugh Shelton. That is a point in his favor, from my perspective. :)

I have fear, too. *LOTS* of it! But, my fear is not of some angry people from another part of the world, coming to blow up my building, or the road I'm driving on, or putting anthrax in my mail. I'm very afraid of my own country. I, too, badly need to feel like there is someone I can trust, someone who will make it all better.

You see, I'm on disability, and just about to the edge now of being able to survive. Four more years of Bushwah, and I won't be here to tell about it, nor will thousands of other people. However, I don't hear any concern from any of the Democratic candidates except Dennis Kucinich. He is the only one who is talking about keeping alive those of us who are on the edge. Dean sure isn't, and neither is Clark, etc. During the Clinton years, cutbacks pushed most of us to the edge, so we know that we can't just assume that just because he is a Democrat, that one of the other candidates would care about us when President.

So, my question to you... if your man, Clark, is elected, and makes you feel safer, are you going to be willing to speak up, and make *sure* that those of us in my position are not forgotten, and allowed to just quietly pass away from the earth? You see, that is where *our* fear is. And, it's a very real fear. It has happened before (Reagan years), and defintely went downhill during the Clinton years.

So, please tell me..... would you keep at it, and let your President Clark know that you want the fears of people like me to be calmed, also?

Kanary

I take it you din't join his disability e-group, huh?

But, this is a thread about..Clark.

I will honor the author's thoughts, and leave the Dean issue for another time.

Kanary

But I would say, from my perspective, that he would work to ensure the fiscal health of our economy, roll back the tax breaks for the wealthy, and make sure our country protects social programs such as Social Security (disability), Medicare, and Medicaid.

Yes, all the candidates talk about the economy. Many have mentioned rolling back the tax cuts.

But, when one's survival hangs in the balance, one can't just assume that means that further cuts in assistance programs would not happen. They happened under Clinton.

I'm asking... would you continue to press your candidate for support of those programs, if he was elected, or would you just be satisfied that you got the man in office who made you feel safe, and let the rest of us take whatever happened? Nobody listens to us, y'know, and we need to know that there would continue to be concern from citizens who elected him.

Kanary

If I thought for one minute he would cut programs for the disabled, I wouldn't be supporting him.

Clark damn well better guarantee the social service programs we have in place for Americans who need them! This fight isn't just for those who want a sensible policy in Iraq. This fight is about keeping all of the New Deal programs that have benefited so many Americans. This fight is about stopping the drainage of our federal treasury and increasing it so that we can support our nation's disabled, our nation's elderly, our nation's poor, our nation's servicemen and women... we want to ensure the well-being of EVERY American.

Kanary,

I too, actually, fear this government more than all the boogeymen in the world. When you look at the big picture - Boogeymen vs. Us (as in we) the odds really are with Us.

As for economic uncertainties, my husband has just found a job, after being laid off for three months. I know firsthand about living on the edge. Heck, before I married my husband, I was a single parent. That's like living on the edge in stereo!

You can find General Clark's ideas on economic issues here: http://clark04.com/issues/ And you can bet I will always speak up for myself and my fellow countrymen, no matter who is in the White House. I think if Clark is in the White House, though, there will be someone there who will actually listen to me and you and all Americans, because we will really matter. We will not be simply an inconvenience.

Kimber

..thanks for replying to my concern. Actually, I have been quite disturbed to find that most Dems aren't even willing to think about this issue. It's like those of us on the bottom are no longer worth considering. There goes a lot of votes right there! So, I appreciated that you replied.

I appreciate that you and your husband have gone through some trying times. I also know that being a single mother is very trying -- been there, done that. But, with all due respect, that is not the same level as those of us who are completely on the edge. You can argue with that if you feel you need to, but if you really want votes from those of us you think *should* be supporting the Dems, you're going to have to be willing to really hear what *we* are saying. I mean, really, if the guys with the confederate flags are important enough to be heard, and we still get the brush off, what is that saying??

As for Clark automatically supporting people with disabilities because he lost part of a thumb, well, what can I say? Again, I sympathize with his experience, but.. it's not quite in the same league, is it? One of the problems with someone who has had an experience like that is that because they got "through it", they can often become even harder towards others because they develop this idea that if they can get through it and go on to success, that so can others, if they will only try hard enough. That's exactly what has hurt so many of us in the past.

I did look at the link you posted, and read the economic plan. I'm not sure why you thought that would be reassuring to me... not only was there no mention at all of anything about disability or others who are in need of assistance, but some of the provisions made me very nervous. That is putting it mildly.

"Streamline government and improve efficiency, including healthcare: $225 billion"
That's government speak for cuts, cuts, cuts. As I said, we have already been cut to the point where we are hardly breathing. Any more cuts, and there will be deaths. Period.

"Pay for proposals. Wes Clark would restore the basic principle of responsibility to the budget process: all tax and spending proposals must be paid for without increasing the deficit."
Same government-speak Republicans have used which mean that you ain't getting nuttin', cuz we don't have the money. No housing for disabled people? Sorry, we can't afford it. If you'll just stay on the street for a few years, quietly and outta sight, we'll get this economy back on track and then we'll see about trying to help you out.

