"I am a liberal" - Wes Clark

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

Wes Clark - September 5, 2003


The Republicans have use the word "liberal" very successfully to define us, and many of our candidates seem to try and run away from the "label." Why are we running when we should be fighting? Why are we allowing the other side to define the terms and language of debate? Why aren't we embracing our heritage instead of compromising it? Is liberalism the value that can redefine the "values" equation?

What if this was the premise for a new vision for the democratic party in the 21st century? What then?

Discuss...

He got better by the week and now he's in fighting form. Let's put this Red versus Blue crap in a drawer and make Clark our shadow president.

CLARK FOR NATIONAL LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATS PARTY
CLARK FOR PRESIDENT 2008

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

:yourock:


:hippie:

EOM

The essence of leadership is that you can't believe you have a monopoly on wisdom.

~Wes Clark 11-18-04

Sounds like a "liberal" attitude to me.

BTW, any chance this thread will hit 301? :-)

"What Christ did at one point is he washed the feet of the apostles leadership and service is about *serving* others, not about trumpeting it over others."

Does it violate Democratic principles? No. Does it make the average bread-and-butter Christian go all gooey? Yes. Take that, Red America.

Like coming out of a coma or something.

We could use that man in black right now.

Was Cash appreciated for his positions in the Sixties. He always struck me as such a stand up guy.

I'm not old enough to remember how people thought of Cash in the sixties, but if I had to guess, I'd say he was a Dem. I remember something during this campaign about * people using Cash to their "benefit," and somehow claiming Johnny as one of their own. That one seemed to have died a quiet death. Wonder if Cash's relatives had anything to do with that?

and a great little speech to follow it up.

I think Clark is at his best when speaking off the cuff and purely analytically. He's at his worst when speaking as an advocate for himself, and somewhere in between when speaking as an advocate for someone else (Kerry). I really hope he spends a good deal of time in front of mixed audiences in interactive situations over the next few years so he can get the good, gut sense that promoting himself does not conflict with his overarching imperative to intellectual honesty.

If he doesn't, he'll still be a great asset to the Democrats, but if he does he'll be in position to be one of the greatest presidents the US has ever had.

...and she's a Libertarian. I think the term has been both maligned and misused. Alot of democrats have jumped on issues that really don't speak to liberty, like gun control or total bans on guns. In my area the smoking nazi's are all democrats, it completely bewilders me. I have to say this...at least the Libertarians are consistent.

to enhance his electability in '08?

Raise money?
Write a book?
Lead a charitable organization?
CEO?
Lay low?
Lecture Circuit?
Think Tank?

An advocacy group, a Party building Enterprise, a Think Tank, an ongoing forum on some major issue, etc. It doesn't need to be huge, just solid.

He would need to travel the country establishing good connections with local and Regional leaders within the Democratic Party.

There is more that we need to do than Wes Clark needs to do however. We have to build a national movement of people backing him for President so that Wes Clark can not easily be ignored.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org. This is the start of the new liberal movement in this country.

It pisses off a lot of people that I do, but I really think that this is a good man.

I started liking him at the Boston Convention ane it's just gotten better.

earlier! I think Rove would have had a much more difficult time criticizing Clark's military background.

I agree - Clark did a nice job of defining "liberal". We needed much more of that in this campaign. We need to take that word back from Rove & Co.

I really hope that Clark gives it another shot in '08.

I've liked his speeches and I like what he's saying here.

We have to retake our word "Liberal"..just like the Black People took the derogatory word "nigger" and made it theirs!

WE ARE FUCKING LIBERALS!

While some blacks exchange the word playfully, most are offended when non-blacks use it.

I think that is where we are now with "liberal."

wrong way..I've been thinking about this for some time now.

I watch a lot of movies and it occured to me that it used to be the "N" word and now Blacks use it all the time.

But, I think you're right..it's not cool for anyone else to use it..kind of an in thing..what was I thinking? :(


Okay..bad analogy! But we still need to reclaim the word "Liberal" from the limpbaughs of the world.

EDIT~ To say..Welcome to DU, blackangrydem!

analogy. But definately a point. ;)

Anybody who knows me knows that I'm a person who isn't affected by words and labels. Deeds matter to me. Now, If I have a good friend who is white. And if while hanging with a bunch of black folks who are tossing around the "n" word, the white person uses it, I'm not a hypocrite. If it's okay for the blacks to use it, I'm not going to get offended if the white person uses it too. Like Sen. Byrd said, there are white "n's" too. So, it really depends on how they use it. I think that's what you meant.

:kick:

He must run in '08.

He said it. He explained it very well. That's where this party needs to be.

There's life in the Democratic Party yet! A liberal and damn proud of it! You go, Wes!!

Bake

You know how almost without fail, the more you learn about a
politician, the more flaws you have to see and admit to, and realize
you've got a mixed bag, in which you just hope the good outweighs the
bad, and hope that the problems can be minimized or swept under the rug?

General Clark is emphatically the exception. Once you go past the very
slight media talking points, the more and more you learn, the more and
more there is for Democrats, independents, and even many on the other
side, to admire, in fact, to be almost in awe of. Read his words, read his resume, read the jaw-dropping performance reviews throughout his career, go back and watch the town-hall meetings, learn about him...

We just don't expect that in a politician. What do we do with someone whose total accumulated net baggage is half-an-inch thick and whose positive attributes are miles deep? Let's be smart...

ELECT HIM! CLARK 08!

perfectly. The more I learned about him - the more I admired him.
He is truly an exceptional person.

Even Al Sharpton weaved and bobbed (cleverly, unlike the others) when he was asked this question at the NY debate.
But "we no need no stinkin' liberals". His voter registration didn't have a "D" on it so we went for the guy who responded: "I was for more cops on the street"
So, I'll stay fielrcely liberal, and away from the f8ing "D" on the registration.
And, if we ever have elections again, I hope he runs...

and surely liberalism, in the truest meaning of the word, must be our guiding principle. We are not for the status quo and putting our heads in the sand. We are for hope, not fear. We can be religious or spiritual without being dogmatic and fearful. We are open to new knowledge, and do not believe anyone has a monopoly on the truth.

All of these principles are in contrast to what the Republican party is becoming, and we democrats must define ourselves as the thoughtful, enlightened, and yes "liberal" (in the truest sense of the word) alternative. The choice is whether we enter a new "dark age" where new knowledge is feared, or an new age of enlightment, reason, and spiritual growth for all humanity.

Thank you for all your replies. Whether you are a Clark supporter or not, I believe liberalism will remain the core value of the democratic party, and it is crucial we reclaim the the language of this debate.

We need to stop letting the media or right-wing pundits define "liberalism" and being a "liberal" for us. We need to take back the word and define it on our terms, just as conservatives took back the word "conservative." We need to tie being a "liberal" to being as wholesome and American as apple pie in the public consciousness. And we can't do that if our politicians are afraid of being called liberal. The "stigma" will always be there until we stand up to it and define it on our terms. Partly through "framing the debate" and partly through not being afraid of the word.

We should never be ashamed of being liberal. And that's how I feel a lot of Dem politicians have become. Even Dean didn't want to be labeled a liberal. It's a two part process...stop being afraid and define it on our own terms.

Spinelessness hinders the former, incompetence hinders the latter.

This statement by Wes Clark says everything about the man and how he thinks. Brilliant, thoughtful, and grounded in true American values.

being the Dem Prez nomniee forever per DLC-speak.

He should have been on the ticket. Because he wasn't we were all screwed. I saw him twice and I would have followed him to the ends of the earth. He would have rallied up the liberals and the conservatives and the moderates and the international community.

He wasn't "Washington Establishment" so he was marginalized by the DNC and the media are idiots anyway. He would have been the BEST candidate. Iraq wouldn't have been Bush's strong suit, Clark would have shown this country how absolutely horrificly this administration has handled Iraq and other concerns on Foreign Policy.

Wes Clark would have trumped loud and clear on how he was one of the first people to speak out against going into Iraq. He could have talked about Kosovo and how NOT ONE AMERICAN SOLDIER WAS KILLED.

There is so much that this man has to offer. It is nothing less than a crime against humanity that he was shot down by the DNC.

I've said before that the Constitution is a liberal document written by liberals to promote the welfare and prosperity of all Americans. If you're anti-liberal, you are anti-American.

But, Clark just says it so much better!

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”-George Washington

If you study the words expressed, you will also notice an obligation on the part of citizens. This is the most overlooked part of the equation. and leads to the image of a hand-out not a hand-up.

Clark is a giant.

The candles bring back lots of memories!

Buy the way, I wrote this:

The Age of Enlightenment

The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ is a term used to describe the trends in thought and letters in Europe and the American colonies during the 18th century, prior to the French Revolution of 1789-1799.
Enlightenment meant an emergence from centuries of darkness and ignorance to a new age guided by reason, science and a new respect for humanity. New discoveries in science such as Newton’s law of gravity gave mankind a new way of looking at the world. If mankind could unlock the laws of the universe, God’s own laws the possibilities of reason were thought to be endless. People came to assume that through a judicious use of reason, an unending progress would be possible; progress in knowledge, technical achievement, and even in moral values.

Enlightenment philosophers saw the church, especially the Roman Catholic Church as the primary force that had enslaved the human mind through out history. While they despised the politics of the Church most Enlightenment thinkers did not renounce religion altogether.
A new philosophy called Deism, started to take hold, which accepted the existence of God and an afterlife but rejected the dogma of the Christian theology. Creating a peaceful harmonious world began to take president over religious salvation. Living for the moment and improving this life became more important than what may or may not happen after death. After all, we know we can impact the world we live in but what happens after death is a great mystery unknown to anyone so why worry about it?

A desire arose to reexamine and question all received ideas and values with a clean slate, to explore new ideas and take those ideas in many different directions. To let free inquiry, trial and error and scientific based conclusions define what is truth. More than a set of fixed ideas, the Enlightenment implied an attitude and method of thought more in tune with the scientific method than superstition.
During the first half of the 18th century, against incredible odds the leaders of the Enlightenment waged an uphill struggle to change the worlds thinking. Hampered by government censorship, attacks by the church and even imprisonment, Enlightenment believers sacrificed comfort and safety to fight for what they deeply believed in. What there hearts and minds told them was the right thing to do to create a better world.

Towards the end of the century the movement began to make inroads and win battles. An enormous influx of publications such as newspapers and books helped the Enlightenment spread ideas and begin to change hearts and minds. Before long those ideas would make it to the New World and profoundly impact the leaders of the American Revolution and eventually help mold our Constitution and Republic.

I always liked Wes. I had planned to vote for him in the primary, but he dropped out before we held ours here in Ga

Remember back when he was a war analyst on CNN..back when we first invaded Iraq? I was impressed with him from the start. I cant put my finger on what it was exactly, but you could tell that underneath the surface, he was not supportive of the ways inwhich the war was being conducted. He was not outwardly critical, but if you listened you could hear it.

I had hoped Kerry would pick him as a VP. It would have done wonders for the 'war on terror/war in Iraq arguement'. How could we not feel safe with someone of his experience in office? The repubs would have had to change their whole strategy

Lets not forget that he is southern as well! A very critical piece of the puzzle for 2008

I hope he stays active in one way or another. He would have my support again if he ran

To this day the blog on Clark's campaign website gets thousands of hits EVERY DAY. The depth of support for this man is enormous. To have been exposed to this amazing American is to be permanently committed to supporting him. For me he has been the most inspiring public figure since Bobby Kennedy. We must do all we can to help Wes Clark become our next president.

It's the *breadth* that constantly amazes me. Everyone from Marines to Greens.

But of the two, depth is the one that can be achieved through hard work, while most political figures have to use half-truths and pandering to get the wide-ranging support Wes has right from the start.

Not since Bobby Kennedy. There have been others who I felt knew the right thing to do for our Country, some have even been a Little closer to my full set of political beliefs (but by a surprisingly small degree), but I have never met a political leader who I completely trusted as much as Wes Clark, Bobby Kennedy included. And not since Bobby have I seen a Democrat who had everything it takes to pull virtually all of us together, not just Democrats, and lead this nation in a direction that we can all be proud of. Plus Clark can actually GET ELECTED if we just have the wisdom to nominate him.

That was what I admired so much...I thought he could bridge all divides, & bring us together again.

and I'd proudly vote for him in 2008.

I am starting to wonder if my opinions on Clark were handed to me by Karl Rove. What he said in the above-quoted material is nicely resonant.

but this letter was written by an old friend of Wes Clark's during the primaries:

I must move on to other matters as I have more tasks at hand and because you don't know me well enough. When I tell you Wes has no personal ambitions, any greed, or a scintilla of avarice, you have no basis to believe or trust me. Yet I have known Wes for 40+ years, have borne the brunt of Wes' criticism for acts as mundane as cutting Sunday Services, have heard his reponse as to why anyone would tell of a marriage when to do so resulted in his being drummed from the Corps, offered Wes a major banking house partnership at age 31 when he was working in the White House and getting less-favorable offers from others, and witnessed Wes staying the course in the military, not for personal gain or fortune, but because we the people and our nation need leaders such as Wes Clark at a time when we seem to have none. His actions today are for the same reasons alone.

I've not questioned Wes on this latest allegation and won't have the chance before the campaign is decided, but as every other allegation, and those yet to come, are so contrary to Wes' life-long character and actions, it's not a matter of choice for me to believe or not (even as all the others have been proved false), but it is a matter of fact and record that Wes has not a spec of deceit or dishonesty in the fabric of his soul or the ability to exhibit or express anything of the kind. If anything, Wes comes off as an egg-head in the rather straight-forward, precision of his answers (yes, even the first one on his first day when he gave a short-hand response to a question that needed a whole lot more), reactions and responses to those who have dissembled at best and expect others to do the same.

If you can tell me you know John Kerry or any one else as well and can say the same, I'll admit we have a draw and two men are equally unique. If you can't, and should Wes' message not be heard, should Bush remain where he is after November 2, I pity us all. Wes will move on as he has always, seeking to create security for Gert and now Wes III, but not ever forgetting or even stepping away from service to our nation.

If you've read this far, please don't think I am some old fool; I've been with, seen, and experienced the most incredible life that is Wes Clark's from up close and personal. He's stayed with me long after I'd disappointed him by my own displays of avarice, cunning, and greed more times than I care to remember, all of which are so incredibly absent from his being.

Wes is no savior, far from it. But Wes does have a singularly unique ability that I've seen for all these many years to influence if not direct outcomes that encourage success others.

But now I'll rest my case with and allow history to draw its own conclusion

Good luck to us all.

XXXXXX

Note: Time and again, the people who have worked with and been friends with Wes Clark cite his ability to "lift people up."He calls it leadership: energy and grip. A leader he says must always display the energy that inspires others to rise to the occassion, and must combine that energy with grip, what he defines as understand the details of any issue.

That means "receiving" information from a wide variety of sources, especially those who disagree with you, not just "transmitting" orders.

Great letter....truth is to be told....regardless of the presstitutes.

We have 4 years. As Wes Clark stated..."We can do this!"

We will need Wes even more in 4 years than we needed him in '04. The world will be a great big mess. You can take that to the bank!

Even if you don't end up a Clark fan (activates Clark-invented mind-control device -- and you will -- deactivate) it's great that you can keep an open mind.

That's all that any Clarkie will ask of you -- listen to him directly with your own active, engaged, reasoning, thinking mind and make your own judgements.

Here are some video clips if you decide to look further: http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

Thanks again for staying frosty!

We just shouldn't NOT vote for him becasue of his southern accent. I know people who didn't vote for him because of his accent, but we shoudl remeber that is a + not a - in our country.

http://www.clark04.com/index.html

It's the old Clark04 website, with almost everything intact. I recommend starting by watching "American Son," the 18-minute video. Another good early stop is "Career highlights," but just browse through the links and I think you'll be pleased.

I second the suggestion. Watch "American Son" if you get a chance, Heath.

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.

At West Point the class is ranked constantly, and Wes was first, not just at the end of four years, but every semester except one. He changed his major from physics to foreign policy, and it took a semester to hit his stride. Of course that one semester he was #2.

So what's in that Little Rock water?

I didn't really see him on TV, but I read some of his articles and bio and the guy seems to exceed in every field, intellectually and academically (similar to Bill Clinton) plus with an impeccable military career (unlike any of the other candidates). He also has exactly the same southern background as the Big Dog, so if he's not "electable" then I don't know who is...

and his support of Clark. Maybe they thought Michael would be the kiss of death for Clark's chances. Who knows?

I really liked Clark, too. After listening to that man speak, I had no doubt who my first choice was. When Kerry got the win in the primaries, I told my wife that we just entered someone who wasn't very electable...I was that upset we didn't have Clark in there to represent us, and I knew it would be an uphill battle from there on in.

Obviously I couldn't resist the temptation to jump into a topic based on a statement Wes Clark made... But I think there are three separate, not necessarily disconnected issues here.

1) There's this notion that religion and liberalism are somehow mutually exclusive, in politically pragmatic terms. I believe Wes Clark is a prime example of someone with declared religious ethics, who nonetheless is perfectly capable of not only accepting dissent, but embracing it as a necessary constituent of a healthy, free society. It is preposterous enough that conservatives were able to make the "under God" issue a rallying point in their monopolizing claims to "values" - but it is outright shameful that the Left has allowed them to run with it. By treating religion (particularly the Christian flavor) as an uncomfortable and therefore untouched point, not only was that debating ground needlessly ceded to the Right - it was a dumb, dumb, dumb concession of the so-called "heartland" that otherwise could easily have been won over on issues. I know this is largely a campaign-related comment, but I intended this in a forward-looking manner; that mistake shouldn't have been made, and it sure as hell oughtn't be repeated vis-a-vis 2008.

2) Wes Clark has a quasi-libertarian position on some issues; particularly the "morally sensitive" ones, the ever-contentious judicial wedge issues such as abortion. I believe there is much in favor of examining ethical justifications for such a position, rather than referring to it as a disengaged "laissez-fare." The idea of being socially liberal isn't based on a mere "non-intervention" position, and it shouldn't be allowed to be hijacked by the Right as such, because that opens the charge that the Left has no "real" values, just "moral voids" surrounding so-called hot issues. I think it makes sense to embrace the concepts of equity, liberty ("choice") and (personal) responsibility as the three defining cores of the Left, instead of leaving it to the Right to paint us in a corner. Obviously, that's just my idea!

3) I look forward already to campaigning for Wes Clark's election in 2008. HELL YES!

Clarkies never die or fade away! :)

For me, the "under God" controversy with the Pledge embodies the sheer hypocrisy of the right crazies.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
-US Constitution, 1st Amendment


""Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
-Matthew 5:33-37

The Pledge is an oath. You aren't supposed to swear oath according to Jesus' teachings.

I hate hypocrisy.

But then there was another governor from Arkansas that did pretty well as I recall running for President.

is America ready for another Arkansas governor?

(assuming he runs and wins. his competition could include such GOP heavy weights as Asa Hutchinson, or Winthrop Rockefeller)

If you never heard him speak in person, you really missed something. He did a better job of taking the "values" issues back to where it belongs, than any other candidate.

Be who we are .... it's always astounding to me when someone wants dems to be like everyone else. It's like Howard Dean said when he was speaking one time --- a woman, an evangelical, came up to him and said she didn't believe most anything he did, yet --- she was still going to vote for him. When he asked why she said - because you have conviction in what you believe.

See - it's just that simple. IMHO .... you have to be who you are and people can either accept it or not. That's what our major problem has been in this party - people have to act like something they're not - for being afraid of offending some little group here or there.

*sigh* He should have been our nominee. Period. :(

I'll never back away from Liberalism. Ever. Our yellow-bellied politicians should embrace the term, be proud of it. Wes did.

but if you have the courage of your convictions, & speak out, they will respect you.

When pols ask advisors what they should say, they lose.

n/t

Clark 08!

n/t!

Go Clark 2008 :kick:

Ive seen tastless conservative southerners attempt to pick up chics with better lines than that .

Take John Breaux , as he was trying to cheat on his wife witha girl who turned out to be a reporter.

In a bar he said "The worst Bayou is by-youself" perhaps the most lousey pick up line in himan memory.

I pitty the progressives voting in the Democratic primary who let Clark pick them up on that cheezy line. He did however give conservatives a genuine pick up when he sang the phraises of Bush back in 2002 before an audience. Genuine monents tend be the strongest.

And for giving me a chance to kick it again by "thanking you" for doing it.

Next thing you know we might have Republicans voting for our candidate. Even people who voted for Chimp.

why bother to enter a thread about him?

Is pissing on threads about him your hobby or what?

Nice to see you again. How's "that other" place? :hi: