Does Clark have any weak spots?

I know there is a Clark forum, but I wanted to post here to get a more varied response.

Well, if he does have any weak spots, what are they? I never saw any, and I am a very liberal Democrat. I kept waiting during the campaign for him to mess up or to reveal himself as a neocon. Never happened.

And you know what? He was likeable. I was so impressed with the man. I didn't support him during the primaries because I was a Kerry supporter almost from day one. I was familiar with Kerry at that point, and not Clark. But by the time Kerry was chosing his VP, I was rooting for Clark to be his choice.

I think he's great, and has great cross over appeal.

And...um...that's all I got.

Never mind. Obviously, he's not viable.:) How tall is he anyway?

I thought he was shorter than that. Like 5'7", 5'8"

I've stood next to him too. I'm 5'7" or so, was wearing 2-inch heels, and he was still taller than I.

Fwiw, national average for white males his age is 5'9".

D'oh!

Yikes.

Five feet, ten inches. (5'10"). Our tallest was Abe Lincoln at 6'4", and our shortest was James Madison at 5'4". Second tallest was Lyndon Johnson at 6'3". Dubya is 5'11", shorter than his dad by three inches.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-u-s-presidents-by-height-order

standing next to him and he's a full head taller than I am and I had about and inch and a half high heel. I'd say 5'8" at least.

And from standing next to him and talking with him, I can tell you he's dazzling!! Beautiful eyes and a smile and dimples that just don't quit.

Mary

:) Did you get to talk to him?

I actually thought him a bit short myself when I first met him...but he's got a big presence. He is, if folks will forgive me for saying it, very handsome in person. He makes you feel like what you're saying is the most important thing possible and that he really genuinely cares. He's got a twinkle in his eye and a gorgeous, welcoming smile.

I must admit that I was a bit intimidated at the thought of talking to him the first few times I met him. I'd just shake his hand and say, "Thank you for running, General"...but once I actually got the nerve to tell him something, he was so easy to talk to, so approachable, like you've known him all your life and can tell him anything. There is just such a genuine warmth and goodness about him...and a humility that I find rare in someone so accomplished.

I hope that's not too gushy....

Absolutely not. Thanks for the description, and I think I've sensed some of those qualities when I've seen him in unscripted moments. But, tell me, how did you get so lucky to meet him so many times? I met Kerry once, and he was also very charismatic and charming.

Well, I just don't want that Julie person who follows Clark threads around (or anyone else) taking a swipe at Clark or his supporters because I mentioned he's handsome with a great smile and so on.

As for meeting Clark, I don't know if all primary campaigns are this way, as Clark's is the only one I've ever been involved in, but it was great working on the Clark campaign in NYC. We got to see him many times. There were fundraisers and speeches and campaign events. The first time I saw him was when we were still trying to get him to run. He spoke at NYU and a bunch of us drafters set up across the street with signs and balloons and information sheets on Clark that we had made up and handed out to passersby. He came out after the speech to greet us briefly and I thought that would be the closest I'd get to him, but I was wrong.

There were a number of fundraisers during the campaign (I guess NYC has money :)). Every time he was in town for a speech or public event, word went out to the NY Clark people (most of us together since the draft) so whoever could attend would show up. There was an economic speech one early morning shortly after he announced in a little out of the way park that was really neat. Not a lot of people other than reporters there and I got to stand right behind the General...I even got on TV, looking kind of stupid, but still. :) A speech at Hunter college, the official Rangel endorsement announcement (one of my favorite campaign events), his appearance on Letterman, stuff like that.

One morning, I got up way early to meet him at a subway station in Queens, along with some other supporters, and walk with him to some Dem meeting. That was fun. And, once, when a number of us from Manhattan took the Staten Island Ferry to Staten Island to collect signatures to get Clark's delegates' names on the NY primary ballots, the General and his gracious wife Gert rode the Ferry back with us. Very cool, as it was December and very close to his birthday and we sang Happy Birthday to him when we got off the boat.

After he dropped out and formed WesPAC, there were a few WesPAC fundraisers in NY, a fundraiser for Charlie Rangel and one for Steve Brozac who was running for Congress. I don't think I actually said anything of substance to him until these events. I only forced myself to at the first one because I had promised my 3 year old Godson that I would tell the General he and his sister loved him and wanted him to come to PA so they could meet him....After that, I found it extremely easy to approach him.

Oh, and there was a discussion with Dana Priest about a month after he dropped out. There was a book signing afterwards and after the book signing, he stayed to meet with us who had volunteered and worked for his campaign. That was sweet and poignant.