No, sorry, I don't get any warm fuzzies from any of this. It's the same "message", the same policies from the Clinton years that resulted in more and more cutbacks. The Dems weren't our friends then, and I don't see any changes happening here.

The only part that gives me any hope at all is *your* personal assertion that *you* would not let it all slide, and that you would keep speaking up and pressuring for survival resources for people with disabilities. In a nutshell, that is what it is going to take. We have not been important to Democrats for a long time now, and the result is that we are barely still living. IF people like you would be willing to start speaking up, and loudly let it be known that cutbacks are *NOT* acceptable, then maybe something would change, and maybe people would survive this. Can't that be as important as the guys with the confederate flags?

But, the experience of the past several years does not make me too hopeful. It's not even something that is heard here on this forum, amongst the more liberal of the liberals. Peace is important. The economy is important. Environment is important. Preventing jobs from going overseas is important. Very seldom has the issue of assistance even been mentioned, and then it's in passing. It's assumed it will be taken care of. That assumption has resulted in cutbacks.

Kanary

I don't think any of us can. One of the way I choose a candidate is watching how they greet folks, listen, and respond. Clark seems to really listen and make an effort to greet all. He was injured and came out of it so some would get hardened but I don't think he has. He gets close to tears when he talks about the injured soldiers, he takes time out of busy campaign schedule to go to the hospital, and he knows many who are permanently disabled. I hear the anger in his voice that the disabled have been abandoned about this issue.

promise what Clark will do. That's why I said what I said in my first post.

So, the question remains, will you speak up and hold his feet to the fire if he is elected? I'm asking if it's important to you..?

There are many who depend on that.

Kanary

here and I'm not sure what you really want me to say. So, I will give you the only thing I have to offer and that's my own opinion.

First and foremost, it is very important people with disabilities and disadvantages reach out to those of us who may be able to help them, be it with our voice, our votes, or our money. We will help you, we want to help you, but the loudest voice must be your own. You have the biggest interest in your survival and therefore the biggest responsibility. You are doing the right thing by posting your concerns in a forum like this, people can't fix what they don't know is broke. So keep doing what you're doing.

Second. I understand the political stance many have taken now and in the past that the Democratic party has become the Republican Light party. I have read the Green Party principles and I agree with most of those principles. They're hard for anyone not to agree with, but there is this little thing called reality we have to deal with.

I always say reality is relative, but when it comes to the 2004 presidential election, we don't have the luxury of choosing which realities we will embrace because the reality that is smashing us in the face and getting our kids blown up on the battlefield is a hard one. It doesn't change when you look at it in a different light. That reality is George Bush and his neo-con puppet masters are dangerous, to us, and to the world.

With this in mind, I am forced to put aside any hopes for idealogical purism. We are at war IN THIS COUNTRY and as such, we must do what it takes to win. The Greens understand this, and are not pushing a hard presidential agenda, like they did in the last election. I bring the Greens into this conversation, only because in REALITY Dennis Kucinich, another idealogical purist, has as much chance to win his bid for president and they do, even if his values and vision are perfect - which I don't think they are, but that's my opinion. The fact he can't win is just that, a fact.

When I looked at the other candidates running for president, I waivered between Dean and Kerry. Not really being able to settle whole-heartedly on either one, but either one would have gotten my vote as will anybody but Bush. When Wes Clark entered the race, though, I felt I could hang on to a little piece of myself by being able to vote FOR somebody I really could believe in, not just vote AGAINST Bush.

We all have to follow our own conscience. If you think you'll be better off living under Bush, vote for him. If you think Kucinich has your answers, vote for him. I'm voting for Wesley Clark for a myriad of reasons, only one being the one I gave when starting this thread. In the end, I think most of us here have the same goal. Some of us may be required to compromise our idealogical agenda for the sake of the whole. Some of us may not. Hopefully, we will all win.

Oh, for gawd's sake. Y'know, this is a SURVIVAL issue for me. I tried to post it as calmly and rationally as I knew how. To dismiss me this casually is to let me know that it simply doesn't matter to you.

Yes, there is indeed a war. And, it has been going on for many more years than the one in Iraq. People have also died from this war, and many more will. The problem is, those deaths go by silently and unreported. If you are upset that Bush doesn't want body bags and coffins in the news, what do you think about those who have died of poverty with absolutely NO notice?

I brought up my concern to you, and no, it wasn't easy. It simply stinks to make public what is a very intimidating private situation. To say it's all up to me lets me know that, no, you indeed have absolutely NO interest in making this an issue.

War is important.

Economy is important.

Environment is important.

Jobs going overseas is important.

The poor... let 'em eat cake.


Kanary

and earplugs. I tried to listen to you and to respond as honestly as I could. If you're trying to pick a fight with me over this, I'm the wrong person. I'm trying to agree with you and offer you some support.

