Looks like Dean and Frost agree that Dems lost on national security issue

"While Dean has been a more consistent opponent of the war in Iraq, Dean and Frost -- and, indeed, most of the DNC candidates -- agree far more often than they disagree on political issues and the way they should be framed. There's a
general consensus among the candidates that John Kerry lost in November because the Democrats were unable to persuade voters that they could be trusted with America's national security."

In short, every DNC Chair candidate sees that, "It's national security, stupid."

Nice that Dean and Frost and the rest understand this. Perhaps this "general consensus" will make a difference in 2008 because as long as rank-and-file Democrats don't get this, we will lose again in 2008 -- especially if the GOP's bonafide war hero McCain wins the 2008 nomination.

The Democratic nominee in 2008 better have heavyweight creds in national security. It's good to hear that moderates like Dean and Frost "get it". Whoever becomes the DNC Chair will no doubt have to effectively communicate this to those in the Democratic base that think a nominee with impregnable national security credentials is not all-important in the age of possible future three-front Middle East wars.

Whether or not General Wesley Clark runs in 2008 (and I can only hope he does because I agree with both Dean and Frost on this obvious point), many liberal Democrats had better open their eyes to reality and understand that populism is no longer the only issue that concerns Americans any longer.

God only knows what a mess we'll be in by 2008.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/28/dnc/index.html

I've been talking to some RW about their bottom line. After getting all the anti-Kerry/Democratic spin the answer seems to be taxes. They actually think they are benefitting from the tax changes under Bush.

get money back. Forget all the money in local, state taxes... the deficit...

And he was a teacher, a birder, a sportsfisher. Committed to racial equality.

Also, I am thinking of another large swing voting bloc in many states: veterans.
Reagan Democrats also don't get enough in tax breaks for it to be important to them, but they traditionally favor being strong on defense, too.

I am just thinking how seminally novel it is that every single DNC Chair candidate is in general consensus that Democrats are seen as "soft on defense".

And it's nice to see you again, Mabus! Hope you are doing fine.

:pals:

I think it is the entire package but it is weighted by several issues and taxes is one of the key ones. Why? IMHO people are concerned (and more likely to vote) if they feel there is an issue that affects them personally.

For the RRR, like the fundies, they support and vote on candiates they perceive are more likely to vote. They need a clear dichotomy between "us" and "them." Or, as they see it "the saved" versus the "unsaved." Of course, this description isn't applicable to every Christian. I know some Christians. They all aren't rabid, crazy bible-toters.

Then there's the RR, the ones who will support any Republican because they hate Democrats. Period. Their mentality is more along the lines of rabid sports fans. Their "team" will always have their support over any other "team." Take a Cub fan or a Red Sox fan. They remained true to their team despite some bad years. BTW, I'm a huge Kansas Jayhawk fan and I will be a loyal Jayhawk until the day I die.

Then you have the middle of the roaders, the ones that are struggling along paying bills. They worry about things like the price of gas, taxes and whether to buy store/generic brand or go for the "Grape Nuts." In the end, they are going to vote for the person they think/perceive will be beneficial to their bottom line. Unfortuanately, way too many of these people are undereducated on the issues or how Bush's policies will really affect them. They automatically think "tax and spend liberals" and thanks to the MSM Kerry was labeled (intentionally and with malice) a liberal.

There are a number of issues that can change any election. Go back and look at 2000. Some "analysts" say it was the gun vote, some say it was the pro-choice vote, some say it was the soccer mom vote, some cite other reasons that Bush won (although I know he didn't) the election.

In otherwords, when I talk to people on a day-to-day basis (and in a red state) their paramount concerns aren't national security, it's paying something off, getting something fixed or trying to figure out how to purchase a replacement. It's all about their money. With Republicans they think it means lower taxes, therefore when all other things are equal (because they don't know any better) they'll vote for the person they think will let them keep their money.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

:hi: back at you. I'm doing well. I've spend the morning preparing for an influx of relatives. KU plays Texas tonight and I've got relatives coming into town to attend the game and a few to hang out here, visit and watch the game.

As for that other thing. I've pretty much come to terms with it. It will always hurt but I can't let it control my life.

Thanks.:loveya:

security and helped maintain the GOP myth that Bush was "strong on terror" while ignoring the fact that John Kerry worked to alert the American people to the threat of terrorism many years before 9-11.

Recognize that the GOP controls MOST of the media and expose that to the American people, or the next four years will be a waste no matter who is DNC chair.

inauguration speech last week would have been carried off in a straight jacket.

they will always lose on national security.

The Democrats had a better national security position in every possible respect in 2004 and still were perceived as weak on NS.

They don't have to change their policy or focus one bit. Just break the corporate headlock on media in this country. Easier said than done of course.

What the hell, nobody is going to question a former Four Star General.

But it still happened and it would happen to Clark.

The power of this media makes truth and reality worthless.

or weak on "national security." And the media and the GOP would not easily be able to portray him as an out-of-touch northeastern liberal intellectual elitist in southern or western states, much less the conservative Heartland.

Take a look at this cartoon that came out during the primaries:
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html

We could put up an Iraq war Falujah veteran to run for president in 08 and the right wing media machine would make him look like a fool.

they didn't believe he would be such an easy target as Kerry.

won all three debates against Bush, too, but the media would have preoccupied themselves with the dozens of generals and commanders who "served with Wesley Clark" and know he shouldn't be president. THAT'S how they operate.

EXPOSE THE GOP CONTROL OVER MOST OF THE MEDIA.

""won all three debates against Bush, too, but the media would have preoccupied themselves with the dozens of generals and commanders who "served with Wesley Clark" and know he shouldn't be president. THAT'S how they operate.

EXPOSE THE GOP CONTROL OVER MOST OF THE MEDIA. ""


BINGO. The same old song and dance over and over, regardless of the issue.

The point is people in this country have been brainwashed to vote R first before looking at qualifications. The fight begins with the media. You're right on.

I still think Clark would have the best shot at winning even despite the media, but I had to comment on your subject line. It was hilarious and I needed a good laugh :pals:

Last time I looked this topic wasn't about dead tree stumps. Try and stay on topic. 'Kay? :eyes:

of values that is greater than a couple statistics and a laundry list of identity politicial issues.

Kerry came close, but not close enough to giving voters a concrete sense of what it means to have a progressive value system.

I don't see how saying "I'm better on national security" achieves that.

Simply saying "I'm better on national security" is not sufficient to make one electable. That was not Wes Clark's platform or main message, and I think you know that.

Of all the candidates, I think Wes did the best at articulating an entire progressive value system, and doing it in the kind of language that more conservative voters would not find threatening.

Thank you for making those valuable points.:)

A national experiment in citizen deliberation took place on line with scientific random samples from Jan 19 until February 26, 2004. 266 eligible voters deliberated online about the candidates and the issues in the presidential primary season. Their views were compared to two "control groups," scientific random samples who did not deliberate but answered the same questions. These control groups numbered 346 and 546. Altogether more than 1158 eligible voters participated in this experiment which will continue until the general election this fall.

...

In contrast to conventional polls and the primaries to date, where Kerry has maintained a wide lead over Edwards, our participants came to like Edwards as well or better. After deliberating, on a "feeling thermometer" (scored from 0 to 100) they rated Kerry at just over 55 degrees and Edwards at just over 56. On another set of questions asking how well the traits “sincere,” “intelligent” and “thinks like I do” describe each candidate (a scale also scored from 0 to 100), Edwards was perceived significantly more positively than Kerry, averaging 66 versus 61.


Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.


Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

propping Bush up on faux terror credentials and national security go right ahead. I think you couldn't be more wrong.

He beat bush head to head on the issues.

But what he didn't do as well as he could have was leave voters with a very simple and clear vision of what it means to have progressive values in today's world.

The Democratic nominee needs to leave people with a values template that they can superimpose over whatever issue they can think of.

To put this a different way, the winner of the debate is the candidate who tells people where he or she stands on the issues that DON'T come up in the debates.

If you've explained your character, people will know how you stand on issues not discussed, and that should be the goal in a debate.

I think Bush did a better job at that then Gore or Kerry.

When you don't do a great job of explaining your charater and beliefs, then it's easier for the other side to spin you as something you're not.

The people I've talked to who supported Bush want revenge. They don't want security, or justice or anything that would make sense, one nation to another. They wanted to kick the crap out of somebody for 9/11, and use the excuse of "national security" to justify it.

It's morally repugnant.

the Republican mindset exactly. They are dominated by thoughts of revenge. Not just against some Arabs over 9/11. They want to punish nebulously defined "liberals" for Janet Jackson's breast on TV. They want to punish women for their sexuality, and for exercising control over their fertility. They would rather punish a criminal than prevent a crime in the first place.

Sometimes I despair that this country will ever find its moral compass again.

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

Kerry did see that National Security was the issue. That's why he played the war hero part at his convention.

And then the right wing media which owns 90% of the radio and tv airwaves *took it away from him*. Kerry was thought of as strong on defense, a leader, and tough. Then the swiftboats came, aided by the right wing corporate media. Kerry never recovered in the polls, or his image.

See, you guys keep thinking it's this one magic issue, lol. That if we just foucs on this issue more we will win next time. Not quite. Not even close. Not as long as the media is controlled by the GOP.

And what's with the "you guys"? Tell it to Dean and Frost. And the media is nowhere
as tame as it was in 2003. Yes, media is a big problem but to say that we can't do anything about it is nonsense. By nominating the best candidate in 2008 against the "soft on defense" meme is smart.

General Clark may not run in 2008. But it's good to see that all the DNC Chairs recognize that we need to do better than we did this year. Whoever ends up the nominee in 2008 better be as strong a candidate as possible to face Karl Rove.

The whole problem with your argument is you buy into the mem created by Rover , Limbaugh ans Hannity that national security is the main issue. Congratulations.

Hate to tell you, but we're fighting a two-front war in the Middle East and flying fighter recon planes over Iran in preparation for a possible three-front war.

Hide your head in the sand if you want, but at least Dean and Frost "get it" as well as every other DNC Chair candidate. Having CREDIBLE and CONVINCING national security creds in wartime are a must for any future Presidential candidate (especially if we are still fighting multi-front wars in the Middle East) and I'm glad the future DNC leadership understands this.

The mainstream corporate media didn't give Kerry a chance to explain his vast experience in national security (20 years in Foreign affairs among other experience). It was All Swiftboat Assholes All the Time.

Surely if Dean had been the nominee, they would have painted him as the governor of a small state with no national security or foreign policy experience.

If it was Clark, they would have painted him as some reckless general who got fired by Clinton.

Besides the obvious real reason behind the loss (BBV and Diebold), the media was too busy covering Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson or giving Bush a free ride than to actually offer any decent journalistic opinion.

Let's talk about the real reasons why...

by ignoring the SBV for far too long. It was not all the media's fault, though I fully agree that the media is a huge propaganda tool for the GOP. I saw it myself during General Clark's primary run. But it would be pretty hard to call the former Supreme
Allied Commander of Europe a wuss in the general election against AWOL Bush.

I don't want to go into what-ifs here about General Clark, though the American public would have heard about the 1.5 million Albanians he saved from genocide
and also how the Republican Secretary of Defense Cohen and his buddy Hugh Shelton got him canned behind Clinton's back (because they preferred their go-along-get-along fellow Republican Ralston for the job) for not letting those Albanians die as ordered. And Clinton sure as hell has come out in his autobiography saying that he was furious when he found out that Cohen and Shelton pulled a fast one.

Whatever.

I'm just glad that the future Democratic Party leader, whoever he may be, understands that the way the Democrats present themselves in 2008 on the issue of nationals security had better be vastly improved, both in substance and style.

attacked the DUers who were anxious about Team Kerry not addressing the smears, and were very very very nasty to us, still owe us an apology. But. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

but I didn't see anywhere in this thread that anyone is talking about Kerry not addressing the smears. Please keep to the topic of the thread. Doing otherwise just incites more conflict between groups on DU.

when will this myth finally die?????? it just keeps going around and around and around and ...

Dr. Dean, regardless of his original position on invading Iraq, now believes the U.S. MUST CONTINUE THE WAR ... you cannot be a "consistent opponent" when you now support continuing U.S. military operations ...

let's hope Dr. Dean gets on board with Senator Kennedy's call for withdrawal ... the anti-war effort would benefit greatly from his support ...

while he was not in favor of the unilateral attack on Iraq, he recognizes that school of thought that contends w can't pull out without a structured plan.

Kennedy has finally come on board with this, not the other way around.

i am not aware that Dean has called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq because bush's policies are making things worse there ... i'm not aware that Dean has called for withdrawal of some troops NOW and set an early 2006 timetable for the withdrawal of all troops ... perhaps i'm wrong, in fact I really hope you can show me I am, but I don't think Dean has shown any leadership on this issue since the invasion began ...

if you're aware of unequivocal statements Dean has made where he called for the withdrawal of American troops, please provide some links ... i'd be happy to read them ... but please don't make the crux of your documentation proof that Dean said we need a "structured plan" ... that's not calling for withdrawal ... no one, or at least no one I know, is advocating leaving Iraq with no planning at all ... calling for a structured plan is fine ... but calling for withdrawal because our military presence has failed and is making the situation worse is what is needed ... has Dean said anything like this ??

here are excerpts from Kennedy's speech ... i hope you read every one of them ... he is very clear and very specific ... this is not a bunch of vagueries about how "we're stuck there" ... i continue to support Dean for DNC Chair, but i'm extremely disappointed he's shown no leadership on Iraq ...

It is time to recognize that there is only one choice. America must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

We need to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, reach their own consensus, and govern their own country.

We need to rethink the Pottery Barn rule. America cannot forever be the potter that sculpts Iraq’s future. President Bush broke Iraq, but if we want Iraq to be fixed, the Iraqis must feel that they, not we, own it.
****************
Second, for democracy to take root, the Iraqis need a clear signal that America has a genuine exit strategy.

The Iraqi people do not believe that America intends no long-term military presence in their country. Our reluctance to make that clear has fueled suspicions among Iraqis that our motives are not pure, that we want their oil, and that we will never leave. As long as our presence seems ongoing, America’s commitment to their democracy sounds unconvincing.
************************
Once the elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the new Iraqi Government.

At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.
*****************
America’s goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early as possible in 2006.
*****************
The current course is only making the crisis worse. We need to define our objective realistically and redefine both our political and our military presence.
*****************
Error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Mindless determination doesn’t make a better outcome likely. Setting a firm strategy for withdrawal may not guarantee success, but not doing so will almost certainly guarantee failure. Casualties are increasing. America is tied down. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our capacity to respond to crises and threats elsewhere in the world has been compromised.
*********************
There is a wiser course we can take in keeping with the best in our heritage and history –a course that will help America, at long last, to regain our rightful place of respect in the world and bring our troops home with honor. Let’s take that course, and take it now.

I guess the subtle intricacies of "we need to formulate an exit strategy that will do as little damage upon our withdrawal as possible now" were lost on you.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the case.

calling for an exit strategy that does as little damage as possible is more-or-less the same gibberish the republicans have been peddling ...

richard perle has been "talking about withdrawal" too ... he's said repeatedly we can't withdraw until the Iraqis are strong enough to govern themselves ... is that about all Dr. Dean has to offer on Iraq ?? is this one of Dr. Dean's "Perle's of Wisdom" ??

subtle intricacies indeed ... there's nothing subtle about it ... unless you can provide some real documentation instead of just juvenile insults, Dr. Dean's position is that "WE ARE STUCK IN IRAQ" ... that's hardly calling for withdrawal ...

btw, do you support the statements Senator Kennedy made ??

Someone talking of withdrawal who advocated invasion or someone talking of withdrawal who never advocated invasion?

There's a bit of a difference there.

edited because I can't learn how to type after 30 years.

but the bottom line is that Dean has not called for withdrawal from Iraq unless conditions that will never be present are met ... Kennedy is right that things are getting worse ... Dean's argument that we can't leave if leaving will make things worse is not a viable option ... we would all like to leave the Iraqis with a stable country ... as long as the U.S. remains, that will never happen ...

and, btw, Dean DID ADVOCATE INVASION if Saddam refused to allow inspectors back into Iraq within 60 days ... and he advocated unilateral invasion if no other countries came on board ...

i have faith that Dr. Dean believes the war is wrong and that our military presence must end ... i believe he sees this ... at least i'd like to hope he does ... it makes it that much more wrong that he hasn't called for withdrawal ...

as i said, if someone wants to produce quotes from Dr. Dean to support the premise made by a poster above that Kennedy was following Dean's lead, I'd be more than happy to read them ... but absent some clear evidence, i consider the premise to be "groupie" gibberish ...

Wow, I must have missed that one.

leadership issue.

It's "How Tough Are You?"

Do you take shit from your opponents? Do you really BELIEVE what you say you believe? Can the people trust you not to waffle around?

I think you stated it very well.

That's why he surprised everyone at the first debate who assumed a Dem wouldn't tank in a national security discussion. He came out strong there, and that's probably where he gained the most, voter-wise.

The only one stronger on that issue in the race was Clark.

I guess what I'm saying is that we went into the 2004 election with this assumption, and that's why Kerry and Clark looked like strong candidates. The only way we are going to convince folks we are strong on national defense is when Bush falls flat on his ass in this regard. And when we get our message out that while they support the war but not the troops, that we support the troops, if not the war.

Of course, all of this assumes that John Kerry actually lost. I'm still in agreement with Karen Hughes, myself. Electoral landslide, bay-bee.

A lot of voters bought into the indecisive, weak, flip-flop Kerry meme.

Rove was very successful with that and we should learn from it.

Tom Hayden:

"The accurate perception that John Kerry is given to “flip-flopping”, or “nuanced thinking” if you will, was so magnified by Republican advertising that only 40% of voters thought Kerry said what he believed (unlike the President’s flat-out lies about weapons of mass destruction)."

So he says the flip-flopping is accurate and is then stunned that voters got that perception despite Bush's flat-out war lies. :eyes: With friends like that...

Other than a couple of lapses in logic like that one, this is a pretty good piece.

http://www.tomhayden.com/Lessons.html

It's about much more than any war hero running for president. It's about the whole party. It's about us.

Since the entire national security issue was built on a foundation of lies. Kerry lost because he tried to frame himself as a war hero, instead of challenging the legitimacy of chimp's crusade.

Total incompetence on all sides.

to challenge the legitimacy of chimp's crusade.

And that wasn't Clark's campaign theme.

His theme was a Higher Standard of Leadership and Security in the World, Security at Home (tax burdeons, social security protection, job-creation, etc.)

I take it you've never even bothered to read his position papers.

Will wonders never cease. :crazy:

with your premise. Regardless of how Bush used 9/11, or how he may have let it happen....9/11 was very real to most Americans. Therefore, you saying that the whole issue was built on lies does not compute.

The National Security issue was build on 9/11....and no matter how tightly we close our eyes, this is a fact, not a lie.

and to a lot of New Yorkers and they voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.
I did too and I would have even more readily voted for Dean if he had received the nomination.

is that the whole country votes--not just New York.

I understand your point, and I have made it myself about New Yorkers. The problem is that often it is those far away from the tragedy that becomes the most frightened.

To give you an example....here in the S.F. Bay Area, we had a large Earthquake where a Bay Bridge portion fell down to the bottom portion...(I'm sure most remember this). I live right across the Bay, and so I am very close. Well it turns out that the reporting that was done in the national media made the earthquake appear much more devastating than it really was. I realized that for ratings and whatever other reasons, the news tend to sensationalize occurrences, in particular, tragedies. Kinda of like the reporter looking for the most windy spot to stand in when reporting on a coming storm. My point is that 9/11 was real, hyped or otherwise....and many Americans took it very seriously (as we can see by all of the liberties we have allowed the government to take away from us).

When one talks of a lie and of 9/11....the point that is important is that 9/11 did happen../..and 9/11 is what made National Security an issue. That is just a fact. period.

values stoopid. Why is is so hard for people to admit we were right, wven while all the evidence points to it? Maybe during the next four years even the most hard heads will see the light. I ain't holding my breath though

Kerry took Dean's line that it was about domestic issues.

Wes Had DA LOCK on what the people were sayin. How can you have an economy if people are concerned about their security.

In four years he will still have no experience in office and his having been a general will be even more remote and irrelevant than it was in 2004.
Now matter how well you organize these the troops to hit the DU shores, from your super secret DU Clarkies site, Clark will never be a viable candidate for President because we are not a military dictatorship and military is the only experience Clark has.

This is the same article that you quoted in another thread, so it must be true. ;)

Show me where Clintons say they are "stop-Dean". I guess Harold Ickes endorsing Dean kinda blows that GOP-pushed conspiracy theory, considering Ickes WAS always called a "Clinton creature/Clinton ally/Clinton friend" ad nauseum around here.

Dean is a moderate. So is Frost. This is an obvious conclusion to moderates. The leaders in this Party understand the Big Picture. Why do you think Dean wanted Clark to be his VP (besides trying to stop Clark from entering the primary race)?
Just politics. Dean is no dummy.

Call up the reporter (the one you quoted about Frost) and ask him (I'm sure he has been attending the DNC Chair regional meetings) or contact Dean or go to the next DNC meeting in NYC this weekend and sit in just like this reporter probably did to hear it yourself.

It's a smart GENERAL consensus, which is why I am glad to hear it. :smoke:

Fortunately, we have Party moderates like Dean and Frost (not to mention Rosenberg, etcetera) who do "get it".

Stop hyperventilating. I am not a member of DU Clarkies, by the way. Nor do I frequent the DU Clark group here.

Can't anyone quote articles here without it degenerating into Clarkhating bashing? Are you a good representative of Dean's efforts to create DNC coalitions or to create a big tent for Democrats if he wins the Chairmanship?

Oh, and isn't it nice that Harold Ickes endorsed Dean today? I'm so glad about that,
aren't you? Nice to see that the leaders of this Party are forming working coalitions.
Too bad some in the grassroots aren't emulating Dean and Ickes.

They obviously live in a bubble and never go out and talk to real people who live in the Heartland.

What I find amazing is that they also bash the media and then turn around and believe everything the media wrote (or in Clark's case, didn't write, since they ignored him so much) about Clark.

:crazy:

especially when the DNC leadership including Dean and Frost and the rest of the pack, are obviously trying to heal and unite the Party and to form working coalitions with disparate wings of the Party so as to create a big tent.

I guess it's selective cognitive dissonance, not unlike Republicans who worship Bush.

Or it's deliberate.

in an internet cyberworld. But despite the myopia, most people in the real world :

a) don't know Clark from Schwartzkoff
b) wonder how their Social Security is going to come out
c) don't know Clark is alive or dead because they haven't seen him on TV.

I hope a lot of these internet commandos find a pursuit in the real world that is equally fulfilling......

<<Ding Dong>>
"Yes?"

"(ahem) Good afternoon, sir or madam, may i share with you the good news of our savior, General Clark?"

but despite the myopia, most people in the real world:

a) respect Heartland and Southern men who have grown up poor and served their country honorably in dedicated and decorated military service

b) are concerned about their safety against the same people who carried out 9/11

c) do not trust people who are career politicians and little else.

After all, didn't Dean want Clark to be his VP to "plug the hole in his resume"? Just shows you how smart a man Dean is. Too bad some of his supporters aren't as realistic.

The good news is that the Party has a Democrat named Wes Clark who has rock-solid national security credentials as well as top experience in the executive branch as SACEUR. Whether or not he ever runs for office again, that is a net sum gain for this Party.

Duh.

Get Clark in the news. Encourage him to speak out against Gonzales. He said ZIP about Condi. He's said ZIP about the DNC Chair.
Google "General Clark" in tne News section. You get zero results. Same with Yahoo. I don't need DU to justify my existence; I have real world activities that produce results.

You can post about him daily at DU but unless you guys take this to the real world, you're accomplishing nothing.

Thank goodness the Clarkies I work with in the real world see wha tthe goal is. Beacuse many at DU don't.

he did appearances on Joe Scaraborough, Hardball, Fox and CNN all within the last couple of weeks. Plus he was in the Middle East a few weeks ago.

See here the videos (he talked about Gonzales at length during the Hardball segment). http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html

it sure doesn't help with the Google or Yahoo or AP news search.

I like Wes Clark, but his actions are not those of someone who wants to remain in play.

The only place he's running for anything is on DU as a favorite poster boy.

that would qualify as far as you're concerned, but that's OK. No one is asking you to support him, but a wee bit of tolerance for the people who do support him would be appreciated. Mutual respect is a great way to win people over to your point of view.

Clark supporters have been bending over backwards to say supportive things about Dean and have mostly gotten spat at in the face for their troubles. I don't know whether or not the spitters think that's an effective way to promote party unity, or whether they think it will win more support for Dean, but it doesn't seem to me to be likely to have either effect. I'd be genuinely curious to know your thoughts on this question.

but I doubt whether Clark would approve of it.

He's doing alot on the local level to help state Dem parties raise money, as he is in Dallas soon.

And getting media facetime is important and if you paid attention you'd know instead of making wrong assumptions.

Google is not the be all and end all of name/face recognition.

His presidential ambitions are over.

or are you hoping that's so?

Try a news google for "Wesley Clark" (instead of "General Clark" since the media seldom leave out his first name, and after the first mention, revert to just "Clark") and you'll find pages and pages of entries.

Or watch the evening cable news shows. He's been on more than once a week on average since the election. And yes, he has spoken out against Gonzoles, on Hardball. And against Condi live in DC a couple weeks ago. And he'll be speaking in PA next week, and in TX the week after, and later on in Feb in MN at a veterans meeting.

So get a little informed before you start spouting stuff you apparently know nothing about.

between the time he spends here on DU and the time he spends on that other site. Sort of wish some people would go out and do something in the real world instead of just hanging around on the internet.:shrug:

You obviously don't know Capn's story.

about what others are doing in their real lives. That was really the point I was making with that post, although I admit the point may have been lost on its intended recipients.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1542399&mesg_id=1544567&page=

for the point that I was actually trying to get accross in the one you responded to. My point was that no one should be making presumptions about what other people do in their offline lives on the basis of their online activities, which is what he was doing in an earlier post.

There's no reason to simply assume that Clark supporters who post alot are not active in other ways, while Dean supporters who post alot are, which is what Cap'n appeared to be implying in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1542399&mesg_id=1542920&page=

I'm sorry that I was so clumsy in trying to make that point.

And I didn't look.

He spoke out very forcefully against Gonzales two weeks ago on Hardball before anyone in Congress. If you want to see his many recent media performances, let me know and I'll send you to a great website. He's been on Paula Zahn and Scarborough Country this past week. And he weighed in on the DNC Chair in yet another Hardball interview. If you'd like, I can make sure I alert you when he's on the media.

Stop being so patronizing. Nothing you are saying has not occurred to the rest of us and of course, you are right about the publicity aspect. But he's not made of money unlike some politicians who hire bloggers and/or publicists to promote them. Even if General Clark doesn't run in 2008, he is a gift to raising the profile of this Party beyond the hippie-yippie yuppie image we have for many Americans.

You have no idea what I do or other Clarkistas do in our brick-and-mortar lives, also, so refrain from further nasty asides.

He said "NO," didn't he? You'd think that would have pleased you, but there is no pleasing this happy band of Clark-bashers.

He has spoken out against Gonzalez.

As for television, maybe you don't have one? He's on television two or three times a week speaking on a range of issues, from the Iraqi elections to world disaster relief to Democratic Party values, and consistently against Bush policies.

He's addressing a Dallas Democratic group in two weeks, if you think maybe talking to Democratic Party members and helping them raise money for Democratic work on the local level is a good idea.

Let's see, what else should Clark be doing? Oh, yeah, maybe he should be speaking out against Condi, too, maybe he is and I don't know about it. Maybe he's trying to catch a fucking breath. What else would you like him to be speaking out against that he's not? Make a list.

I understand you don't appreciate the man, but why do you post this inaccurate information? If you don't know what you're talking about, which apparently you don't, maybe hold back on your comments.

Could it be you don't have the slightest idea, unless they are Clarkies who have joined DFA in its important work, what the fuck Clarkies do in the real world?

You can't find anything on Yahoo, so it doesn't matter. Transcripts aren't on Yahoo, generally speaking.

You are the only one doing anything other than posting on DU, all Clarkies do is post on DU.

Back that up, you don't fucking know us, and I see you spend quite a bit of time here, as well. The only reason I find myself posting about Clark in the GDP is because it seems that if his name is mentioned, god forbid, as a possible candidate in '08 (among many others) he is always under attack. Most of our posts are simply defending the guy, I guess that annoys you as well. Too fucking bad.

There is no winning here, if we post something about Clark, we are useless fangirls who don't do anything except worship Clark. If don't post anything, he is still bashed around, and then if we defend him, we are troublemakers.

I guess some people just want us to go away. Newsflash: this is a public forum, and we have as much right to be here as anyone else and post about whoever we damn well please without apology.

Here is part of the transcript, btw.

CLARK: How can the American people have confidence in a man like Gonzales after what he‘s written for the president of the United States? He‘s basically said the Geneva Convention was irrelevant. He basically said that torture is something that‘s very limited, that you could be in terrible pain and that you still wouldn‘t be being tortured.

MATTHEWS: Yes. He said we could have cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.

CLARK: And not have it be torture.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: And Mr. Gonzales has basically said the power of the presidency is unlimited and he can do anything he wants.

How can we feel confident as Americans that we‘re living under the rule of law when the attorney general has violated what we believe to be the law?"




CLARK: This is what we believe in.

We—look, we fought for the Geneva Convention. It was put in place to protect our soldiers, our values and our institutions.

MATTHEWS: Right.

CLARK: We can‘t win the war on terror if we give up what we stand for as the American people.

MATTHEWS: Would you testify against Gonzales on the Hill if they asked you?

CLARK: Well, I would testify against anybody who wrote those kinds of things. I don‘t know Gonzales personally. But how he could have written these documents is outrageous.

Nice transcript quotes.

:D

and why so worried about him? He's not a factor, why even bother to make so many posts about him?:shrug:

that Democrats are weak on defense and security, "loathe the military," placate enemies, etc... It's worked for over thirty years now. You KNOW it's effective when the worst national security disaster in our history occurred on the watch of a chickenhawk administration, and yet people still voted for these failures over a genuine war hero.

I agree that if we can't get beyond the fear factor, the party's other positions won't carry much weight.

The idea of electing a general, or a military man in general, as President of the United States has had an enduring popular appeal. Including America's first president, General George Washington, the United States has had 12 generals (including two who served in state militias), five colonels, three majors, four lieutenant commanders, three captains, four lieutenants, and one private as president. That's a total of 32 military veterans (31 officers) out of 36 Presidents, or nearly 90 percent of the total. Strikingly, every single president elected during the Cold War, a time of war and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, had previously been an officer in the U.S. military. And now, after a decade of peace and prosperity, we are, de facto, at war again.

For Democratic presidential candidates in an era of war and terror, military experience may prove to be crucial, because for years now -- justifiably or not -- Democrats have been widely perceived as far weaker than Republicans on national security matters. In times of peace and tranquility, this might not have mattered very much. Bill Clinton, for instance, was elected in 1992 (and reelected in 1996) shortly after the Cold War ended, despite having dodged the draft in Vietnam. In times of war like the present, it's a different story.

It may be as much a matter of perception as reality, but after 9/11, in the midst of war (against terror, Iraq, and possibly North Korea and Iran) and economic tough times (unemployment 6.4 percent in June, its highest level since 1994), Americans today rightfully feel anxious and vulnerable. They crave security, both against being killed by terrorists as well as against losing their jobs, their pensions, and their health care. Today, Americans are yearning for a president who can protect and reassure them in these fundamental areas.
http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html

Why would didn't frame this as a FAILURE of the Bush administration to keep us safe has always haunted me.

It might help, but they are compromised, either by their complicity, or by leadership which has adopted the same loathing of Democrats that Republicans promote.

:eyes: ... well, fine ...

... otherwise, "the Democratic nominee in 2008" probably will be served well by establishing Democratic state Secretaries of State far-and-wide, plus establishing extensive state and local control over the voting mechanism.

The DNC, if it's going to be a serious player (regaining rank and file trust) should strengthen the grassroot level (decentralize) away from inside the Washington, DC, beltway and the $1000 plate affairs which leave so much of our blood 'outside'. It needs to populist-ize ... be more of a democrats.com vs. democrats.org ...

The Republican Machine certainly will be expanding its grip ... it seems to operate much like the ol' Virginia 'one party' Byrd Machine ... http://www.virginiaplaces.org/government/byrdorg.html ... Harry F. Byrd, Sr., controlled everything down to the local court house level ...

2004, like 2000 ... (and, re certain Senate races in 2002)
there was no loss
that's just perpetuating the Big Lie
but, guess they've gotta blame it on something else by playing the game by the Big Lie's rules


economic populism will be 'up' as an issue in 2008 - imo

And the media called him "nuts" for it. :eyes:

So far, all the stuff Wes predicted that the media called insane has come true. Too bad we can't make them eat that shit sandwich.

I thought it was the lack of a spine.

One of the reasons I liked Clark early on (and signed the draft petition) was because I saw him having a healthy spine.

But, you're correct. Most of the Dems today are just backbending into several unnatural positions for the GOP.

help please by pointing out where precisely in the article does it state that Howard Dean specifically says, or agrees, that "John Kerry lost in November because the Democrats were unable to persuade voters that they could be trusted with America's national security".


Dean vs. Frost


The commentary's statement that "There's a general consensus among the candidates that John Kerry lost in November because the Democrats were unable to persuade voters that they could be trusted with America's national security." appears to be the author's (Tim Grieve) projection ... unless there's a Dean quote or similar which I missed.

thx.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/28/dnc/print.html

I am not the reporter. He seems to have followed the candidates' around the country and listened to them during their regional forums. Considering Salon.com
is clearly a leftwing website, I doubt whether the reporter is perpetrating some GOP meme.

Dean is an avowed moderate and so is Frost and Rosenberg and Fowler, etc.
I don't see how this is so hard to believe. This is in line with how Party moderates think.

BTW, please show me where the Clintons specifically say they are behind a "Stop-Dean" campaign. I've seen that alot lately and have never seen it pointed out precisely in any article as a specific quote.

More directly, it is more than policy. It is clearly not what actually makes us "safer", it is what makes us "feel safer".

Bush has not actually made us any safer. If anything, he has put us at more risk.

Here is what the repugs do right. They "believe" in simple ideas that are easily framed and then "fight" for them. With this tactic they gain the image as "fighters".

We, on the other hand, intellectually analyze, and seek negotiated or nuanced solutions to the actual problem. While this in fact is a better approach and would, if ever implemented, actually make us "safer", it is difficult to sell. People simply trust a "fighter" to protect them more than they do a "thinker".

Clearly, if the people were looking for a "thinker", Kerry would have won in a landslide. People were actually looking for a "fighter".

While we were stunned when Bush all but jumped on the debate moderator, I rather expect that many of his supporters were impressed.

It was not that Bush had a better plan, the majority actually doesn't approve of his plan. It is the character of a "fighter" that won the day.

It was the same with Clinton. If all Clinton had was a better plan, he would have lost. Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski would have sunk him. Clinton had the unique combination of the character of a commoner with the intelligence of a leader. He connected with people emotionally and by that I mean more than just the interns...

People paid to analyze elections have a tendency to go too deep. If people were thinking at any depth, Bush would have stood no chance of ever being President.

It is the image, not the policy.

I agree with your view of it. That's why when some in the Democratic party look for a candidate that is "safe" in terms of how that person might get smeared....they just don't get it, IMO. It's about running someone with balls, who can take the smears and make them work to enhance and not diminish whatever image he/she wants projected. That's why Clinton's womanizing smears during the 1992 campaign didn't hurt him.....because he allowed it to play into his persona of a charismatic "John F. Kennedy" type.

the leap of logic that Clark fans make that being a General gives you some kind of super human ability to be "security guy" is where they fail. The message needs to be party wide philosophy, not canned in one miracle guy.

It's like everyone forgets Kerry ran as a decorated war veteran, and was blown out of the water. General Clark can pose with his stars all he wants, but the public embrace many feel is a gimmee will not be forthcoming unless he has a track record of doing something and a message that is different from the fear mongering of the Republicans. "Big Daddy Wes will keep you safe" just doesn't resonate sufficiently to matter.

The security issue needed to be finessed with a CLEAR BOLD ALTERNATIVE and it's own framed language to counter the images evoked by the hellish attacks of 9-11. This isn't about one "savior" who was a weak primary candidate, this is about taking the rose colored glasses off and moving the party to a better place, which is different enough from the Republicans to make a difference in the minds of the American people. With the strategy borrowed from Howard Dean of pointing out the actual lack of accomplishment by the Bush regime and their failure to actually protect us(and that we were no better off with Saddam captured), after all) Kerry had the right idea at the end - but it was too late.

One of these days we'll learn how to run a campaign.

And came in third after Kerry and Dean in NH. He came in second on mini-Tuesday to Kerry in wins.

This despite Kerry and Edwards getting all the tsunami of media hype from their Iowa wins.

I'd like to see any other man in the US do as well from a standing start in September 2003 after everyone else had been organizing for 18 months
already. And he raised more money for the month of December 2003 than
ANY OTHER CANDIDATE,after being in the race for only 3 months. Let's see,
how were other candidates doing three months after declaring their
candidacies?

What strategy borrowed from who? Puhleeze. You obviously don't know much about the man you are so quick to bash. General Clark was speaking out against Bush and his war plans since February 2001. Please read this before you further embarrass yourself with attributing everyone's strategy to your savior:

CLARKÕS CONSISTENCY OF VIEWS ON IRAQ

If you will take the trouble to read Clark's books (especially pages 456-461 of Waging Modern War) and his article "An Army of One?" (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html), you will see that his statements have not changed before, during, or after the war.

Also check out his testimony in front of Congress in September 2002 at the House Armed Services Committee. The one where Richard Perle was so pissed-off he said this about General Clark:

"<Clark> seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... ÊSo I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

~ Richard Perle, Iraq war-mongerer, before Congress on Sept. 26, 2002

Guess what???

1.5 million Albanians whose lives were saved from genocide do consider General Wes Clark their savior.

That's the real world.

and it pretty much sums up why I think Clark would be our party's best bet to take back the whitehouse in 2008, should he decide to run.

reason why we have to look at Chimp Boy for 4 more years. Fear in itself...whether it was fear of terrorists; fear that we would desert Iraq after making a mess; fear that Gay people would make you gay.....fear was definitely the GOP's calling card. Now that they know this well, and they know how well it works, they will certainly continue to use this calling card for as long as they can. Considering the mass of dumbasses that we have residing in this country....that will be for a good long while; including the next two elections.

John Kerry had National Security experience, but was still made to look weak by the GOP and the Corporate media. When one is portrayed as being indecisive, it's very hard to invoke trust that the right decisions will be made when a crisis calls for it. John Kerry certainly didn't help alleviate those fears by first saying he would still have voted for war knowing what he knew now....and by hesitating to defend himself against those Tidy Bowl Vets (since he knew that they were going to come out from the woodwork prior to his getting the nomination). It also didn't help, in my opinion, that he stayed away from the Election discussion, because again, I believe that he failed to take the opportunity to show leadership. Leadership means doing the hard thing, and at times taking risks. Kerry chose not to do this in reference to Ohio.

I think that for the next couple of elections, we can bet on seeing a repeat of these GOP Fear tactics used to scare the voting masses into putting their trust into the Republican party in the question of defense. Whether they will do it with an impending threat of war (toward Iran or Syria), or by working up some kind of "stand off" or crisis (N. Korea maybe), they will set the stage so that their one known strength can be maximized. Bush will be in the White House during the next two elections, so I believe that his minions will get to call the shots as to what the important issues will be, short of something occurring that is beyond their control.

Whether General Clark will run again is a question in my book. But even if he doesn't, I hope that Democrats don't get silly....suffer amnesia and forget the lessons of both the 2002 and the 2004 elections.

Many said that "9/11 changed things"...while others couldn't figure out what had truly changed. I have observed (and obviously so have Dean and Frost) that what truly changed was the whole f*cking landscape of what's important in the life for many Americans. They have been told that their security is priority over all other issues....and enough have bought into that and seriously believe it...and will vote to reflect that belief.

So when I see posts favoring candidates in 2008 that have no National Security credentials or hardly any (beyond sitting in a committee in a chamber somewhere), I shake my head. When I see politicians with docile personalities being considered on a national ticket....I start to wonder if we are going to ever "get it"..... When I see some Democrats trying to come up with someone "safe" (as" in cannot be smeared") to support, I understand how some folks' analysis is just wayward in scope. It's not just about what experience the candidate has, but also a question of whether he is going to be a tough son or daughter of a gun. Being tough means leading. Being tough means having lived. That is to say, a no nonsense character who has the experience is possibly the only thing that might do it.

I hope that Democrats will realize that we no longer live in 1992. What was important then has changed. What some miss is that whatever "manipulation via propaganda" occurred in our country, it doesn't change the fact that terrorists did hit this country on 9/11....regardless of why, or regardless of whether it could have been prevented. That is a real event that occurred....an event that people felt, saw, heard, experienced and cried about. It is too real to them and for any of us to believe that 9/11 didn't have a very serious impact on the mentality of many of our citizens, we would just be fooling ourselves....

As activists, we must take this knowledge and use it to our benefit. Maybe someday, Security and soothing fears won't be the most important issue...and if Democrats get into office, maybe we will be able to change that....but until then, I think that we will have to face the GOP on it's turf. And admittedly, not matter how much we may dislike it.....National Security is currently the strength of the Republican Party. I wish it wasn't so....but my wishing won't change it.

PS: Please note that I will not make the mistake of confusing National Security with Military experience....as they are not the same thing....although some have consistently treated them interchangeably. John Kerry certainly had Military experience, and that is mostly what we heard about during the campaign. What we didn't hear much about, at all, was John Kerry's credential in the National Security area. It just wasn't discussed to my recollection. We got stuck in a 40 year time warp...and when all was done, many still didn't know what was so great about John Kerry that would keep us safe today.

it would take them to figure that out!

hmmmmmm.
Maybe slightly larger thinking is in order.

suggestions?

We haven't had a Senator elected in how many years? Since JFK? Every time, they go after the voting record, the longer the better, and make hay of it. It makes it that much more difficult, imho.

I understand some people believe elected office is important; in that case, success is more likely with a governor, at least. A Senate voting record is never a help in a campaign.

country don't forget. That isn't something anybody should learn on the job.

Anyway you think Clark wouldn't get flip-flopped on his party affiliation, for example? It's pretty much standard-issue GOP slime.

I'm speaking in terms of the campaign, not the ability to do the job.

(And in the general election, no, I don't think Clark's having been an independent would be a negative, and could even be a positive to many voters. I think it's the primary where that's a challenge.)

Mark Warner is one name that's been mentioned, though; Bill Richardson is another. :shrug:

I'm not sure being a veteran is absolutely necessary either, if there were some other national security, foreign relations, defense or diplomatic type of experience.

Don't ask me if Warner or Richardson have that, either -- I don't know.

I'm just saying. It's easier to run somebody who's not been a Senator than someone who has. It's easier to run a veteran than somebody who isn't; easier to run a southerner than a northerner... In the likely event there's no perfect candidate, we can argue about how it all weighs out. But a Senate voting record is NOT a plus.

(Again, I'm speaking purely of the campaign itself, not the person's ability in office.)

is how would he respond. That is the test. All candidates are going to be attacked....so that is not the issue.

I can think of a very simple answer that would neuter that entire meme really quickly in a General election. Do you know how many Reagan Democrats, that are still voting Republican today? All that Clark would have to do is compare himself to Reagan in reference to switching from being an independent to a Democrat (remember that he was never a Republican).

Also the fact that many in the military service would understand the issue of any of their own not choosing a party affiliation while serving Commanders-in-Chief of various party. What Wes Clark did was the rule, not the exception. The only uniqueness about what he did...was that he chose the Democratic party once he retired, as opposed to choosing the Republican party.

Clark's problems in the primaries always stemmed from the fact that most of his perceived flaws during a Democratic primaries....were actually issues to his advantages during a general election.

"most of his perceived flaws during a Democratic primaries....were actually issues to his advantages during a general election."

I could not agree more!

Anyway you think Clark wouldn't get flip-flopped on his party affiliation, for example? It's pretty much standard-issue GOP slime.

Setting aside the idea that Clark "flip-flopped" his party (since he was never a Repub, that'd be hard to do)...

Rove isn't stupid. He was hawking the "Clark is a Repub" meme to Democrats during the primaries (with the help of other Dem candidates), but he KNOWS it wouldn't hurt Clark in the GE. Would in fact win him a bunch of independent and moderate Repub support. So no, you're wouldn't hear that one from the GOP noise machine.

Besides, Repubs have always been smart enough not to care about party credentials. Reagan was a Democrat. Ike didn't declare a party until a month before hist first primary. Both were welcomed into the GOP.

Repubs care about winning, not how long a winner has been in their party. Gee, and we wonder why they win more.

a veteran equates to National Security credentials exclusively. A soldier learns how to shoot, how to be disciplined, how to execute order. National Security is more a matter of strategic reasoning, planning, understanding our infrastructure, diplomacy, history, etc....

Personally I have another thing in mind, but that's me.
Maybe I 'm just out of sync with America, but I cringed when Kerry "reported for duty," and I would cringe if another campaign focused so much on a military stance.
I've got a couple of reasons for that.
One, I think this catches us in a framing issue in Lakoff's sense and virtually guarantees a loss in the election. When Kerry reported for duty I had a gut feeling the election was lost at that very moment. Maybe that's not the reason he lost, but I think it is a factor that needs to be seriously contemplated.
My second reason is that I am very wary of the militarism in our country (not the military, the militarism and its possible slippery slope into nationalism and jingoism -- a slippery slope that is going on right now) & I don't think intentionally focusing on that in the way that running a general would inevitably focus on that is the way to go.
Whatever the eminent qualifications and decency of Clark, I think that having him as the presidential candidate would bring us into this realm.

Let me be very clear, this is not a bash on Clark.

I had that same feeling when Kerry "reported for duty". I kinda thought that it was rather lame. Having the credentials of having been a veteran 40 years ago should not have been the emphasis of the 2004 Democratic convention (bad decision IMO). I also had that sinking feeling when the Democrats allowed the media and the GOP to instruct them on what we could and could not say at our convention.

Of course I disagree with your apprehension of running a General. We have had 12 General as presidents in our history....so the paranoia is ill founded. Further, the last General/President that was elected in the US ended a war, not started one. In addition, that same President warned us about the Military Industrial complex. Of course, General Clark is no Eisenhower.....but then, that's probably a good thing. And as you see, one need not be in the military to go down the slippery slope that you've just described...as you are absolutely right....it took a dimwitted Governor from Texas to get us rolling that that slope you are so concerned with.

...room to anti-imperialists to form governments which helped people who worked for a living accumulate economic and political power.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Eisenhower+Iran+Dulles+Roosevelt+Iraq+Truman&btnG=Search

in that google link and you also get some interesting stuff.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Eisenhower+Guatemala+Dulles+Roosevelt++Truman&btnG=Search
But I'm sure you knew that already.:)

some google results....so it's hard for me to understand what you want me to read that would have me conclude anything about this reversal by Eisenhower of Truman's policy.

In my opinion, Eisenhower, a Republican, was not a great President, but he wasn't a bad President. I give credit for the good and take it away for the bad. However, your point is lost on me, as Wes Clark is not Eisenhower's clone anyway.

On Eisenhower's Presidency:

On the Korean War that was started under Truman, only after Eisenhower, who was a war hero and was unafraid of Republican criticism, became President, could the US make substantial concessions to the Communists. In 1953 a peace treaty was signed at Panmunjom that ended the Korean War, returning Korea to a divided status essentially the same as before the war.

He did reluctantly send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas after Governor Orval Faubus attempted to defy a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the desegregation of all public schools.

Eisenhower did not take a public stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist campaigns. Privately he held McCarthy in contempt for the senator's attacks on his friend and World War II colleague, General George Marshall, Secretary of State under Truman. He stated "I just won't get down in the gutter with that man". This was little comfort to the many people whose reputations were ruined by McCarthy's allegations of Communist conspiracies. Later, it was revealed that Eisenhower worked behind the scenes to bring Joe McCarthy down.

Eisenhower endorsed the United States Interstate Highway Act, in 1956. It was the largest public works program in United States history, providing a 41,000-mile highway system.

He presided over a 20% increase in family income during his presidency.

He added a tenth cabinet position, creating the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and achieved a balanced budget in three of the years that he was President.

Eisenhower warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military-industrial complex...Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhower had mixed feelings about his Vice President, Richard Nixon, and only reluctantly endorsed him as the Republican candidate at the 1960 Presidential election. Nixon campaigned against Kennedy on the great experience he had acquired in eight years as Vice President, but when Eisenhower was asked to name a decision Nixon had been responsible for in that time, he replied (intending a joke): "Give me a week and I might think of something." This was a severe blow to Nixon, and he blamed Eisenhower for his narrow loss to Kennedy.

Eisenhower appointed the following Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States:
Earl Warren - Chief Justice - 1953
John Marshall Harlan II - 1955
William J. Brennan - 1956
Charles Evans Whittaker - 1957
Potter Stewart - 1958

A recent poll of historians rated him number eleven among all the Presidents.

I consider that placement too high....personally.

We just need someone who is confident and sure when discussing national security. Biden is good at it, but it's hard to trust him since he drank the war koolaid.

Unfortunately, there's a reason all the shows put Biden on when they need a Democrat to talk about foreign relations -- there aren't any others! I think Kerry could have done a good job on this under normal circumstances, but he got pinned by his war vote and had to speak carefully instead of clearly.

There are a few out there, but they have to overcome the presumption of superiority that the Repubs have on the issue. It won't be easy, but it is necessary.

around: Throw someone up there with military experience to hide behind, and that'll solve all our problems.

That is an EXTREMELY simplistic way of looking at things- and look at where it got us last time. There's a lot more to this than just putting up military people.

it's not the military service..it's the National Security experience, stupid (not meant to be taken personally).

40 years ago military service does not National Security experience make.

for years and years, right?

Lotta good that did him.

You're just missing the point. It's not about "credentials." People don't vote CREDENTIALS. They vote for who they AGREE with, for who presents the best argument and the best leadership.

It may not have put him in the White House, but it didn't hurt. He's very knowledgeable about foreign policy on every level, partly because of that experience, I'd imagine.

I think a candidate does need some solid experience and knowledge; I just think we should think broadly about what kind of experience it could be. There's no one "President School" or set of credentials.

Many backgrounds could create someone who presents the "best argument and the best leadership, as you put it." I agree with you that that's important. But some type of credentials need to be there as well, imho.

But, in any case, look at the Chimp.

I rest my case. :)

discussing what others are doing becomes National Security credentials...but I guess it must.

But I do agree that it's the leadership. If John Kerry would have spoken about his experiences and his credential to illustrate good leadership, that would have helped. He sure didn't do it at the convention in a way that most got that message. Voters really didn't know what John Kerry had done in the Senate...and I don't think that he used many opportunity to let them know. Am I wrong about this?

Which is what I meant when I said that we needed to think larger.
Judging from the responses I got on that point I guess that people didn't catch my sarcasm or realize that thinking larger meant not running a veteran and hoping that was going to be some magic bullet.

instead try to frame things in a way that will help progressives win elections -- maybe democrats should try to tell voters why progressives are right about how the world and also be telling them what progressive values are and how they work to make people's lives better.

RFK almost certainly would have done it in '68, and how Gary Hart would have done it '84 had it not been for the scandle, and how Edwards did it in the primaries to go from nowhere to improving exponentially in the last 72 hours of every primary on the way to getting millions of voters to vote for him and millions more to say they wanted to see him as VP.

Yes, progressives talking about progressive values tends to help progressives get elected and do progressive things.

talk is not enough. It's putting forth an image of a strong leader with progressive convictions who people trust to keep them safe.

BTW, General Clark was the only 2004 primary candidate besides Kerry who won a state that was not his home state (very red red state of OK) and he came in second only to Kerry on mini-Tuesday (first in OK, strong second in AZ, NM, ND) as well as coming in third behind New England politicians Kerry and Dean. That's good for someone who'd only entered the race FOUR months earlier with NO organization or funds. But that's old history now.

We are fighting a two-front war that may very likely become a three-front war
if Bush has his PNAC way. Everyone knows that we need to reframe the debate much better, but the premise of this thread is that national security creds that Americans can have faith in is important and the DNC Chairs have a general consensus about this issue, which makes sense to me as someone who has friends who survived Ground Zero on 9/11.

protecting progressive values, the way FDR did.

FDR didn't sell himself as a strong leader who kept America safe in frightening world because we knew how to wage a modern war.

FDR explained to people the difference between a democratic economy and a fascist economy, kept reminding people that we were Democrats and not fascists, and that America was best when the labors of the working man were rewarded, and he told us over and over again not to give into fear.

By framing what he was doing in terms of progressive values, he won four elections and established social and political structures that worked brilliantly until 1974, and which then took another 30 years for Republicans to dismantle to the point that America is now in serious trouble.

We need a president who thinks less in terms of how to wage modern war and more in terms of how to articulate FDR's progressive values. Any Democratic victory in 2008 that results in presidency that doesn't have a mandate founded upon a promise to address the concerns FDR addressed will be Pyrrhic.

Remember "don't change horses in the middle of a stream"?

And that he advocated for intervention in WWII long before Pearl Harbor, and devoted a great deal of US resources in Lend-Lease and other programs to keep the British, Russians, and the resistance movements in France, Poland etc fighting?

You're selectively reporting FDR's platform and programs to prop up a bogus view of of his administration. And forgetting that the world became a very different place between 1932 and 1940.

that he was fighting "fascism" and that the way to win the war was to continue to protect a democratic economy and to protect the ability of the working man to get paid a fair value for his labor.

Before the war, he said that he was battling economic royalists at home. During the war, he barely changed the argument when he applied it to Nazis.

One of the reasons I supported Wes Clark so strongly was because that was precisely what I saw him doing. I'm glad to see that we're in such agreement on these basic issues.

They should be countering the fear. They should be presenting real, workable solutions for dealing with fearful situations that already exist.

Instilling fear is the repukes game.

when it came to National Security. It should have been child's play to point out Bush's failures, yet they didn't consistently say anything of substance. Most of them were praising Bush for a good job!!! Imagine!

They thought the solution was to create more nonsense layers of National Security

But he won IN SPITE of this.

He voted to give Bush discretionary authority to use force, period.

in that respect. His constant theme was that of holding the pResident accountable for his failures. For example, he was the only one who really talked about Bush being accountable for not doing everything that he could to prevent 9/11, and therefore bearing a level of personal responsibility for it.

He didn't just frame it terms of failure, but in terms of personal responsibility and accountability, using Truman's famous line.

It's too bad more people didn't get to hear him do that, since the media pretty much treated him like poison during his presidential campaign. He said the same things while campaigning for Kerry, but of course, the focus was off him by then, and Kerry and Edwards never really picked up the theme.

Every single one....anybody that says different is lying.

General Clark, however, was testifying in Congress against the use of force as early as September 2002 and came out publicly in print media against the the idea of waging war in Iraq as early as Feb. 2001.

Remember, this is the man who knew sooner than any other candidate that Bush was eyeing Iraq in the days after 9/11. Unfortunately, when he publicly came out and told people what he knew from colleagues at the Pentagon, he was ridiculed by the media. This even happened as late as the 2004 primaries.

He has written about it in his book, "Waging War," also.

Take Psych 1 at any American university.

And Americans need to get away from being cowed by the media and the Republicans.

This problem is much larger than who the Dems will nominate in 2008.

Kerry didn't use a populist message at all. Don't you think Karl Rove will come up with something just like the Swift Boat Vets group to smear Clark the same way they smeared Kerry?

The problem is that after his record as a war hero was smeared there wasn't much depth to what Kerry was offering. That wasn't a populist message and there wasn't a clearly articulated alternative course presented for Iraq. We'll have the exact same problems with Clark. After Rove smears his service in the military, what will Clark have to offer?

Emphasizing his few months of combat experience in Vietnam over 30 years ago is quite different than experience as the head of NATO, don't you think?

General Clark is the only person who had a clearly articulated course for Iraq. If you read his policy papers at http://clark04.com/issues/
you'll see that he was much closer to Kucinich than anyone else in terms of populist vision, but his being a four-star General cloaked him in
the guise of a moderate (the opposite effect is seen in the image of Howard Dean, as we have all seen).

As for Rove's smears, General Clark is no Kerry, either. At one aside to a veteran who was worried about the same thing, he said he'd "beat the sh*t out of anyone" who'd question his service to this country.

As for what more has he got to offer, this man graduated in accelerated pace with an honors Masters Degree from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics and taught in each field as a professor at West Point. He served in the White House Budget Office.

The mistake that many make is not looking beyond the stars on this General's shoulders. It's political typecasting. Wes Clark is very very unusual.

Before this year I was allergic to all things military. I was a Green. Ironically enough, it was my antiwar sentiment that got me reading about General Clark's strong opposition to this war in an article in 2002. Everything he said made sense and he was the ONLY
person saying it at the time. He also had alot to lose by saying it.
And he was demonized by the PNAC'ers ever afterwards for opposing them in Congress in 2002.

Period. Like it or not this is America. Face the facts.

Kerry lost because he once protested the Vietnam war. Even though two-thirds of Americans think the war should never have been fought, they'll never vote for a protestor. One of my biggest disappointments with Clinton is that he never spoke out when given the chance to say he didn't fight in Vietnam because he thought it was wrong.

The next presidential election should be fought over national security strategy.

All remaining vestiges of PNACers and neocons must be expunged from government at all levels.

over there taking hits in '08. If it's over, or if it's Vietnam II, it might not matter.

But it is wrong. They didn't trash Kerry because he was anti-war. They trashed him because he claimed to be "stronger on defense".
That is their turf and they are not ceeding to anyone. They had the swiftvet liars in reserve for just this sort of occasion.

Kerry's claim to be stronger on defense only baited them out. Run another war hero and you will get the same result.

You cannot out hawk these people. It is stupid to try. They are willing to make war with no tenable intelligence or rational causus belli for simple raw political advantage. You can't top this.

It is the same with taxes. You cannot out tax cut these people. They are clearly willing to cut taxes to and beyond the point of no return. To attempt to top them is completely absurd because there is no rational limit on how high they might bid.

A different paradigm is needed. Centrism is defined by this paradigm. They have learned how to beat "triangulation". There is no center to shift toward. To the extent you try, they will just move the "center" farther right.

plan is just to go in with a clear, consistent message, which is what Kerry tried to do with the convention ("reporting for duty"). It nearly worked and might have if his former primary oppenents had gotten behind him and not kept their "IWR vote" fires burning all through the whole campaign.

There are some very sore losers in this party and they share responsibilty for our loss in November.

Our party united behind Kerry. I don't recall any "former primary opponents" who "kept their 'IWR vote' fires burning all through the whole campaign." Am I forgetting something?

especially during the SBV debacle.

I recall every former primary opponent fighting hard for Kerry and the Democratic Party candidates around the country, some travelling on their own dime (General Clark, for example).

Maybe Kerry shouldn't have taken so many damn long vacations? And I don't say this in hindsight, I was thinking it at the time, too. Nobody can afford to take a vacation when facing off with the likes of Karl Rove. Hope our nominee in 2008 will press hard until the end.

told us we lost cause of moral values?

First: I don't think Kerry LOST!
Second: The Media was far too GOO-GOO about The Boy King IDIOT!
Three: Some Media actually GOT PAID... we don't know THAT whole story yet!!
Four: Far too many people simply listened to 5 second sound bites and said Okay, The Idiot! Those of us who actually knew the issues never would have voted for The Idiot, and didn't!

And again, Fraudulent Election #2!!! For me this will ALWAYS be front and center and we need to work hard to make the system WORK as it should. Tomorrow, elections in Iraq! FOR DEMOCRACY???? What about America?????

There is no doubt that having strong, in-your-face national security credentials are of vital importance in any future DNC candidate for President in order to neutralize the GOP strong-on-defense image.

In 2008, it will be much more important than in 2004 IMO because the mess in the Middle East will be even more of a quagmire. We can't be fielding candidates who have no real working knowledge of what's going on outside the borders of this country because Americans need to have a strong leader who they feel can keep their families safe.

Election reform is a huge necessity to democracy, but that is a separate issue from the thread subject. I understand what you're saying, though: GOP Republicans have signed a pact with the Devil.

Or its Jeb in 08.

--didn't the Dems take Will Pitt's article on the huge successes that Clinton had against terrorism, particularly breaking up the Millenium plot, and contrast that with the Republican failure on 9-11?

after 9-11 by acting "presidential" (when he finally got around to it) and photo-opping like a Hollywood wh*re, with help from Rove and Murdoch of course. So now the public thinks Chimp saved the day and refuses to believe otherwise. Watching Fox flash 9/11 pics ten times a minute helps.