CBS Interview, Clark on Clark: 'experience, maturity, compassion'

Wesley Clark:

"I ran because I thought this country needed experienced leadership ... Someone who had the experience, the maturity, the compassion, the ability to put it all together."

-----

"People often say, "Well, you know, in the military, you could give these orders, and how would you be capable--" But in the military at the top, you really aren't giving orders. You're really working collaboratively, collegially, politically. You're persuading people to want to do what you want them to do, and you're doing it not just on military and diplomatic issues, but you're doing it on a whole range of what we call quality of life issues."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584555.shtml

was an interesting interview.

I have a new personal policy on DU; I won't post something critical without something positive in return.

It's a 3 parter, here's the direct link to part 1.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584548.shtml

and to the 2nd part
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584554.shtml


edited: thought it was a 2 part interview, but it is 3.

Have signed the letter on Dean's webpage against the anonymous attack ad that is running. I did also post some RW BS attack on Dean with a email to the editor of the slam piece so anyone could contact them.

It's okay to be competitive and excited about your candidate. In fact, this year feels agreat deal different that 2000, when Gore was the candidate without much fight or fanfair. I didn't feel the same degree of excitement or passion in the Democratic party four years ago.

I don't fault your passion for Dean, that's a good thing. We are going to need all the passion and energy in the GE to beat Bush, no matter who wins the nomination.

At that's worth something in and of itself.

Don't play "objective journalist" here. There isn't such a thing. There are many DU-ers who are thoughtful, evaluating candidates on issues rather than personal attachment/dislike. You are not one of them. Then again, maybe you are evolving and I'll be proven wrong. Then, I'll happily eat crow. ;-)

Let's hope you get to! :) It is good that you are at least open to the possibility.

Openness is good. Narrowness is bad.

he is the best liar I have ever seen.
I laughed at this part;"But in the military at the top, you really aren't giving orders."

he is the best liar I have ever seen.
I laughed at this part;"But in the military at the top, you really aren't giving orders."

Sorry to disappoint you but what Clark says on this happens to be true. Perhaps you should learn a little something about the military and how it works. One of my uncle's is a Brigadier General (that's one star... see? you learned something already!)

I spent 8 years in the military, and I dont go around qualifying my statements about military matters.

Had the same experience as you did.

When you said no one could "ever question you" - was that in general or just about military matters?

of us that support him ( or at least are not "afraid" of him) from those who don't.

Has he lived his whole life as a boy scout, and suddenly decided to lie. Has he been playing a role for the past 59 years as an upstanding, giving and kind man, and then turned into a big fat liar.

His son is a card-carring liberal and didn't see through his dad, his people who worked for him who comment about how kind and caring and intelligent, and yes, even brave......they just didn't see through him.

Now, Wes Clark is just a stalking horse and a liar in everything he does. Is that right?

Patriot, I do find it interesting what you have started doing, putting up articles that show Wesley Clark in varying lights,sometimes flattering, sometimes not. There are a few by now infamous articles that were outright written as and intended to be hatchet jobs to cut down Clark befor his canidacy could get off the ground. Those have been posted on DU upteen times by Clark's attackers here. So long as you don't keep dredging up that old crud, and you haven't been, I am coming around to having greater respect for your approach. I have some major problems with how Clark has been handled in some articles, including parts of what you have posted. I think every candidate and their supporters have that experience frequently. A writer puts pen to paper (figuratively - not much of that going on anymore) and suddenly "truth" is captured and frozen, ugh. The media; can't live with it, can't live without it.

The 60 Mins II interview with Clark on whole was excellent. I taped it at the time and have shown it to people. I appreciate that you are spending time looking into the record of a candidate that is not your first choice, and not merely looking for ammunition to use against him or her.

By and large the more current, as in last 2 weeks say, coverage of Clark has finally begun to move off of the stale "gotcha" antics, trivialization of his campaign, and focus on smears against him, that had dominated earlier coverage.

...and he's always been in my top two or three picks.

Perhaps at this stage, since the field is beginning to narrow- or at least is perceived as beginning to narrow- we should all take another look at the what kind of people the candidates are, not the images that are trying to be projected; hero's and Villans- Trojan Horse or Loyal Dem's- perhaps the truth is more complicated than pat charicatures.

All the Dem candidates have something in them to respect, warts and all.

The truth is more complicated.

We all do a disservice to the dem candidates when we pull out a soundbite and criticize the candidate for it - instead of looking at the comment in context and helping each other understand the full meaning. The soundbite trick is a republican one, and one that I have been disappointed to see used on DU. You approach today is very enlightening - and hopefully we will all see the candidates for the smart and complex people they are -- and help explain their views, including the nuances and the published soundbites.