I don't know what else you want me to do. Vote for Kucinich, maybe?

but absolutely no understanding.

Being unemployed for three months makes one live on the edge? No, it is not even close. Try not being able to work at all, having no insurance, no way to pay for life saving medications and in many instances, no accessible place to live.

What happens? We die, quietly.

After he was shot several times, he came back from Vietnam on a stretcher. He is still missing part of his thumb. And he had to teach himself to walk all over again because he was missing a quarter of his calf muscles in one leg.

In his military positions, he oversaw entire bases, everything from healthcare in military hospitals to daycare to mental health services. And the army sees its fair share of injured and disabled people in war. There are lots of disabled veterans.

I don't think Clark will ever forget or abandon the disabled. He was one himself after he returned from Vietnam. His first chance to hold his newborn child, born while he was away in Vietnam, was with a hook grafted to his hand, waiting for his thumb to heal. Part of his thumb is still missing to this day.

Somehow, I don't think he will abandon you.

Lula lost his middle finger in the machines when working at an auto parts factory, before he went into politics. Would make for an interesting handshake. :pals:

I think that the same speech which included the "never be afraid" assertion also layed out his theory of the three pillars of American strength. One of course is the military, which Clark says is important, but not as important as the other two: our economic strength, and the strength of the American people. I believe your question is addressed in the "The 100 Year Vision":

We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, 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; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.

He addressed this again when asked about Social Security during the first debate. America has an obligation to ensure her people a safety net that defines a level of the standard of living below which our citizens must not fall. During his Iowa town meeting, he also affirmed his support of ADA. If one understands his view of patriotism, it is clear that he views our nation as a community with obligations to its citizens as opposed to a survival-of-the-fittest society.

As I poked around the information of the various candidates--I was leaning Dean-Kerry at the time--I laughed out loud when I realized that Clark, who all pundits refer to as a "moderate" was actually far more liberal than Dean who they were already branding as a "leftist." There is something of the socialist about Wesley Clark.

The absolute remains: unless we nominate a winner, we are truly fucked. And I don't mean just a little. Our democracy itself is on the front lines of this battle. Yes, Kucinich can win my heart, but can he save the day? I do not dismiss his efforts out of hand, but rather I welcome and encourage his voice; nevertheless, I must ask myself "who is the one" and respond with an honest answer.

I've had a positive feeling about him. He somehow elicits comfort without even, seemingly, trying to do so. I believe people get this impression about Clark because his motives really are pure. He got in trouble as Nato's Supreme Commander because he was constantly trying to get the powers that be to do something about the genocide he and others were witnessing. Although I didn't know Clark's at the time, the Pentagon's lack of interest in taking decisive action, including boots on the ground, against those blatant crimes against humanity were exactly what, also, enraged me.

at a very dark and fearful point in this country when it seemed people were afraid to even whisper their disapproval or dissent.
The threat implied and actual, of the Bush regime was palatable and we knew instinctively that we were in grave danger of seeing our rights and democracy brutally ripped from us, though no one had articulated or given voice to any of this. Kucinich had courage when it counted most.

This episode was, for me, more terrifying than 9/11. And it still lurks just below a very thin veneer of feigned civility. This is still more a threat to this country than what's happening in any "war" theatre around the globe.

I didn't start to feel the blood coming back into my veins or breathe normally again until I read that powerful "prayer"...and then shortly after heard Moyers was going to begin his program NOW. I was relieved I was not as alone as I felt at that time.....

and I'm willing to work for his candidacy, but not the others, because I do feel I can trust that Dennis Kucinich would not forget about me once he was in office. I am satisfied that I could trust him to do everything he could to make sure that people like me survived through the years of his Presidency.

Kanary

......

To pick up your metaphor, we do not need a guy who comforts the "dying soldier" of our society. The soldier is not dying, as you say yourself: "Some people claim that all danger exists simply in one's mind, or contend that terror threats are merely the strategic tool of a political machine bent on distracting the populace."

Consider me more cynical, I think the truth is even worse: the danger of the "evildoers" is real, but it has been intentionally generated by the policies (overt and covert) of the "good guys," meaning our own security establishment. Some people are happiest when they are arming and training next year's terrorists at the same time that they are bombing last year's freedom fighters. And earning on all ends.

We need someone who drops the comforting pretenses and can say that.

The patient is not a soldier; he is a schizophrenic who only thinks he has been shot, and blames the whole world for it. Worse, he is heavily armed and threatening everyone in the room. The battlefield is actually an insane asylum.

We need the guy who slaps the mental patient and tells him to stop this nonsense.

There is some evidence that Clark is thinking about that, to wit:

New Criticism
Wesley Clark's gutsy new tack: Blame Bush for not preventing 9-11.
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/tomasky-m-10-30.html

Clark is willing to address the 9/11 coverup, albeit without questioning the official story. The gut-wrenching reality is that it could be either: he may be charging bravely into the viper's nest (U.S. government complicity in 9/11), or he may be a plant opportunistically laying ground for the next, most frightful stage of the coverup (Saudis did it, Bush covered for it - let's dump Bush and blow up Saudi Arabia). And we don't know, though each of us will guess.