As for Kerry, I did attend the one fundraiser in NYC, but there was such a long line to get in and security was so slow, by the time we got in, Kerry had just finished speaking and was working the crowd.
:( I did get to see him from afar in the big room and that was kind of exciting. From there he seemed charismatic and charming. :)

And that's more than you wanted to know, right? :)

I love first person accounts, and you are very good at making the reader feel as though they are experiencing it with you! I'm a lifelong Californian who has only been east of, say, Nevada, once in my life. I am envious of all the opportunities to be involved that you must have living in NYC, a place that seems as exotic to me as Paris. Not that I'm exactly a hayseed; I do get to San Francisco a few times a year. Wow. Clark sounds wonderful. Here's hoping you get to meet him again under similar circumstances!:-)

Aw, now, you’re encouraging me…Careful, I could go on all day about stuff like this. :)

I do hope you’re right about meeting him again under similar circumstances. I do miss having him here regularly. For some reason, I always just felt safer knowing he was in my city. He still slips in and out now and again, when he appears in studio on some TV shows and who knows what else but I liked having him here when I knew he was coming and could go and see him. It’s too bad that he was out before the NY primary because I have a feeling THAT would have been a lot of fun…Maybe next time. ;)

Here’s one more for you. Shortly after he announced, he participated in his first debate, which was held in NYC. We arranged a bit of a welcome party for him, with music, speakers, etc in a park downtown and he and Gert stopped by to say hi and shake hands. And then, after the debate, the DNC had a high priced fundraising dinner and a much more affordably priced after-dinner late night party (not really all that late, tho) across the lobby from the dinner in the same hotel. I could not begin to afford the dinner but did go to the after dinner thing. All of the candidates (who had all attended the high priced thing) were invited, but only Clark crossed the lobby to come and speak to us peons and to work the crowd with his wife. Al Franken spoke too but didn’t work the crowd. Very cool. The General was mobbed, yet he took his time with everyone.

And, back to the Kerrys, the weekend before the election through election day, I went to PA to work with ACT. That Monday a bunch of volunteers got to hear Teresa speak but I was giving an orientation to some election day drivers so I missed it which was too bad because I love Teresa. I heard she was very warm and friendly and everyone who was there just fell in love with her. I guess I just wasn’t meant to see the Kerrys speak.

As for east coast-west coast, I haven’t been further west than Chicago…and even that was a very brief stop. I bet your weather’s a lot better than ours right now….and you’ve got Wes Jr over there and he’s no slouch. ;)
Finally, here’s something in Vegas, in case you’re going to Nevada for St. Pat’s. :)

FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER WESLEY CLARK TO SPEAK AT UNLV MARCH 17

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired four star general, and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark will present “War and the Media,” as part of the UNLVCSUN Spring Lecture Series on March 17 at 7 p.m. in Artemus W. Ham Concert Hall at UNLV.

The lecture is free and open to the public.

During his presentation, Clark will draw from his extensive military and political career to offer insight into current military conflicts around the world and their implications. He will also speak of the pivotal role international and military strategies play in the increasing presence of American business in the global market.

Clark retired as one of the nation’s most highly decorated military officers since President Eisenhower, reaching the position of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, where he led a unified force to victory in the alliance’s first major combat action. As commander of NATO’s forces during the Kosovo conflict, he was instrumental in saving more than 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing without a single Allied casualty.

Among his many military decorations, Clark has been awarded five Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and the Purple Heart. In August of 2000, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, for his outstanding service and leadership.

In September of 2003, Clark entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and commanded national attention as a voice for positive change, solid policy agendas, and principled leadership.

Clark is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

As the student government for UNLV undergraduate students, the mission of UNLVCSUN is to enhance the college experience by offering necessary services, awarding leadership, service and academic scholarships, planning and implementing activities and programs, presenting academic and culturally enriching lectures, and serving as the voice of students to the university as well as local and state governments .

UNLVCSUN’s lecture series, funded through student fees, brings credible national politicians, filmmakers and dignitaries to UNLV.

http://www.unlv.edu/News_Bureau/News_Releases/2005/March05/5339.htm

I met him last February in New Hampshire. I'm 5'8" and he was no taller than me.

But he has a very firm handshake.

I'm the same height, I have a picture shaking hands with him. We're even at least and he might be a fraction taller.

If this is what passes as "a problem" with our next nominee we win in a landslide.

General Clark has a very impressive background. We're lucky to have him out there giving his candid opinions as the fine general he is. I would like very much to see him play a major part of any future administration.

There is no way he's 5'10" - my brother is 5'10" and was clearly taller than Clark when they met.

