Does Wesley Clark have a hidden adgenda?

Understanding that campaign promises are PURELY for getting votes, and not for actual platform adgenda's, i wonder if General Clark has not used his Sun Tzu to mislead that he could win an election and then do more kucinich sorts of policies?

This is my intuition, without any evidence, except that everything is lies... except kucinich and mosely braun who are both too honest to take the mainstream middle, though i will vote DK unless clark really needs a new york vote to win against dean, as i don't support a divider.

I am curious if anyone who is more familiar with Clark might enlighten me on what they think the man will actually do in office. These days, you have to lie to get elected, and presuming everyone is lying except those who are obviously telling the truth (dk cmb) then what do those straussian democrats actually stand for?

He thinks he can do a better job than the present occupant. He has a large ego, like most politicians that run for President. That is his agenda.

that's easy, my dog, could do a better job. Imagine, no wars, and doggie treats free at the white house.

I mean, having perused his "platform", i can't help but wonder if its a demographic marvel designed to split the republican middle and win, but not necessarily designed to be used.

When i read kucinich's platform, he clearly plans to do what he says... but that is very old fashioned in sound byte politics.

I agree with your statement, that is obvious. Maybe that is all needs be said.

thanks,
-s

I don't agree with him on this. We don't need good little followers. We need our young to be thinkers and creaters. We need our young to be curious and enjoy learning. If I have him wrong, please tell me, but that is what I got from listening to him. Mrs. Moose

The schools are currently lead by school boards, who rarely have any experience in a classroom, administrators who may have classroom experience, but by in large just wanted out, and politicians who haven't a clue, and on the republican side just see us a one more union waiting to be busted.

Clark wants the people actually teaching to be enpowered. I'll take that attitude anytime over NCLB. He wants to know what we need and think about making it work.

Leaders are not cult leaders which seems to be your fear. I do teach children to think, the problem your schools are faced with now, is that NCLB is designed to end that tradition.

Go by the record. It was harder to read Truman. Clark and Kosovo is a good proof of action, committment, values. This "secret plan" stuff is only in the case of someone acting out past faults worse than before. Like Clinton and his predilections or Dubya and his neocon plutocrat ambitions. His biggest test would be going up against our rabid radical Republican Congress to effectively save us all from ehtnic(human beings vs. the nobility) cleansing.

Wes Clark was a military contractor unitl recently.

Dennis Kucincich was never a military contractor.

I think Clark would be more moderate than Bush, and arguably he would have the best chance of winning of the nine if he got the nomination, but he never reminded me of Kucinich.

I believe him to be a sincere man, a humanist, an internationalist, and a believer in civil rights. He has acted, as well as spoken and written. He wrote the amicus curae brief in Michigan over affirmative action, because he applied affirmative action in his military career and found success. If he took over a base with no officers of color, he was on the phone and wouldn't get off the phone until he had officers of color. This has been validated by African-American and Hispanic military personnel who served under him.

As a young teenager, maybe fourteen or fifteen years old, he declined to work summers at a country club that barred Jews. He worked summers at a club that was comprised mainly of Jews, because he thought it was wrong to discriminate. He didn't learn his own father was Jewish until he was 24 years old, so I think this shows that he has a heartfelt sense for justice and equality, and not for base opportunism.

But beyond specific issues, he acts. If he says he will do something, he goes ahead and does it. If Wes Clark says he will something, I trust he will. It's just the kind of guy he is.

a sincere man, a humanist, an internationalist, and a believer in civil rights

He has it all IMO.

:kick:
DemEx

Hi, sweetheart. Thanks for the thread.

Thought I'd lob a phosphorous grenade into the gasoline can
you tipped over here. :-)

-------------

Does anyone here doubt that Clinton and Clark are thick as
thieves? Both from Arkansas, both up by their bootstraps.
Clinton appoints Clark to high military posts over the objections
of many offficers.

Admittedly, this is hard to decode, because the military couldn't
stand Clinton. They objected constantly. OTOH, why waste political
capital annoying the military with controversial appointments
unless its all part of a long-range campaign to "groom" Clark
for later office by giving him high rank and high visibility. Yet,
spinning it the other way, Clinton knew Kosovo was going to
be tricky, and he wanted someone he could trust running it.

But, anyway you spin it, these two guys are close. I simply do
not believe that Clinton does not favor Clark as the DLC candidate.
First, all the other DLC candidates are non-winners at this point.
I mean Kerry has toasted himself on both sides with his constant
flip-flops; Lieberman is roundly despised by the Dem base;
Edwards is simply too young and too hawkish; and Gephardt
is too union for Mr. NAFTA/GATT. So, it makes sense that the
DLC is still shopping for someone to "do" Dean for them.

It is not automatically an insult to say that Clark is being opportunistic.
He has a long history of dallying with the GOP and even the PNAC.
He was on the board of a company doing Homeland Security work.
Then he sees the DLC candidates shooting themselves in the
foot while Dean is cleaning up, and this lightbulb goes off: I could
actually get the DLC to back me, I'm a blank slate outsider with
unbelievably valuable military credentials, plus I'm tight with the
Big Dog.

Which brings us right back to Bill Clinton.

Does anyone think Bill is taking a vacation in Hawaii for the
duration of the 2004 campaign? Neither do I. He is playing,
as I said, behind the scenes. And, quite frankly, with the GOP
secrecy and now the DLC/Clinton hidden hand, is there any
honest, up-front campaign out there? No wonder people are
fed up with inside-the-beltway politics - its all codewords and
image and spin.

Who wants to talk about Clinton?

Its not Dean vs Clark; its Dean vs Clinton and the DLC. That should
be obvious from the way all the DLC candidates are blasting Dean.
Are Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton hitting Dean for saying
Saddam's capture is a zero? I haven't heard that from them. This is
an inside-the-DLC-clubhouse brawl; only Howard brought his own
gang of money-raisers.

Flame away

arendt

Clearly clinton, having himself started illegal wars, has less issue with another president doing the same.

And dean, for all his anti-bush rhetoric has the most similar background to GWB of any of the dem candidates, so i find it fine acting on his part.

So you're saying, were the DLC to "appoint" its heir, that the appointment would not win in a runoff, and that the days of DLC "third way" republican lite is a non starter in the coming election? Methinks, despite my personal revulsion at the idea, that it may indeed be the only winner.

And that is why i find dean divisive, as his methods and approach may very well get him a candidacy that ends up losing the runoff election by 2%... and then the entire effort of supporing democrats is a waaste indeed, and one would be better off registering republican and trying to influence the one-party-state from within... as the left splinters in to a big catfight.

sweetheart - didn't you miss me? no kind hello for hannah? :-)

> Clearly clinton, having himself started illegal wars, has less
> issue with another president doing the same.

You're saying you are no big fan of Clinton's, right?

> And dean, for all his anti-bush rhetoric has the most similar
> background to GWB of any of the dem candidates, so i find it fine
> acting on his part.

Do I understand your meaning? "fine acting" means that Dean's
whole campaign is an "act", i.e., a fraud?

But where do you stand on all the non-fraudulent populism that
he has rallied?

> So you're saying, were the DLC to "appoint" its heir, that the
> appointment would not win in a runoff, and that the days of
> DLC "third way" republican lite is a non starter in the coming
> election?

Yes. That is my thesis. Populism is back, and it distrusts the
DLC as much as the GOP. If a DLC guy is the candidate, you can
bet the GOP will tie him to Clinton and beat him to death with
that. To the average voter, both the GOP and the DLC look like
corrupt DC insiders. But, the GOP get 100% of the freeper/hawk/stupid
conservative vote (~25% of the country); while nobody is
automatically going to vote for a placeholder for Bill and Hil.

> Methinks, despite my personal revulsion at the idea, that it may
> indeed be the only winner.
>
> And that is why i find dean divisive, as his methods and approach
> may very well get him a candidacy.

But the same argument can be made the other way. Any DLC candidate
is divisive because they may win the nomination and lose the
election as pissed off liberals vote Nader and recently motivated
non-voters go back to being apathetic.

This "divisiveness" argument cuts both ways.

> the left splinters in to a big catfight.

The left ALREADY splintered; that was my claim in my New
Republican Party thread. All that's new is that the splintering
is on public display.

The DLC are corporate whores, just less nasty than the GOP.
Their boy, Joe Lieberman, helped push Gore to cave-in on the
2000 election fraud. Their guy, McCauliffe, ran the worhtless
2002 campaign that cost us the Congress.

And you argue that Dean might screw up the Dems chances? LOL.

How could anyone screw them worse than the DLC already has.
Hell, they just blew off their own candidate and nominal
standard-bearer, Gore, in favor of BILL CLINTON's un-named
candidate, which is what I want to talk about.

Why does Bill Clinton get to gamble 2004 so that Hillary can
run in 2008? It is Clinton who is behind the scenes on the
hit job on Dean.

arendt

I respect your "feet on the ground" views, as i can only see this through media (being abroad). Ok, the DLC ain't a winner and that explains what has been mysterious to me, why the party has not ralllied around clark... a clear GOP party splitter... as he has the potential to rip off the non-neocon republican vote.

Honestly, i still like kucinich... and really, he is not DLC or populist anti-war (which IMO is a loser)... he is a reality man who's policies stand to restore some semblance of "democratic republic" to this plutocratic timocracy.

I think clinton left stains on the carpet when he should have been leaving a legacy... and i don't particularly care for him... indeed.

Bottom line hannah, (isn't it heideger who's hannah's protege?) I don't think its clinton. I think gore has gotten anonymous hate mail threatening his family and his life if he runs again, and that he withdrew to "have" a future, both as a living person, and as a politician.

You reverse my spin on dean, perhaps rightfully so. I he could see towards ending the drugs war, i would support him.

"the economist" calls it "ABD" (Anyone But Dean) as with saddam caught, and a surely improving iraq situation, his anti-war thunder is stolen, as well as the economic collapse thunder (understanding the reality of the dollar at all time lows against the euro).

I'll find your other thread and partake.... but i'm wary of a man who's political judgement got him caught in this "anti-war", "anger" trap... is it really national populism you speak of (as in moderate republican voters) or just the extreme activist element.. and if so, it is a guaranteed macgovern... to the bain of us all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

His conversion from the republican party is still to fresh..Lets seem him work the lower ranks for a few years before we trust him with something like this..

It sounds to me like Dean is only a divider because Kerry, Gep, and Lieb dont do anything but attack him! When he made a brave comment about trying to get "white men who drive pickup trucks with confederate flags" to vote because they too do not have health insurance or jobs, immediately his running mates.. *scratch* critics saw some opportunity to distort what he was saying so they might get a few more supporters. Any intelligent person knows Dean is not racist and was merely trying to unite people to vote for the democratic nominee. Every five minutes in a debate there is another swat at Dean. His running mates are doing the GOP's job for them. And for that I dont think they are much better than the GOP. He is NOT the divider. The Kerry, Gep, Leib trio are trying to divide the primary into Dean, and Anti-dean. This is their strategy and it sucks. So, dont give me that "Dean is a divider bull sh**".

The thing that really turned me off to Dean was that very "white men who drive pickup trucks with confederate flags" comment. I found that not just offensive, but politically insensitive--what trendy people call "politically incorrect" so that it sounds tough rather than crass.

I'm from the demographic he was talking about, although I haven't displayed a rebel flag since high school 20+ years ago. I took the flag down from my window because I came to understand that it was a deeply offensive symbol to many of my fellow southerners.

One of Dr Dean's most frequent mantras is saying "I am the only candidate who..." and then going on to mention opposing the war, repealing the full tax Bush cut, balancing a budget, providing broad base insurance coverage, and turning out the Democratic base. Besides being factually wrong, these statements speak the language of arrogance. It's not a substance thing; on most issues I'm as close to Dean as I am to Clark (but I disagree with both of them and Kucinich when it comes to flag burning, which I hate enough to protect).