But thank you for this very interesting comment.

"The patient is not a soldier; he is a schizophrenic who only thinks he has been shot, and blames the whole world for it. Worse, he is heavily armed and threatening everyone in the room. The battlefield is actually an insane asylum."

Your analogy works perfectly well and is probably closer to the truth than mine. A good slap in the face is sorely needed!

I don't go in for complex conspiracy theories when I don't understand the motive, or can't see one, for all of the conspirators. That's just me. Doesn't mean the conspiracy doesn't exist, but I am very skeptical, anyway. So, I don't follow the Clark as "plant" idea in your scenario of options. Just like I don't get the Clark is a plant to pave the way for Hillary stuff they like to throw around on Faux News! Still a lot of good info to ponder.

Thanks!

Like it or not, Bush works the paternal angle hard. For most Americans, he describes of incredibly complex problems they couldn't possibly understand, while speaking of himself as someone who has things in control.

It only works if you don't look at the man behind the curtain, of course.

It is important that Democrats show that fatherly quality. I see Kerry more in that role with his height and booming voice. But I am glad that Clark gives you that sense of calm. I know everybody has been on edge since 9/11.

Was it just me or were the weeks before the invasion filled with enormous dread? I remember being deeply disturbed by the initial bombings, but I have to admit that it was almost a relief for it to finally happen. Kinda f*cked up when you think about it. But I used to just have this ominous feeling everytime I turned NPR on, day after day, just waiting for it to start.

I want Bush out so badly, just for my own personal nervous system. I don't think I can handle 4 more years of that SOB.

I have been wound too tight ever since.
As I am typing this, Wes clark is on C-span giving his brilliant foreign policy speech.
He is earnest and articulate.
He just got a standing ovation on a policy speech! damn!
He wrote the speech...not speech writers, you know.
He loves this country and he can't hide that.

If he is acting....man, he needs to move to Hollywood
and get himself a couple of Oscars!

Clark has lots to brag about (I brag about him all of the time)
...but he is humble in all that he has achieved.

The man is about compromise and possibilities,
which this country so need.
I am tired of being at war with this country.
Man, four more years of Bush
and there's going to be another Civil War.

Wes Clark is not only a military General;
he is a statesman, a gentleman, at scholar, a patriot, a hero, a diplomat, a husband, a father, a human person, and a fine dude, but most of all,
he is a leader....and that's what we need right now.
As President, you get all of those; not just a military President.

I remember in another thread, someone commented that Clark and Dean complemented each other because they were the General-Warrior and the Doctor-Healer.

And then someone said that was wrong. From the way they were running their campaigns, it was the General-Healer and the Doctor-Warrior.

Clark was running as a positive leader with a vision and the ability to bring everyone together and fix things, the wise retired general who laid down his sword and lifted up a message of hope. Dean was running as the pugnacious fighter, an angry doctor who had taken up arms.

I think that's correct. It's the General-Healer and the Doctor-Warrior. I choose to follow the General-Healer.

Thank you for sharing this, Kimberly.

atrocities the Bush administration has heaped upon this country and this world. DAILY.

It's been very depressing.

And that's why I support Howard Dean: for the first time since the Nov. 2000, I feel hope every time I think of all he represents, what he's doing with his campaign, and all the things that are happening in the campaign. The Campaign and the Official Blog keeps me inspired and at times absolutely joyful.

I am glad to see my own theory that Clark supporters are primarily afraid -- in your case, afraid of more terrorism, and in others' case, they're afraid of another Bush term (as am I) and wrongly believe that Clark is "electable" and Dean is not.

Eloriel

Moi...not for one minute. Never be afraid!

is what I feel when he turns to his supporters to participate in the process.

In these times that is truly revolutionary.

That's an excellent coping mechanism that I would love to learn, Eloriel!

DemEx

Feeling less afraid, inspires hope. I think that's what I was trying to say. Clark gives me hope, just as Dean gives you.

For all our sakes, may the best man win and his name is not Bush.

:toast:

In February, in Time Magazine, Joe Klein exposed the "security moms" as a potentially huge voting block. We've always known that Clark would steal a good portion of that block.

That is going to be a huge block of voters.

Clark does not poll well among women and the military is part of the mess we are in.

Why would women find comfort in those who have spent a life in the military and risen to the top? No thanks, I'll bet that more Mothers would prefer to have health care for their children than mourn their flag draped coffins.

Generals send the young to war, Doctors heal them. If you were a mother, which would you choose?

I like Dean, too. Just don't stereotype us mothers.

of four sons. The oldest is currently serving in Afghanistan. I'd much rather a man with experience on the battlefield, a man who knows what it's like to be sent to fight for someone's misguided political agenda, be in charge.

Because whoever they want to win, is going to. Havent we learned that yet? And if we do still have a voice, We need to use it honestly.. Not just because we are forced into whoever will beat Bush

These people are inbred. Republican/ Democrats.

Clark feels wrong to me, sorry, I just see alot of fishy things. NED reeks like PNAC, but worse.

Actually the NED has SEVERAL Democrats on its board some of whom were or are presently in Congress,
including: Sen. Bob Graham(Fla), Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Howard Wolpe(Michigan), Lee Hamilton(Indiana),
Matthew McHugh (NY), Evan Bayh (Indiana). Clark was a Clinton appointee.

There are also Labor Representatives: Thomas Donahue (AFL-CIO) and Leon Lynch (United Steel of A)

The reason there are both White and Black hats is because the NED is BI-PARTISAN non profit organization
funded by Congress (after 1994 it accepts contributions from private sector).

The NED's mission is to "help strengthen Democratric Instititutions around the world". Like all government
organizations it has been used towards both good and BAD ends... as the Left and Right BOTH get to direct
where funds go. The funds are dispursed through the following four organizations (two are Democratic/Labor & two are
Republican).

"The NED funnels its money overseas either through direct grants to foreign organizations or through
four NED core institutes: the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the Center for
International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)." (snip)

Some of the Good Stuff done by fellows who got grants from the NED (which has gotten good words from
Amnesty International):

Chaihark Hahm, (November 2001 - August 2002)
Constitutionalism and Democracy in South Korea
Dr. Hahm's project focuses on constitutional review and democracy in South Korea. He examines the role of
the Korean Constitutional Court in building democracy in South Korea, using a comparative framework that
considers the influence of political culture and cultural traditions

Charlie James Hughes, (May 2002 - August 2002)
A Practitioner's Handbook on Civic Education Initiatives
Charlie Hughes is the director and "driving force" behind the Forum for Democratic Initiatives (FORDI) in
Sierra Leone. His project focuses on civic education initiatives in the United States which can be applied in
Sierra Leone

Ramin Jahanbegloo, (October 2001 - August 2002 )
Intellectuals and Democracy in Iran
Dr. Jahanbegloo's project focuses on the role of Iranian intellectuals in promoting Iranian democracy,
including the attitudes of youth and young professionals in Iran today

Yuriy Krynytskyy, (April - August 2002)
Political Technologies and the Promotion of Democracy in Ukraine
Mr. Krynytskyy is a young activist from Kharkiv, Ukraine, who serves as press secretary and head of a
district division of the "Rukh" party (People's Movement of Ukraine).

Ndubisi Obiorah, (June - August 2002)
Corruption and Democracy in Africa: A Comparative Perspective
Mr. Obiorah is a Nigerian human rights lawyer who has worked for HURILAWS, the Human Rights Law
Service in Lagos


Adotei Akwei, Ghana
Governance, Repression, and Human Rights in Africa
Visiting Fellow, July - December 2003
Mr. Akwei is Senior Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA, serving as his organization's
chief spokesperson, strategist, and liaison with the U.S. government, media, and the general public on
African human rights issues and U.S. foreign policy toward Africa

Ladan Boroumand, Iran
Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Iran
Visiting Fellow, October 2002 - September 2003
Dr. Ladan Boroumand is director of the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation for the Promotion of Human
Rights and Democracy in Iran. She earned her doctorate in history from the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en
Sciences Sociales in Paris, where she published La guerre des principes (1999), a book exploring the
tensions during the French Revolution between the rights of man and the sovereignty of the nation. Her
project examines the prospects for democracy in Iran from a historical perspective.

Clark May ver well propose closing NED activities and replacing it with a DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AID (similar to Kecinich's Dept. of Peace, but as an International dept/not so much domestic) to replace it:
Clark Wants More Foreign Aid, New Department to Handle It
Book Faults Bush for Pursuing Notion of American 'Empire'

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A05

A new book by Wesley K. Clark, the retired Army general running for president, calls for a major expansion
in U.S. foreign assistance programs and establishment of a Department of International Assistance to
manage the initiative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14400-2003Sep28.html

I dont bury my head in sand so dirty.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=674299&mesg_id=674299

“We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan.” Clark continued: “That’s the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership.” (Ibid.)

Clark on President George H.W. Bush:

“President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship.” (Ibid.)


NED funds covert operations to bring democracy all over the world in conjunction with the CIA.

You quotes are, as Faux's was, taken out of context.

#1, that is George Bush, Sr.....in respect U.N. Coalition during Iraq I war.

#2, Reagan praise is in reference to military support, only.

That's the problem with GOP work....they leave off 1/2 of the quote, and all of the context.......

Congrat....they are loving you as we speak.

I am not a Rethuglican. I just want to make sure everyone realizes the whole life cycle of this... since the Reagan Doctrine and, to a lesser extent before it.

My eyes have been opened. I did my homework.

I see the whole picture. I will not be silent.

This isnt personal. This is historical.

It just seems like a crazy attempt to squeeze as many symbols of comfort -- oprah, the hot bath, bubbles, and chocolate, and a strong Wes Clark -- into 5 or 6 paragraphs as possible.

I see nothing "crazy" about sharing of feelings... it's what we do. I just woke up after a restless night and read this first thing... I immediately began to cry (I cry still)... I miss my life, I hate the anxiety that Bush* shoves daily down my throat, and I am tired of being in the grip of a madman.

I wish I could relax in a bubble bath, I wish I could enjoy a good read, I wish I didn't cry each and every day, each and every day......and I am glad the original poster is able to find resolution and comfort through sharing her feelings here... she is working through them and finding a way out of her pain - good for her, and thanks to her for sharing.

I want my country back too.

women.

Ok, where do we go from there? Well, lets pick a lot of symbols of comfort to which women will relate.

And, voila. Kimber Scott's post.

I can't put my finger on it -- it's just too, I don't know, like a well-written TV commercial. And it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the typical DU post. Also, it's rare to have someone post their full name.

Your response does more to confirm my suspicion that deny it. This story really worked for you, obviously. Which is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's too good.

I honestly do understand the suspicion - but don't we almost all have an agenda here? Is not each one of us well versed and acquainted with the power and control of the message? I don't know that Kimber Scott is in fact her true name, nor do I know for a certainty that she means anything other than what she is writing here, and given 'my feelings' lately, I choose to accept she is sincere.

I'm tired of being jaded and I'm just tired of having to filter everything. Kimber didn't write anything that makes me stop and second guess my decision to support Dr. Dean, but she did touch me from an emotional standpoint - I relate to her feelings of the last two years.

But that doesn't mean I am emotionally maleable and reactionary, particularly to an opinion on a message board. It's chat, just sharing feelings and thoughts, at least for me. I see and understand the message within her subtext, but in this moment, Kimber's post is okay with me - her feelings are real.

You though - I'm keeping an eye on you. ;)

LOL! It's funny how we all analyze ourselves, everybody else and everything to death. We have to, I guess.

Anyway, I'm new here, obviously. I feel comfortable. I hope I don't get run off. I'll give a few vitals just so you all will know who I am. If you still don't believe I say what I mean, for no other purpose than needing to. Well, I don't care. I guess.

I'm a 42 year old mother of four boys aged 25, 24, 19, 14. My oldest son is a meteorologist in the Air Force and is currently serving in Afghanistan. His wife is a meteorolist in the Air Force, as well. She is currently stationed in New York and is caring for my four year old grand-daughter.

I needed the hot chocolate and a bubble bath because my husband has been laid off from work for three months, (he did just start a new job), my 19 year old son is in jail for throwing oranges at some people's house in Sun City the night before Halloween. He broke a window. He was on probation for another brainy action and now he's getting his just desserts. Then, I guess things weren't bad enough around here. I got a call at school, ASU, where I'm a full time student. My youngest son had decided to play go between at his school on Thursday and ended up arrested for possesion of marijuana on school property.

When I picked him up and brought him home, he became very out of control. Not knowing what he may have smoked, or taken, I took him to the emergency room on Thursday night to be tested and/or treated. He was clean as a whistle and we didn't get home until 3 a.m. Friday.

Last night I'd had enough of life and I chose a bath, a magazine, a hot chocolate and then you guys over a margarita, or maybe a gun! (We don't own guns. That was a joke.) My mind wandered from my own, personal problems on up to the bigger ones we all face. I wanted to share. It was nice to get my focus off myself for a while.

Again, no big agenda. It's just me.

I enjoy your honesty and your style of writing.

B-)

I have dogs, not kids.(that and the fact that I'm gay). Seriously, I know kids can be a treasure, but, dogs are a lot more loving and loyal.

Good luck, and welcome to DU. Hope you have a thick skin, it gets hot here sometimes.

is gay... because of MY kids! LOL! Not really. Mine make her not miss not having any, though!

Thanks for the welcome!

Thank you for sharing. Like any community, we have nice people and nasty people. You're one of the former, and I hope you won't get attacked too much by the latter. There's a particularly hardcore rabid anti-clark group of about ten people on DU. They've even attacked non-clark supporters who defend Clark. Just don't let them get to you.

And I think you're a wonderful addition to DU. :toast:

Bathtubs or doing the dishes....today it may be raking the leaves...pondering has no fixed home...follows the flow....doing the dishes....if it happened...lieberman...oh god no!....could happen...what to do....yes, admit it...you'd checked the box...but lieberman...you'd check the box...yes...please no...but yes...because anything is better...than this god damed regime...anything?....yes...ABB...is it a cowardly position?...does it matter...what matters is ABB.

This thread has opened up an opportunity for some interior thoughts to meet the keyboard. The above mental gymnastics happened to me one day at the sink. Admitting to myself that no matter who's name is next to the "D," they will receive my check mark. Whether they receive my check is a different hurdle. Anyway, that admission to myself, that great reckoning, took place in much the same mental space as the bathtub. Because of my above-counter-top personal conversation, I determined I could sport no candidate's avatar.

My post about being pulled up short by "never be afraid" was a reference to that same sort of gut level reaction which I still don't conpletely understand. Call it testifying, call it good tv fodder, but also call it what it is: a chance for posters to leave behind their well-linked conversation and confess to be feeling individuals with personal internal polls working outside of the rhetoric.

I don't know why someone who lives 60 miles from the Canadian border in the middle of the woods would even respond to "never be afraid." I'm not afraid, unless you count my fear of the red squirrels carrying away the insulation; however, it happened, a gut response. Actually, it has happened several times since then when listening to Clark.

BTW, if bush is a "daddy" figure it would be a stern one with a belt wrapped around his fist. You know the kind, smiles in church and pats the kiddies' heads in public, while throwing them against a wall if they spill their milk or bring home a "B." A bad sterotype of course, but sometimes imagery helps define the issue. IMHO, bush only brings consolation to those who would believe the media hype.

One other note: After the saga of Victoria Plame, Shelton comes as no surprise. Regardless of your choice in candidates, this should be protested by each and every one of us who dreams of a different America.

Sometimes I put a little effort into it. Sometimes I don't. I write when I get the chance. Most of it's stuffed into a drawer. Some of it's silly. Some of it's not. I entered a story into a contest once and won $300.00. Lately, most of what I write has been here.

What I wrote here is true. It's how I feel. No big agenda. I'm not that complicated.

You say you agree with the notion that the "danger" and "terror threats" are manufactured distractions of a poltical machine, then turn around and voice your support for a candidate because he makes you feel safest against those very same fabricated boogymen.

Don't you think we'd be better off with a candidate who repudiates the paridigm of fear, not simply one who you think would be a better operator in it?

about the reasons he was FIRED FROM THE PENTAGON. That argument will nullify all the plusses he has gained from his General status.

They will make an easy task of ripping him to shreds and you must face this undeniable fact.

Your friend Schwarzkopf helped Jeb Bush steal Florida for his brother. Katherine Harris did a "get out the vote" commercial paid for by the state and starring your boy Schwarzkopf.

Schwarzkopf added nothing to Shelton's earlier innuendo, and Schwarzkopf is a known Republican stooge. Why would you want to channel him or give any credence to anything he has to say?

http://slate.msn.com/id/1006484/

"The papers zero in on {Katherine} Harris's Republican bona fides, noting that she was active in George W. Bush's campaign. The NYT Harris front-pager says she picked Bush supporter Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf to be the spokesperson for the state's publicly financed be-sure-to-vote commercial."

- She was merely stating accurately that this shows how the Republicans are going to proceed, if Clark is the nominee.

Since you remember 2000 so well, you should remember that when the squeaky-clean Gore had no real skeletons in his closet, the Republicans merely made some up - hence the Love Canal, "invented the Internet," being a "serial exaggerator," etc.

Norman is certainly a vile Republican stooge, but he is a very popular man in the US. If he attacks Clark in the above-noted way, it's going to hurt him, REGARDLESS of the truthfulness of the charges.

... you are not giving an accurate picture of the affect of Schwarzkopf on the election. CWebster drastically overstated Schwarzkopf's impact, and failed to note Schwarzkopf is just another Republican.

Clark is an intellectual, a former Assistant Professor, a writer, a student of languages and other cultures, who enjoys discussing the writings of Pablo Neruda or Gabriel Garcia Marquez as much as global military strategy. According to retired General Barry McCaffrey:

"...He is probably among the top five most talented I've met in my life. I think he is a national treasure who has a lot to offer the country."

"This is no insult to Army culture, a culture I love and admire," (...) "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. He was not one of the good ol' boys."

Clark doesn't poll well among women.

Maybe that is because many women know that the military isn't a symbol of security but of imperialist ambition which threatens the lives of their husbands and children rather than protect them.

always have.

DemEx

and it becomes the truth. Welcome to Republican politics 101. You should be proud CW.

You know you're overgeneraliziing. You don't have enough information to make such a sweeping statement. To the extent the one poll you are referring to is accurate at all, it only shows that the public is not informed enough to have an opinion about the general.

you may count me as one of the women CW references.

The only poll I've ever seen about this was one from California. In it, Clark polled only ONE percentage point behind Dean. He was many points ahead among men. So relatively, he did do better among men, than women. All things are relative, aren't they?

defense. What is it with Americans needing a Daddy figure? Clark works for the industry of war which will only increase our danger. It is a foolish approach to think that the ability to wage war will save us. Someone like Dennis Kucinich or Henry Waxman has ten times the courage of Clark but you and others are too blind to see it because it doesn't involve dropping bombs and killing. Military men are obedient to their industry....we need a thinker who is not just accustomed to following orders.

Clark does great! Other candidates too!

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=Vote_2004&ShowVidNum=6&Rot_Cat_CD=Vote_2004&Rot_HT=&Rot_WD=&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc=

"I haven't read Oprah for a long time. Perhaps since 9/11/01. Not that I didn't try, I used to have a subscription, but after 9/11, I couldn't focus enough to read it."

Wow that story sounds tailor made to appeal to a very specific demographic. Clark should hire you for his campaign, I mean, if you aren't already! :)

Har! Damny funny "recommendation" WCTV.

After all this time on DU and no campaign will touch me! "Propagandist for hire cheap".

:evilgrin:

Excellent bathtub thoughts/ideas!

Clark is the one with the potential to bring some sanity/dignity/peace back into our world, I am 100% convinced of this.

Thanks for sharing this wonderful post.

DemEx

'Father of our country' or 'Founding fathers' ring a bell? The president is nothing if not the father figure of our nation. Right now we have the abusive drunk type father.

I have no fear of the rest of the world. I'm worried about this country tearing itself apart. I want a healer (not a doctor). Someone that doesn't separate us into us and them. Clark is the only candidate offering us that hope.

It is so utterly ironic that the far left is talking division and confrontation. You people, just like the Bush supporters, are the true warmongers.

chaska, you said:

"It is so utterly ironic that the far left is talking division and confrontation. You people, just like the Bush supporters, are the true warmongers."

Just where did I, a member of the far left, talk division and confrontation?

Just how am I, a member of the far left, a "true warmonger" "just like the Bush supporters"?

Post your proof.

I've changed my opinion.

I admire many of our candidates, and I'm glad the ones I admire are giving this election battle their best shot. That's what good candidates do.

Kucinich, Dean, Kerry, and Clark...all good men in many ways. They all have tremendous strengths of their own, as well as their own weaknesses. I admire Ms. Moseley-Braun, as well, for her quick wit, courage, and dignity. If she DID have a chance as president, she would bring many positive things to a polarized country.

Each and any of them are FAR finer people than the shrub could ever conceive of being.

When I envision a debate between Dean and shrub, I can see Dean getting crucified in the press for "losing his temper", and I can see voters "buying that spin", even though Dean would truly expose the shrub's cry-baby, smart-alec (sp?)personality.

When I envision a debate between Clark and shrub, I can only see Clark intimidating the snot out of shrub for all to see, and still appear to be above the fray himself. He has a manner about him that would make shrub look incredibly petty and half-witted, and it would still be spun by the press; but the damage to shrub would be too obvious to deny.

But it's only when we make sure that our elections are NOT going to be tampered with that any of this makes a difference. THAT is the biggest danger our country faces today....and it is festering just beneath the radar of people's awareness. It's like a cancer cell that has begun its divisions, and is sending infected cells to all the different organs (States), while the patient sleeps, unaware.

:kick:

When Clark went on Hannity and Colmes in August before he announced he was running, where other "guests" of Hannity have eventually lost it with that gasbag and chewed his ass out, Clark stayed calm, cool, and tore Hannity's little head off with about as much effort as flicking his wrist and still looked like he wasn't even debating with him. It was the coolest thing I ever saw, I honestly wish I could do that. It was just odd, he took on Hannity and wiped the floor with him without even seeming like he was debating with him. I can wipe the floor with people in debates (anyone who doubts this hasn't seen me in my philosphy class yet), but in doing so I sitll look like I'm debating, which I think is something that most other DUers here can relate to. Clark, I don't know HOW he does it, does the same thing without looking like he is arguing or debating.

the more insincere one apears. My impression is that Gen. Clark truly believes his own words. He is honest about his feelings.

He is the Republicans worst nightmare. The reason I know is that guys like Stormin Normin of "Highway of Death" fame, anre trotted out to deliver a quote attributable to a frickin third party. This is the most they have on him? It'll be a landslide

Each of the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination have some very wonderful qualities. Can you imagine them all in one administration? What an administation that would be! Almost like a "Dream Team."

I share your concerns about election issues. It is a SCARY, SCARY, thought to think our elections can be and may be being fixed. Such a cancer would surely be a catalyst for civil war.

www.verifiedvoting.org

n/t

:kick::kick::kick:

Whenever I see Dean speak on the tube or online or whatever, he seems like someone who is acting like he is sincere and acting like he believes in what he is talking about, but for some reason that I can't put my finger on doesn't seem like he is all that he is cracked up to be. I can't put my finger on it, but I jsut get that feeling from Dean. Not so from Clark. When he speaks, it feels like, even though he may be addressing a massive crowd, he talking talking to YOU and no one else! Whenever I've seen him speak (not in person yet, sadly) I can almost see a glowing suit of armour on him like he is a knight getting ready to do battle for the sake of his people.

Part of the reason people support one person or another is simply emotion or gut instinct. Trying to argue against that is useless and counterproductive.

Counterproductive as opposed to what? Voters are visceral, it's just a fact.

The reality may be stupid to some, but it's reality nevertheless.


"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

That's exactly what I said...part of the process people go through when making political decisions is an emotional/gut instinct one.

I misread your post....

sorry, I made a mistake.

:toast: