What are Clark's positions on the following issues?

environment protectionincluding ANWR, repealing the USA Patriot Act, restructuring the tax code including reinstating the estate and capital gains tax to Clinton-era levels, fully funding public education including not allowing for a voucher system that will inevitably drain funds from our public education system, internationalism including participation in the anti-land-mine treaty Kyoto treaty and anti-nuclear proliferation treaties, protecting the civil justice system including rejecting the Republican efforts to cap damages for medical negligence and efforts to eliminate many consumer class actions, federally recognizing civil unions and adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, committing to continued funding for PBS and the NAE, investigating election fraud and no-bid contract fraud, federalizing national election procedures with paper records?

I like the image of Clark and I really like some of what he says, but I worry that I don't know enough about his vaules on key issues that are important to me.

On all issues.

As for his tax concept... he was eliminating taxes for families making under ......... (I don't remember amount).

He was raising taxes on those making over ...............

This gave rise to an argument "what about single people"?

earned by a family of 4.

Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 with a surtax on those making over 1 million.

He was endorsed by the father of "Earth Day"....

Was against drilling in ANWAR....said that we could generate a lot of jobs for Americans by stimulating research and development in the alternative energy and new technology areas. He ran a company promoting a hybrid motorbike.

He was for reviewing the Patriot Act and taking out the sections that abused citizen privacy, etc...

Had a lot of backing from the Hispanic and Native American communities (hence his win in Oklahoma and 2nd place finishes in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota...without Media headlights in his face...as had Kerry and Edwards).

He was for cutting "waste" from the defense department and increasing veteran's benefits.

And didn't Clark responded (to faux bimbo spewing same) that the poor/middle class paid enough - sending their kids to war among other things?

It surprised me how few people actually looked at the platforms of the candidates and compared and analyzed them. In my experience, not only were Clark's positions the farthest to the left excepting Dennis, but most conservatives I talked to were willing to support him, and understood progressive positions when he explained them. That was so stunning to me because it broke all of the rules and common wisdom I have been hearing for years - that "too left" can't win, and that strong traditional liberal positions were "radical."

Those of us who were involved in the Clark campaign saw something that will stick with us for a long time - that very progressive politics - "far left" - are supported by the majority of people in this country if they are presented in a broad context of liberalism and are forcefully and unambiguously and unapologetically expressed.

Ironically, when I was talking door to door for Clark, it was not the Republicans who were violently against him - quite to the contrary - it was the Democrats. That was so stunning and so undeniable, although when I brought that up with Kerry supporters they just started screaming at me as often as not. Clark represented the common people, the everyday people, the workers and the poor seizing the liberal program back from the appeasers, the technocrats, and the authoritarians who have gained ascendancy in the party.

Clark threatened the party hierarchy and leadership, and the network of elitist Democratic party activists. He was bringing "fundies" and "red necks" into the party - and not by catering to Conservative positions or watering down strong liberal and progressive positions. This flies in the face of the wisdom of experts in the party, challenges their assumptions, and ultimately threatened their power and influence in the party.

but not quickly enough. By the time he had most of his policies really firmed up, he had already opt out of Iowa.

Plus the fact that he had to defend himself as a New Democrat took much time away from him being able to get his "values" message out.

Joe Klein mentioned him as a potential strong '08 candidate on CNN the other day....stating that he had a strong "values" campaign.

Problem is that the media chose to highlight the 2 Iowa winners from the time the first vote was cast until Kerry was declared the winner. It was no small feat that Clark was still able to win Oklahoma and place second in states like Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota. You could say he and his supporters did that.....cause the media stopped covering him long ago.

Clark. :wow: I'm surprised that he admitted it being that he is a media whore supreme.

And they would have went Kerry if Clark was VP but alas he picked Edwards and that ended all talk of voting Democrat. They were dying for someone they could vote for other than Bush. My father, the most Republican person I know, loved Clark when I made him watch his speeches. We missed a great opportunity to really unite the country. Clark would have crushed Chimpy in my opinion.

I thought I would be eaten alive here, so it is nice to see that others saw what I saw.

The first 25 Republicans - and I mean solid rural lifetime Republicans over 40 - to whom I showed Clark's platform and a video of him that I carried around with me back in the day, were very, very enthusiastic and ready to support him.

That tells me - in spite of all the opposition and nay-saying by Democrats on this - that a very progressive platform would appeal to 70% of the public if it could be divorced from the Democratic party divisive and inflammatory rhetoric and condescending and elitist demeanor.

You see hundreds and hundreds of posts at DU talking in the most derogatory terms about fundies and repukes as idiots and Neanderthals. If you suggest to people that there is anything wrong with that, they assume that you are recommending compromise or telling them to back down from strong positions and become moderate and DLC-ish. Yet these same people seem to have only the most rudimentary understanding of core traditional Democratic issues such as racism and class and the needs of the working poor, judging by the arguments here and Democratic activists I talked to during the campaign.

There is a lot of talk now about how to "frame" issues so as to communicate to people. Yet the party doesn't have a clear and powerful message that is reaching its own rank and file very well. There is actually controversy among Democrats about "free markets" and "reverse racism" for example.

You have to be a real partisan insider and something of a mind reader to get Kerry's message very clearly. I say this as a person who has been active in the party for over 35 years, and I say it with sadness and in the spirit of constructive criticism.

Clark was an easy sell to Republicans not because of his style or his charisma, and not because he "framed" the issues the right way. Clark was an easy sell because there was something to sell. Income tax? How about 0% for everyone under $50,000 income? - and he presented it in a confident way that made it seem like no more than common sense. He spoke with conviction about class issues, the struggles of the working poor, and on race and gender he spoke form experience and commitment, not from worrying about balancing the wishes of the interest groups in the party.

Clark was rejected by the hard core Democratic party people because he hadn't paid his dues in the corrupt, hypocritical, elitist and out of touch Democratic party leadership structure, and because he was retired military.

Clark is the real deal, it sickens me that some people were turned off simply by his military career. This is a man who has the pulse of everyone in the nation. He could have pulled it off.

And I agree with every single word.

About Republicans supporting Clark? That's because a lot of them agree with us on issues; it's the packaging they don't like. Wes Clark, a retired General, with over 30 yrs in the military, from Arkansas...they'll listen to him.

Also, he was able to talk about religion, faith, moral values in a way no other Dem could do. I loved when he talked about being raised a Southern Baptist...& then finished the story about helping those less fortunate, & what REAL moral values are about.

I also loved his plain, direct talk. He obviously wasn't a career politician, & the silly Dems didn't realize that it would be an ASSET, rather than a liability. Most people hate D.C. & the political elite who inhabit it.

Finally, his honesty just shone through. He could take a question on any topic, from the sublime to the ridiculous, & give a well-thought through intelligent answer. He didn't need to be PROGRAMMED.

Dems passed him up first time around; will they make the same mistake a second time?

"Why did you drop out? I would have voted for you. And I am a republican!"
Over and over and over.

Yes_yes_he did. I took me quite a while to understand what "it" is that Clark was able to do.

First, he is a magnificent teacher, at West Point, teaching economics and political philosophy, his students idolized him. He was the buzz.

A rightwing fundamentalist from Alabama told me that Clark was the only one that makes sense. He and his wife would have voted for him.

Anyway, the answers:

environment protectionincluding ANWR, against-infavor of new technologies. He said that they are ready to roll with some push from the Feds.

repealing the USA Patriot Act, Clark said the entire thing needs to be put on hold, take out excess parts that although they might inconvenience for the government, they would just not bear up to Constitutional scrutiny, if any rights would have to be restricted, that would have to be presented to the people.

restructuring the tax code including reinstating the estate and capital gains tax to Clinton-era levels, already discussed--although, I have a feeling that we would be moving eventually to an even more progressive tax-code under Clark because of some of his recommended reading.

fully funding public education including not allowing for a voucher system that will inevitably drain funds from our public education system, to quote Clark: george bush is all mouth and no money about education. As a teacher, I assure you he was the only person running who "got" it.

internationalism including participation in the anti-land-mine treaty Kyoto treaty and anti-nuclear proliferation treaties, Clark is an internationalist. Specifically about Kyoto, he said that the treaty as it stood had some flaws, but we could use our leverage to fix those.

protecting the civil justice system including rejecting the Republican efforts to cap damages for medical negligence and efforts to eliminate many consumer class actions,Clark recognizes that huge corporations already have full staffs of lawyers. He said that as a General, he had a full staff of lawyers; so citizens must have the right to be represented incourt. Period.

federally recognizing civil unions and adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes, Civil unions 100%. Don't know about hate crimes.

committing to continued funding for PBS and the NAE, Don't know, but I would venture a "yes." That said, PBS has me soooo pissed off these days, I don't know how I feel about them.

investigating election fraud and no-bid contract fraud, federalizing national election procedures with paper records? Clark gave a speech about this and he's there. But more than that, he knows. I promise you, he knows. He knows about the BBV, he knows about GEMS, and he knows things are going very wrong.

what's wrong with PBS? The Newshour is still good, Charlie Rose is still good and Frontline ran outstanding biographies on the candidates, a fine expose on the origins of the Iraq war and a great show on Bush's Christianity. How is PBS slipping? Is it the new Oscar the Neocon character on Sesame Street?

In support of your instinct on the NEA, I found this mention "Raise prominence of art and NEA." http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm , but I could not find the original source for the quote.

"not only were Clark's positions the farthest to the left excepting Dennis, but most conservatives I talked to were willing to support him, and understood progressive positions when he explained them. That was so stunning to me because it broke all of the rules and common wisdom I have been hearing for years - that "too left" can't win, and that strong traditional liberal positions were "radical.""

I think you're really correct about this - on economic issues, Clark was about as progressive as the Democratic party gets - and only someone with Clark's record could get away with it too.

Your comparison with Dennis Kucinich is good too, I think. Surely no candidates would seem further apart than Kucinich and Clark - but when you looked closely at Clark's proposals for a Cabinet level diplomacy department (apart from State) it started to look a lot like Dennis' Department of Peace.

I think Clark had two problems - first, he was too green, and did great in an audience of 250, not so good on TV, and two, has some scary things in his past Democrats are (rightly) suspicious of - like the School of the Americas/Whisk.

If Clark could get past these two issues, in my opinion, he'd make a great President, and half the independents and Republicans would agree.

Mosley Brown kept talking about "Peace with Honor" and Sharpton was paid by the GOP during the campaign and is now mum of the fraud.
Fir dean's statement see # 9

Page down to mid page....and click onto any issue listed.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/

Also see....

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/
For what he has actually said about various issues. This is a table of speeches during the primaries listed with issue titles.

Take note of his Higher education plan....$6,000 GRANT given(not tax credits) for each of the first 2 years of college to children who's parents made under $100,000 per year.

Subject: Was the best chance we had!
Message:

I am in complete agreement with everything you have said. My party again got it wrong. They picked the wrong war hero to be the nominee. What people see in President Bush is authenticity, something that John Kerry lacks. I was an ardent supporter of the draft Wes Clark movement and later became a Wes Clark volunteer and organizer on my campus. The problem was that on many college campuses Howard Dean had built a cult following. The media became enamored with his support, because it reminded many of those in the media, of presidential campaigns in the sixties and early seventies. The anti-war movement back then, supported the likes of Eugene McCarthy and later George McGovern, both of which were losers. McGovern, like Kerry was a bona fide war hero. But that fact was lost in both of their campaigns. Somehow McGovern like Kerry represented something the country just didn't want, cultural elitism.

The left is it's own worst enemy and only sees it's hero's in a certain paradigm. To be on the modern day left, one almost has to be peacenik dove. We democrats passed up a incredible opportunity to permanently put a new face on our party and on liberalism in general and create a new constituency within the party. M Berst is right, I had more arguments with those who had the same political ideals as I, then those on the right. Apparently, the Howard Deans, John Edwards and John Kerry's of this party is all there is room for. Clark was the anti-establishment candidate and the Birkenstock wearing, latte sipping elitist rejected him. Clark, if you look at his stances on basic issues of education, taxes and health care, was willing to make the kind of reform we needed. Campaigns are about big ideas and General Clark had alot of them to offer to the American people, John Kerry offered a laundry list.

Clark was a political novice but I feel, like many who supported him, got what America needed. He spoke of a New American Patriotism and brought back authentic optimism, with real pragmatic criticisms. General Clark was just as fierce attacking the President as any other of the candidates, but because he "bobbled" a question, many on the left turned their back on him. Kerry the nominee who all of us supported and voted for gave the authorization to the President and we all made excuse for him. General Clark was always the anti-war candidate, despite what many said of him.

"Anyone but Hillary Clinton in '08."

From Bill Maher show:


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

Clark: Absolutely. (audience applause)

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

Clark: Well, I'll say it right now.

Maher: Good for you!

Clark: We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=284779&mesg_id=287760&page=

that is someone to vote for! Clark is smart!

The best ever. :bounce: Sure hope he runs again.

Americans were stupid once...let's hope they are not stupid again.
I take that back. They were stupid twice...let's hope they are not stupid three times. If they are...here comes Armageddon or civil war.

Funny thing is...half will prefer Armageddon and half will prefer war. Even funnier...the half that loves war now will prefer Armageddon and the peace-nicks will prefer war. Strange world we live in.

CLARK is the only one that can unite us and bring peace to the world. Please Clark please...run in 2008.

I guess he was too "green" but I think he has a future in the Dems.

At least not the same faces from 2000.

announced, I told everyone here that he would be the most progressive in the race. I was wrong because Dennis might have been a bit more progressive but the point was that Wesley and I share the same values. Our familes were FDR supporters, southerners who embraced the ideals of the the New Deal, supported the Great Society and recognized Democratic values.

Wesley's values could hardly be anything different because that is what he grew up with. No doubt his years in the military seduced him toward the righties for a bit but his values over-rode that resoundingly.