Rather, it's a matter of style. This sounds superficial, but style is very important to a leader. If a candidate cannot speak the language of respect, he will get few more votes after the nomination than he will prior to the nomination. But more imporantly than that, a leader has to be a good listener.

The thing about the flag statement wasn't that it was true--of course we need to reach out to working class whites--but that it showed how deaf he is to history. Progressive Democrats have been trying and failing to win over this demographic for 30 years. The strategy does not work. Most southern whites just won't vote on economic issues alone. This is lamentable, but Dr Dean's blindness to this matter speaks to how unresponsive he is to other peoples' points of view. For all I know that may be typical of most doctors; factually compassionate within the context of a cattle-car mentality.

What's not typical of most doctors is that other mantra of his. "You have the power. You have the power. You have the power. You have the power" repeated ad nauseum is kinda creepy. It's retail, it's mass volume, and it's clunky. When he repeats it as often as he does, it tend to divorce his words from their meaning. If thre are that many "yous" in the audience to have the power, then all he's doing is telling us, through heavy repetition, that we're part of a mass movement. It's a classic populist bandwagon-effect propaganda technique.

I contrast that with General Clark's far more intellectual appeal. There's nothing retail about his sales pitch; it's personal, it's thoughtful, and it's nuanced. Nuanced doesn't do too well in US history. The last big name politician to be so openly intellectual was Mario Cuomo, although Adlai Stevenson is probably a better parallel for Clark. This is why Clark isn't breaking out of the pack.

I admire Dean a lot. He is a brave man. But his approach to politics is a big turn off to me. He's a Teddy Roosevelt when we need a Franklin Roosevelt. I suspect you'll disagree with me. But then that is the very nature of being divisive.

I am impressed.
Off topic: I had a high school friend named Bucky Gay. ( I am serious. Great guy )

Clark is a representative of the military-industrial complex in the most literal sense.

He's no Smedley Butler. Don't be fooled.

I am totally against making robots out of our young people. I don't know, but I wish someone with more to work with than I have, would think about it and fill me in. He seems so strong and reliable that you can't help but like him. I look up to him for changing his mind about choices that he has made and improving on his values. I don't think anyone should be faulted for that. He is a good man, and so is DK. I like them both. I like Al and Braun too. We are going to have someone good if they don't trick us again, but I fear that they will. Mrs. Moose

I've tried to answer your concerns in a post you made before in this thread.

I am 40 and usually quite cynical...but I am not cynical about Clark. I just have a feeling about this guy. Clark will do exactly what he says he will. Did you see the thread by Dookus about who else is attacking Delay? read that transcript of Clarks interview. Maybe you will get the feeling I have. Maybe I am just off my rocker?

but im thinking the bar should go a little higher.

How do you become a general in the army .. the biggest good old repub boys network on the planet .. and be a good liberal.

Maybe those who work for him know. How did he do it.. and how do we know this isnt smoke and mirrors?

Im not sure y my other thread got locked asking about clark... but he scares me alot.

Clark could be a better prez than Bush..
but could he be a better democrat than dean or dennis?

me thinks not.

make a choice, based on the evidence. But I wouldn't assume Clark is some kind of liar just because he rose to become a 4 star General. He released reviews by his superiors up till he became a General. It covers most of his career. You might check these records out at his website if you are really interested.

They needed him. I think their comments from the WP basically said, that while Clark had sharp elbows (not a yes man) he was always someone you wanted on your team because he was brilliant.

Look, you can't have it both ways. Shelton had problems with Clark. Now look at a picture of Shelton with Rummy. That my friend is the image of the republican Pentagon stranglehold. So if Clark is such a good ol' boy, why did they not include him as one of them?

Clark rose on his merits, not on his ideology.

Now listen to Clark talking about the importance of multinationalism, the value of people over weapons systems, and the philosophy of the Enlighenment. I grant you that Clark is not a rabid partisan, but he understands the value of democratic ideals better than 99.9% of America. And, what is even more important, he is as afraid as anyone who frequents these boards, that we are about to lose it.

"This is my intuition, without any evidence, except that everything is lies..."

At least you acknowledge it. At least you mix in illogical mumbo jumbo ("Straussian Democrats"?). But there's no point trying to rebut or respond to. When your beliefs begin with a detachment from reality or evidence, then there's nothing to be said in response.

I thought this phrase rather appropriate given how straussian thinking is to decieve an ignorant public "for their own good." That is not detachment from reality, it is the fact of american electioneering.

I detect in clark's platform, a marketing executive's best advise on how to create a non-partisan election winning set of issues to focus on to break down the bickering and WIN. That is great electioneering... but when things are lined up that perfectly, and the fog around his nonexistant track record running civilian administrations as an elected official is that somehow the military experience is precisely similar... i think it reasonable to ask, even based on intution.

Kucinich, by contrast, has published positions on many issues that challenge voters to decide and think for themselves and maybe drive them away to more moderate candidates.... so by being more frank and less "straussian", he is also less a front-runner.

My evidence is clark's website. I think that's not reality, and it seems the real question i'm being asked by that website is whether strauss is right that the public needs to be mislead.

I think Clark has an old-fashioned, Norman Rockwell kind of view of America as being optimistic, progressive and on the side of the good guys. If elected I think he'll do what he can to bring that view into existence.

I had better interject here (cause I know how the game is played here on DU) that his "Norman Rockwell" view includes gays, straights, blacks, whites, men, women, christians, protestants, jews, moslems and however else you might want to break humanity up into. Clark doesn't seem to see a problem here because he doesn't seem to see a problem here.

How successful can he be? It depends on whether we can get a Democratic Congress and Supreme Court (and whether we can use some of that 87 billion allocated to Iraq to hire a few hundred thousand new Secret Service guards for Clark--reining in the bad guys is never a guarantee of reaching Social Security age).

If he fails, it won't be for a lack of trying.

So, look at that. A cynical old political hack like me is going out to work for someone who may well just be trying to do good. Damn. I hope the guys back in Coney Island don't find out.

wants to repair the damage done to our country, restore our reputation in the eyes of the world and heal the horrible divisions in this country while restoring our economy and moving us away from fossil based fuels.


Shhhhhhhhh don't tell anybody.

Shocked, I tell you.

Very strong southern ticket. I like Bob. Plus I have noticed Wes floating his name alot lately.

Call me crazy, but I honestly believe that. I could be totally nuts on this, the Presidency has to be an awfully powerful lure to anyone who has rubbed up against the office like Clark has. But I really think he sees this country headed to disaster and feels a need to save it.

I see him pulling the country together. I see him fighting the right wing propaganda with intelligent rebuttals. His comments about liberalism are prime. I see him breaking down the militarism, engaging the world, setting us on a more cooperative path globally.

At home, I don't know. As much as he can, but I don't see him breaking up corporatism much. But I do think being in the military his whole life, he isn't going to buy into this socialized medicine garbage as much. He has seen first hand the benefits of guaranteed health care, education, day care, etc. So we may get more there than I think.

He'd be a good President, I think. I obviously think Kerry would be better, but Clark would be almost as good.

i think Kerry would be alomst as good as Clark, and I would gladly take up trhe fight for him if he gets the nom.

CHEERS!

I see clark as a jedi knight charged with coming in to a poltical mess to keep a world from descending in to a world war that bush is setting the groundwork for... and indeed, averting a future war that kills 50 million americans is a worthy warrior's challenge.

I think he has heart to undertake such an endeavour. I think kucinich is better, and i would hope that mr. clark has already seen to it to invite all the democratic candidates to join his administration if he wins.

Considering the reality of the american military complex, it may take someone with intimate knowledge of that vehicle to drive it... and as government is now only a thin veneer on a military/media empire, who better than a king in that empire.

I know clark is a jedi. I trust him to be impeccable. That is what my intution locks on to with him. His polices might shift, but he would do the right thing for the people of the world.

I am so afraid of "cargo cult" politics.

Who is Clark? His draw is that he is a blank slate
in an increasingly militarized culture.

Yes, he is very smart. So smart that he scares
me to death until proven otherwise. Can you spell
o-p-p-o-r-t-u-n-i-s-t?

Why do people accuse Dean of this and then give
Clark a free pass? Why is Dean an insider, and
Clark (a big-time inside-DC player, as all top
brass are) not?

It is because of cargo-cultism.

It is Ross Perot all over again, only this time,
he is eating into the Dems vote.

Enough hero worship and demon bashing. Where are
some facts in what was supposedly a thread about
Clark's hidden agenda? It seems like you all think
his agenda could have no downside.

I say, his agenda is Bill Clinton's agenda. Another
term of triangulating, sucking up to corporations,
and sacrificing the little guy (only) when he gets
in a jam - but sacrificing him nevertheless.

Don't get me wrong. I would hold my nose and vote for
the guy. But, he is way too military for me. And the
personality cult forming around him is just as scary
as the one forming around Dean. More scary if you think
its being orchestrated behind the scenes by Bill and Hil.

arendt

This

for love of country.

In asking about dean, i've been attacked on this board viscously by dean supporters, who can't contain their anger though i am a frikking potential dean runoff voter.

Clark supporters have never been so rude to me, ever. It indicates political sophistocation that they have figured out how to channel their frustration better.

I agree its scary, as i don't believe that clark has any track record or platform on which to elect him buy... just a personality cult... yet those folks have thus far (with myself) been wholly respectful and healthy. That difference, given i am a fool who once voted for reagan, means they could win me over, if i were in another life as a republican moderate.

It is scary. It is a DLC thing, and my seeing is indeed that he might win the election and sell fringe supporters like myself down the corporate tubes so quick, you could blink to find sweetheart gone....

He scares me... i agree. I want to spend an evening at dinner with him and have him tell jokes and be a regular chap... then i'll have a feeling for him.

Dean scares me with his anger, and the deanites (possibly all freeper disrupters - i'll accept) who've supported the man too strongly have been entirely rude... to the point where i am emotionally torn to consider voting for him given the hate i've experienced from theoretical "allies".

Bill and hill are a scam... and i don't support family aristocracy... (that said, i've read your whig's thesis, and accept that their version of internationalism is preferable to that of the tories... but then again you'd expect that coming from someone who was once a telecoms software engineer in a past life)

Ok Ms. (mrs?) hannah arendt, who should i support in this quagmire of realpolitik less of evils?

:-)

regards to you and your family on this solstice and solar new year.

-sweetheart

You wrote:
"I don't see him breaking up corporatism much. But I do think being in the military his whole life, he isn't going to buy into this socialized medicine garbage as much. He has seen first hand the benefits of guaranteed health care, education, day care, etc. So we may get more there than I think."


What did you mean by that? Socialized medicine is NOT garbage. The rest of the western democracies have Socialized medicine. We are the only ones who let the healthcare lobbies brainwash us into submission. The military is Socialized medicine is every respect....

What could possibly mean by this reply?

Where does Sun Tzu ever to mislead someone in an election? As I recall, The Rules of War were written long before the notion of democracy was even formed.

All presidential elections are based on vacuous promises that are jettesoned the instant said candidate is in office. That is deception, and i think clark's use of the "environmental stuff" is ideal apolitical material to unite an electorate in a runoff election beyond partisan bickering.

I think this strategy is brilliant, but i feel insecure as to what he will REALLY do if elected... as i was pretty sure 'til he announced that he might run as a republican... but then i hear he's got excellent liberal education and credentials... but democracy is not a military thing... but then again, its not democracy... its a scam, and in that case, maybe a military mind who is entrusted to restore the constitution must do exactly that no matter what means are employed.

and do anything or say anything to get the office. If Gore was in the oval office, he would probably be running as a republican. Kucinich sort of policies?? I doubt it very much. We're talking about a military man here, a product of 30 years of military indoctrination. You're right though, he's lying to get elected and yes, I'm sure he has a hidden agenda. Frankly , it scares the hell out of me to think what that agenda might be.

as you go along in your campaign. Clark couldn't possibly remember all those lies! :eyes: Just ask Dean. He has said many things he didn't mean, forgot he said it and had to take it back. You can't lie in a campaign...you couldn't possibly remember the lies, it's too difficult. Clark says what he means, means what he says and has been VERY consistent.

different things once in office. But either would do better than Baby Bush.

Example: DK stated he would do away with NAFTA, the world trade pact, and other similar trade pacts. Clark would modify them, to include tat-for-tat provisions, such as companies going abroad would still have to pay for environmental safeguards, comparable wages, etc., which would make the field fairer. Very different views. (But I think I heard DK modify his views on that in the last debate.)

DK and Dean are the two most alike in their views on some issues, I think. I believe Kucinich is the only candidate who agrees with Dean that all of Bush's tax cuts need to be rolled back. The other candidates support rolling back for the wealthiest only.

Trying to make the republican look liberal ain't gonna work.
The only reason Clark is running as a democrat is because his handlers decided he could never get the republican nomination away from Bush.

When he stops waffling, we may find out.

Start with Axciom.

Oops - wrong candidate.

Bad politics, bad economics and bad all-around.

Seems to me since the Middle Class and Poor portion of Bush's tax cut were such a small portion of the whole thing --those parts of the tax cut should be spared.

Wes Clark supports keeping the middle class and poor tax cuts. To be fair, Kerry and Edwards have been saying this as well and they are right too.

As clark's platform is still a work in progress... clearly.

Methinks that investment should not be taxed, and that taxing dividends is unwise no matter ye democrat or republican...

THe middle classes are certainly critical to economic reform, but this is part of a wholistic strategy, including job creation, tax policies, economic stimulation policies and consideration for healthcare and american human rights.

To argue economics, didn't HD balance the budget of an unbalanced state... and what budget did clark ever balance? Keeping people's strengths in perspective is realistic.... i like WC, with the same mindless ignorance that i repeat "I like IKE".. . but in reality, all the democratic candidates will have to recover from the * credit card spending spreee... and the situation in early 2005 will not be one we can predict in this regard.

I don't care about their tax policies... its about the war on drugs and the war on civil rights... in my book.

Dean, Gephardt and Kucinich have stated fairly emphatically that they want to get rid of the tax cut. There is no nuance to their proposals. But it's bad policy on their part.

Clark (Kerry and Edwards also) gets this policy right. Clark's positions are new, but not complicated --2 months won't change his position to resemble Dean's. Also, Clark, Edwards and Kerry's position on taxes is much like Bill Clinton's in 1992 (he supported raising taxes on the wealthy to deal with the deficit).

An intersting lesson in history is that Tsongas (in 1992) supported a balanced budget through government cutbacks and examination of entitlements --Clinton did not. But Tsongas didn't support the tax hikes that Clinton did.

Then look at Dean, he supports tax hikes for all and government spending reductions (based on his record and to some extent his proposals). Tsongas lost the nomination with only half the same unpopular proposal (spending cuts) that Dean currently has.

Now think of the politics of Dean position. Dean supports tax hikes and government spending cuts. Bad ideas politically, but also during a downturn a bad idea economically.

Clark has the superior position IMHO, in both respects for a struggling economy. Dean's position would be realistic in an inflationary, booming economy and we're nowhere near that.

tax plan which will consolidate Child-care credit and EIC while raising the highest tax brackets only.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/MEDIA_SUMMARY_OF_TAX_BILL.pdf

Like you, I like DK and will vote for him. But, I'd take Clark over Dean or Kerry. Mainly because I am really worried about Iraq becoming a quagmire and I don't think Dean or Kerry would handle it well.