Because 10 has two digits and 9 or 8 one, the gap between 5'9" and 5'10" is way more in people's minds than the one between 5'7" and 5'8". This is no different than someone 5'10" or 5'11" claiming that he's 6'0."

There is no freaking way Clark is 5'10".

historically and all.

Perhaps you should take another bite at the apple and come up with some of the war criminal nonsense and starting wwiii cannards. Not that anyone here has heard them before.

:D

Among many other things, he was the SACEUR. Supreme Allied NATO commander. As such he effectively ran the large military presence, while fighting for their medical and other benefits.

Duh.

There is NO part of government that Clark wasn't involved with in some capacity during his military career.

Besides, being military is only "a weakness" for a VERY tiny percentage of voters. For the majority, is a great advantage.

He was also responsible for many domestic issues in the military, such as schools and health care.

but in many ways his experiences were the equivilent of being the governor of a small state, or the mayer of a large city. Apart from just being in charge of military personel who were under his command, he was responsible for the well being of large numbers of their families and dependents. He was in charge of making sure they had adequate schools, and health care, and roads. He dealt with issues within the community such as spousal abuse and early childhood education. He also had to constantly deal with the government in order to get what was needed for his soldiers and their families and communities.

All that does not cover what he did in terms of building consensus among 19 disparate and sovereign countries while heading a true coalition during the Kosovo war.

I haven't read through this thread yet, but many of the responses when Clark is brought up are so predictable that I can pretty much already know what's been said without having actually read it.

Suffice it to say, his life has neither been dominated by ordering people around who have to obey him, nor has he dedicated his life to killing people as I have often seen argued.

I would say that his biggest weaknesses are that the RW who control the media hate him, and will do their best to keep him invisible, and that some people in the Democratic party have knee jerk prejudices that keep them from actually looking at the man. His greatest difficulty would be getting through the primaries, where both the far right and the far left would be working together on the common objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.

As others have pointed out. Many of the things that would make him weaker in the primaries would make him stronger in the general election.

is a sign that they fear him. Naturally, they would fear anyone who has a good chance of beating their boy, the chimp. I think that the media actually preferred Kerry, although they hate all Dems, because they saw him as easier to demonize. I don't see them being able to demonize Clark, although I'm sure they'll try.

was one of the biggest reasons why I felt I had picked the right guy to back. It just seemed crystal clear to me that Clark was not the guy they wanted running against Bush.

Unfortunately, the truth is that anyone who they regard as a genuine threat to their power is going to be villianized by the corporate media, and as long as Democratic voters rely on that medium for their information in the direction of the right wing's choosing.

Democrats need to start approaching the media with a greater degree of scepticism and realize that they do not have our best interests at heart.

Until he won the first two states, they ignored or said negative things about him. Dean was first built up, then torn down (probably excessive in both cases and unfair to Dean, who would have benefited by more temperate press), Clark was then presented as the perfect candidate - with military (clearly presented to kill Dean's chances and to make Kerry's pluses redundant.

Or Eisenhower? Or George Washington?

...that of a governor. He was responsible for every aspect of stationed servicemen and their families' lives, including education, healthcare, etc.

besides, last time I checked Military/Government Government/Military... Again, last time I checked the Military is run by part of the Government.

Which has links to BCCI, Worthen Bank and Bush, CIA, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld's book "Evil Money" and http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Plus, at one point Clark praises Bush ? What's up with that ?

Who to believe ?

Either way, Rove will eat him up alive if he's running.

We must have purity. No one is fit for President, what shall we do?

didn't take long to spread the scat of these individuals across the forum, did it?

For starters, Wesley had nothing to do with BCCI nor with Worthern Bank which had been acquired by Boatman, then BankAmerica. So far as Axcion and Jackson Stephens, why don't you tell us exactly why these folk are bad and why Wesley's association with either renders him some form of evil. With real citations, please. Not baseless speculation.

I looked up my brother's phone number on the internet, the horror of it all.

in the Bahamas soon in Ben Bell's company...far from US jurisdiction and any legal trouble US consumers would entail. Total Information Awareness never went away, it morphed into CAPPS II.

BTW, I like Clark, Clinton and 'anybody but Bush' ! The question was does Clark have any weak spots and I answered ... from this I'm now getting dumped on. If I'd pointed out that if Clinton had only kept his pant on for the eight years he was in office...Do you realize the power the Democratic Party would have right now...

Getting back to that ground zero, we MUST undo the damage the Bush administration and the conservative ideologues are doing-- Greenspan included.

Heavy sigh.

I just asked a couple of questions because I think that the basis of the article is seriously flawed.

It eas brought to his attention that with common data that is collected routinely in this country that 17 of the 19 highjackers could have been identified with a simple search program. If this data is available commercially, why would you not use it for Homeland Security?

Because it amounts to *government* surveillance of citizens without cause.

These men were not citizens.

administered competently, some of the hijackers would have been nailed anyway, making the point about any new collection of data moot.

I won't buy into the fear that's designed to line corporate pockets, whether it's pushed by repubs or dems.

Clark went to work for an industry that could use his connections for access. I don't know what his motives were, and I realize his military career was somewhat unconventional (in a good way) but the way the door swings between the military and its supporting industries is worthy of suspicion.

opponents. Offshore now in Bahamas, far from Congress' prying eyes...ChoicePoint election roll purging on an even better scale ! Just think of what we can do Karl !

www.zmetro.com/archives/000901.php

Can you back that up?

Let it happen on purpose...

As for databases in effect prior to 9-11, you are going into dangerous waters ... prior to 9-11 there were only 33 FAA Air Marshals (9-11 Report section 3.3 "...And in the FAA"; after 9-11 per SF Chronicle p.A3 Aug. 31, 2004 "thousands of air marshals were rushed into service after 9-11-01 terrorist attacks"). Maybe you can tell me what George W. Bush and Condi Rice were reading in the August 6, 2001 PDB that told them to stand down and not at a minimum beef up the domestic FAA air marshal program from the lonely 33 on duty at that date ? I won't get into the wargames going on on 9-11 that were artfully used that day, only to say look into a Ptech software company.

Wes and the neocons ?
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

"The latest trick of the neo-cons is running retired General Wesley Clark for President as a Democrat. But not just any Democrat -- a "New Democrat." The same bunch that are pushing Joe Lieberman's candidacy are obviously hedging on their bets and want to have Clark in the race as a potential vice presidential candidate (to ensure their continued influence in a future Democratic administration of Howard Dean, John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt) or as a "go-to" candidate in the event that Lieberman stumbles badly in the first few Democratic primaries next year…. "

True or not ?

Madsen is really a reliable source. he sure shook out the fraud in this last election. Are you still waiting for the results to be overturned on his evidence?

Univ PA and even Chris Hitchens in Vanity Fair:

"Christopher Hitchens has a new article in Vanity Fair entitled, OHIO'S ODD NUMBER'S. The lead-in states "No conspiracy theorist, and no fan of John Kerry's, the author nevertheless found the Ohio polling results impossible to swallow: Given what happened in that key state on Election Day 2004, both democracy and common sense cry out for a court-ordered inspection of its new voting machines."
Hitchens was never a supporter of George W. Bush per se. He was active before the 2000 election in highlighting the felons list in Florida. Generally speaking, Hitchens holds leftist political views that have evolved unpredictably over time. He has been a relentless critic of Henry Kissinger." from

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/1712/26186

I believe Hitchens now questions the exit polls being 'inaccurate'.

And if Madsen is right about Wesley Clark as a neocon 'shill' boy, didn't we dodge a close one ? And if Ohio was stolen, then Kerry won the election...

Madsne's solid evidence was not the exit polls. It was his international banking schemes and his check and all of the other fantasy so many hoped was real. We lost a close one. And since Clark was one of the few to bring national attention to the neo-cons and their agenda that he said would damage this country I find it incredible that he would be accused like that. it was the main reason I was skeptical of Madsen's BS after the election.

In that respect he's no different than a right winger who throws out innuendos and accusations and slanders in the hopes that some of them will stick.

Sorry, I require a little more than Madsen's claims that are unbacked by any evidence other than his own say so.

There's nothing that disgusts me more than to see people on the left using the tactics of the far right.

Chris Hitchen's is a neocon by the way. He may have been a leftist at one time, but has slouched into the neocon world view. I watched him in a panel discussion, ardently defending the invasion of Iraq and behaving like a complete asshole towards those who were critical of the invasion.

And neither does Wayne Madsen...what poppycock!

I save this post because periodically, like clock work, someone tries to link Clark to PNAC even though he has been one of the most open and efffective opponents of PNAC. Originally posted 12/27/03:

"You can start debunking your hollow premise here:

Edited on Sat Dec-27-03 07:07 AM by Tom Rinaldo
This is taken from a September 23rd 2003 article

"Clark says after the 11 September 2001 attacks, many Bush administration officials seemed determined to move against Iraq, invoking the idea of state sponsorship of terrorism, “even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever”.

Ousting Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action, the general writes, dismissing it as a “Cold War approach”.

Clark criticises the plan to attack the seven states, saying it targeted the wrong countries, ignored the “real sources of terrorists”, and failed to achieve “the greater force of international law” that would bring wider global support.

He also condemns George Bush’s notorious Axis of Evil speech made during his 2002 State of the Union address. “There were no obvious connections between Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,” says Clark."

Found on Independent Media TV: http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2654...


This is taken form a long thoughtful review of Clark's book "Winning Modern Wars". The review is on a Pro Clark Web site, but he reason they are Pro Clark includes his position vis a vis PNAC:

"Clark describes the decision by the Executive branch to escalate the war and concludes:

"And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns; it would attempt to make the strongest case possible in favor of its course, regardless of the nuances of the intelligence; and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations...."

"Clark spends time to detail some of the inside apparatus of policy making - taking the time to explain the importance of the quadrennial National Security Strategy of 2002 - before getting to his main thrust. Because Iraq was not organically connected to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 - the mission had to be sold as being a short strike to overthrow an imminent threat. This precluded an honest assessment of the costs and benefits of overthrowing Saddam, and therefore, when the invasion ended, and the occupation began - everyone was underprepared, including those who had backed the war policy. In order to convince the American people this was another "in and out" along the lines of Grenada, Panama, Haiti and the first Gulf War - the preparations for the occupation had to be minimal - lest they betray foreknowledge of the real cost. It smacks of Hitler failing to order winter uniforms for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR.

In tomorrow's entry will be on the remainder of Clark's argument, where Clark turns the corner - from accusing Bush of following long standing misguided dream by the far right wing in the form of the Project For A New American Century, and hence producing a failed policy, and an occupation which everyone denied until we were engaged in it - to a larger problem of America as an Empire."

Unfortunately I got that from an archive site and can't find part two of the review. Here is the link:
http://www.draftclark.com/archives/004406.shtml


Some more stuff, this from May 15th 2003 newpaper coverage of a talk by journalist Richard Dreyfuss:

"The image of the United States has changed in the eyes of the world,” Dreyfuss said. “We are no longer viewed as the beacon of democracy, but as the bully on the playground that picked on the weakest kid to beat up in order to intimidate others.

Dreyfuss is an award-winning independent journalist whose cover article in the April issue of American Prospect magazine, “Quicksand: Iraq is Just the Beginning,” was the title for the forum. His articles on national and foreign affairs appear routinely in The Nation, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones and other publications...

In his American Prospect article, Dreyfuss wrote: “Six years ago, in its founding statement of principles, PNAC called for a radical change in U.S. foreign and defense policy, with a beefed-up military budget and a more muscular stance abroad, challenging hostile regimes and assuming `American global leadership.’” It was signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby and Gov. Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, among others. “The PNAC statement foreshadowed the outline of the president’s 2002 national security strategy,” he wrote.

The invasion of Iraq, as a component of this strategy, was not supported by many in the U.S. military, including Gen. Zinni and Gen. Wesley Clark, former head of the Allied Command, Dreyfuss noted, and top levels of the CIA, who knew there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor government ties to al Qaeda. terrorists."

The Link: http://www.fcnp.com/310/story4.htm


Finally I think parts of this article from a right wing Anti-Clark persspective was cited above in the thread somewhere, but here are some very relevent quotes from an article trying to make Clark out as a crack pot for EXPOSING the extent of PNAC influence. This from October 2, 2003:

"Candidate Derides Committee That Crafted Cold War Victory"

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War...

... Relatively few American voters have even heard of the Project for a New American Century or remember the Committee on the Present Danger, so the flap is unlikely to sway many votes immediately. But if the interview contributes to a sense of General Clark as something of a loose cannon, that might have an effect on voters seeking a steady leader to guide the nation in the war against terrorism...

...A director of the Project for a New American Century, Randy Scheunemann, called General Clark’s comments “bizarre.”...

... “This is a guy who could barely win a war in Kosovo,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “Now Wesley Clark is running for president by running against a think tank?”

Here's that link: http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=Ol...


Oh by the way, here is a link to a great buzzflash interview with the co-author of "Hunting the President", Gene Lyons where he outlines the attack campaign the Republicans will use against Clark, among other things. This from October 22, 2003:

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear."
That link: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html


Shall I repeat the right wing smear against Clark for trying to expose PNAC? Yes, I think so: "General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War."

And what thanks does Clark get for his trouble? A smear thread against him as potentially pro-PNAC here on the Democratic Underground."

But then...some people have weird taste. Or maybe they need to do some research.

at the Democratic National Convention.
He brought down the house.

What a thrilling, magnificent speech! Those who missed it on C-Span were robbed. I also saw him speak late in the campaign in Youngstown to a bunch of vets and their families and he really went after the right's attacks on our patriotism and Kerry's service. Shoot, we were practically crying. My wife and I had both our late fathers in WWII and we attended with my mom. Afterwards, he gave out autographs and we approached him. He was just so very polite and kind when my mom mentioned my recently deceased dad and got teary eyed. He gave both her and me his undivided attention. As fiery as he was in his speech, so kind and gentle in his demeanor was he with her.

His experience in politics was definitely lacking early on, and it showed, but he became better and better with time and he was just killer at speeches toward the election. Yeah, the Dems really missed the boat on the Heavy Medal ticket of Kerry/Clark. He just carries so much weight on the military issue. Look at the way he fought and led his war in the Balkans so successfully, as compared with the miserable planning and excuses from the White House in this Iraq War. I think that would have won us more close races in the purple states and would have put Kerry over 270.

That was a beautiful account that you gave. I wish I could have been there.

I was always incredibly impressed with the speeches of his that I saw on C-SPAN. I could never understand the people who said he was terrible on the stump. Of course, tastes vary, but I have to wonder if many of those people ever actually watched one of his speeches, or if they did, if they had so much prejudice against him that it kept them from really hearing anything that he was saying.

Thanks, buddy, I appreciate the welcome. It's a rush jumping into this blogoshere, which I've NEVER done before until the past few weeks. Gotta be careful, though, this can be way too addicting and the missus may toss me out!

Yeah, there were people who had a prejudice against him because of his past party affiliation (but the GOP absolutely embraced Reagan when he switched parties) and his being a military man. And Wes really got hammered for the ambiguous interview after the Iraq war vote. They started the flipflop thing on him, too. He was definitely green in dealing with hot interview topics and didn't have all his positions down pat since he decided to jump in so late after the massive Draft Clark movement refused to retreat. But he shined on military topics and economic ones, too, as his mastery of that academic subject at West Point came through in his clear stance on taxation--he said there are no easy solutions, no bells or whistles, no smoke and mirrors, but the best way is still a fair, progressive tax system. I loved how he stated so simply in an interview that he would ask the nation's millionaires to show their appreciation for the privilage of conducting business as US citizens by accepting that we needed to repeal the highest bracket tax cut while we were at war and while the budget was too far out of balance.

But I was glad Kerry was nominated after seeing him at the convention and attending three of his speeches. And I became immensely impressed with Kerry during the debates. He cleaned Bush's clock. I don't think Wes was seasoned enough at the time to match Kerry's tremendous debate performances, even though I'd attended Draft Clark events and was a big Clarkie while he was still in the race. The BIGGEST Kerry mistake of all was not picking Wes as VP. Edwards is a good man and did a good job against Cheney, but Wes's presence and military-foreign policy clout would have been enormous. And I repeat, he would have won the close purple states for us and put Kerry over 270!

But first, welcome to DU!

You wrote: <i>...Yeah, there were people who had a prejudice against him because of his past party affiliation... And Wes really got hammered for the ambiguous interview after the Iraq war vote. They started the flipflop thing on him, too. He was definitely green in dealing with hot interview topics and didn't have all his positions down pat... I don't think Wes was seasoned enough at the time to match Kerry's tremendous debate performances... </i>

1) I hope you meant "his past LACK OF party affiliation." Because he had none at all.

2) You are right that "they started the flipflop thing on him." Isn't it sad that the "they" in his case was other Democrats, considering how it came back to haunt us. Not that the RW media didn't help them out.

But in any case, I have to wonder if you ever read the original NYT article on the interview. Nothing Clark actually said was "ambiguous." The statement Clark made about "probably" voting for the IWR was completely within the context of speculating why Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman voted as they did, and based on what they were being fed from the administration. He went on to say, almost in his next breath, that they were wrong and Dean was right. But Nagourney (who conducted the interview, wrote the article, and has never been anything but hostile to Democrats) totally rearranged the order of what Clark said to showcase that one sentence, out of context, and the NYT editors made a headlline out of it.

3) It's kind of hard for me to tell what you mean by "didn't have all his positions down pat" because by including it in the sentences talking about that Nagourney interview, it sounds like you apply it to Clark's position on the war and that's just not true. He had (and has since) always been completely consistent.

But even if you mean other positions, such as on domestic issues, I still don't think it's fair assessment. True, there were detailed plans and policy statements he held up (such as his tax proposal which he chose to vett with a number of economists). But his "position" on the tax system and the Bush cuts was completely clear early on.

If it sometimes seemed otherwise, I think it was more a matter of his having to learn to speak in sound-bytes. Something Clarks's still not completely comfortable with, since his preference is to give meaningful answers and he knows that most our country's real problems are too complex for anything less.

4) Finally, I don't agree with you about Clark's readiness to debate Bush. Bush?!! C'mon! lol But you have a right to your opinion on that. Without question, Kerry did really well. I just happen to think Clark would have reduced Bush to a pile of... well, what Bush really is.

There is a difference between not prepared and honest. The General was honest, and the media made that his flaw.

The media whores assailed Clark out of the gate. And that so sad "not ready for primetime" label was attached to the General by the media and was adopted by many who had never even heard the guy speak, let alone read any of his policies.

Starting now, and on until hell freezes over, I will be bitch slapping the media whores when they gets out of line, which, I am sure, will be often.

Good points, Jai. I agree with just about everything you say. I just think that Kerry's debate performances were so outstanding that I couldn't have imagined anybody topping him. It was Clarence Darrow vs. Elmer Gantry, Perry Mason vs. Pat Robertson. And you're damn right Wes would have mopped up the floor with Bush, too. Guaranteed. But I think Wes would agree he was a tad green to campaigning and learned some good lessons along the way. I have no doubt he can come back even stronger next time.

And you are correct. He said he'd voted for Reagan, not that he was a Republican.

Now before I stick my foot in my mouth again, let me share something with you...

For the record, here is my letter to the "Clark Tribune--The Daily 'All Things Clark' Newsletter" that ran on September 22, 2003. Editor Matt Stoller decided to run it and inserted his own intro. It was in response to a woman who'd written a letter concerned about the fact that Clark was a "military" man and was wondering if he was just an "angry white man" left over from the Reagan years.

I have not changed my opinion on Wes since that day I sent this in response...

<snip>

Another Response to Jo Ann: Why I like Clark

Jo Ann had some concerns over voting for a military man. The number of responses was overwhelming, and I do want to point out that Clark did restore institutional health to the military, and can do the same for our country. I'm proud of our army. And I should be as proud of our government as I am of our army. Jim Joyce responds yet again to Jo Ann, with some nice digs at Reagan. One thing, though, I never did understand why you would vote for dog catcher.

Dear Jo Ann,

I never would have voted for Ronald Reagan, even for Dog Catcher. I was too young to vote for Nixon, but I wouldn't have chosen him, even for Vice Dog Catcher. However, I don't hold this against General Clark. He is allowed to change his mind over time. I think his recently stated positions and his 100-Year Plan bear no resemblance whatsoever to a recent Republican Party platform. If he is new to the party, I welcome him with open arms.

Remember that Ronald Reagan was a union president and faithful Democrat before changing his own mind. I'll never forget, too, how Reagan loved to mention in speeches how he "used to be a member of 'their party'" while plugging for the GOP. Reagan, using such talk and bolstered by his nice-but-tough guy persona, converted a legion of Democrats to the GOP or, at the least, to vote for him.

Now, imagine a strong leader and decent man like Wesley Clark making a conversion to the Democratic Party's ideals after voting Republican in the past. I view this as a wonderful coup for the Democrats and all those fed up with the Bush team. If Clark was ever one of the ubiquitous "angry white men" you remember, then he sure doesn't sound anything like one these days.

Reagan won converts. Candidate Clark can win them back, and for a better cause.

Further, there should be no fear of Clark's military background. His impeccable military credentials and heroism are his most valuable assets in this election. Unlike the ridiculous cowboy mentality of President Bush and the Neo-Con Chicken Hawks, Clark is contemplative and appears reluctant to rush into war unless it requires the unfortunate but necessary violence of a "just war." That means he would not be a Commander-In-Chief foolish enough to say "Bring 'em on!" to the enemy at a press conference. In NATO, he had the ability of uniting often reluctant allies--an ability absolutely necessary for 1) succeeding in Iraq, 2) giving our future battles legitimacy, and 3) tracking down al-Quaida and other terrorists thinking about another 9-11.

I think we've had enough of the Bush Go-It-Aloners. So has Clark. And so, Jo Ann, I still like what I see in Wesley Clark.

Jim Joyce
Pittsburgh, PA

<snip>

by his oratory abilities.

Al Franken was also, I believe he described Wes as the best orator at this time.

Wes repeatedly stirred audiences deeply as he campaigned for Kerry, including his rousing speech at the Democratic convention.

about that sort of thing? I haven't heard any of his speeches myself, but I know that he's a really lousy speechmaker because I heard guys on FOX News and CNN say so. <sarcasm>

I hadn't realized Keillor said that about Clark's being a good speaker. Keillor's been known to make a few long but very very good speeches himself on occasion, in between songs, that people seem to get some chuckles from.

I agree that Clark got better as the campaign went on. He just got into the campaign season too late. I think if he'd gotten in early there's no telling what he could have done. With a decent campaign war chest you can make virtues out of your weaknesses.

he can't be too bad. I love Garrison, and trust him and Michael Moore. They're both sensitive, artistic, and very liberal. And they both like Wes! I find it hard to imagine either of them liking a right wing warmonger. :shrug:

a wolf in sheep's clothing

He used to be registered Independent.

He voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

.. he was also not a Democrat until late August of 2003, when he changed his registration.

What you wrote is factually untrue.

See my reply to yours. I was here during that whole brouhaha, and I don't notsuffer from a poor memory.

I live here and have voted here since 1972. There is no place on the form for party registration. You are never aksed.

I will humiliate you, if that's what you want, because you are DEAD WRONG on this issue.

I don't think so. The very most you could do is post a copy of a form purported to be his voter registration. When you post it, if it is the same form we use in Arkansas, I will acknowledge it. If not, I will point that out as well.

Why would that humilate me?

Most people would find that humiliating, to be proven wrong in public.

"...There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas ’ voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans....

http://www.factcheck.org/article97.html

Still Googling up a copy of the actual voter's registration form...

Going to them about info on Democrats is only marginally better than going to Limbaugh's site.

I don't get humiliated if I get a fact wrong. Only children and idiots think they can make no mistake.

???

Story Date: 10/4/2003 12:37:58 AM

It’s official: Clark is now a registered Democrat


By David Hammer
Associated Press writer
LITTLE ROCK (AP) — Wesley Clark’s campaign has said its candidate’s words and deeds, not a piece of paper, established his Democratic bona fides.
But on Friday, a paper form made him a registered Democrat in his home state of Arkansas for the first time.
Clark faxed a registration amendment form Friday from Washington and it was received by Pulaski County Registrar Carolyn Staley.
The registration was held up for several hours because a registrar is not allowed to accept a fax-copied signature for intial voter registration form, but county attorneys told Staley the copy would be permissible for an amendment form....

http://www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=3461

I thought you had a copy of it archived so you could humiliate me with it, even though it probably wouldn't accomplish that even if you had such a form.

Wesley and I are registered in the same county to vote. I had to change my registration in the last election and there was no space for that on the form. Perhaps I just don't remember it but right now, top the very best of my recollection, there is no such blank on the form and no one asks you.

Oooooooo-K.

:eyes:

Annenburg and the Courier?

Shit, that idiot Fucker Carlson once wrote for the statewide paper here. You don't think some of these out-of-towners can fuck up a tertiary point about local procedure?

THEY are right.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9rYZd9XUgiYJ:www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf+Arkansas+voter+registration+form&hl=en

Look under '6'.

Where is it?

Works just fine when I click it.

page ...

I clicked on each of the sources and got nothing relevant.

www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/ elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf -

Line 6.

I have a new computer and had not yet loaded adobe.

in general ... they are worse than useless.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020504.shtml

Remember, the family endowing this "institution" are heavily republican.

That's a curious statement....Maybe most people you know. I've been proven wrong many a time in public and never felt humiliated because of it...Maybe I'm doing something wrong...but I usually just acknowledge the fact that I'm wrong and move on.

vigorously claiming that you were right.

If you think it's none of my business, that's fine. You seem so angry, like you're got a chip on your shoulder. Never mind, I think I know who you supported anyway.

He's not God's gift to the Democratic party, and this teenybopper/cheerleader/cult mentality that permeates so many of his users is just a bit much to take.

painting with far too broad a brush.

Cheerleader mentality indeed. I do not think that anyone has ever accused me of that. Ever. Not once in a long and busy life. I have been accused of being perverse and eccentric and I have been accused, on occasion, of being a cynical wet blanket but this is a first for me. Almost in time for my birthday!

:D

The mentality exists, however, as anyone who has spent any time at DU can attest.

I find that slur on DU virtually daily.

In my experience most Clark supporters are very well versed in the reasons why they support Clark. They are usually well informed, and have taken a great deal of effort to become well informed, researching Clark's positions extensively. Frequently the strongest Clark supporters are people who will openly admit that they initially were skeptical of Clark and later were surprised to discover how much they actually agreed with him after they looked into him. My political background includes a great deal of study of classical theoretical Anarchism. I am not prone toward hero worship and adulation of leaders.

I am constantly amazed by how well researched Gen Clark's supporters are about the General. Ask just about any question, and Clarkies not only have a fact-based answer, but it's backed up with numerous links. I know I took a lot of time in getting to know the man before I whole heartedly threw my support behind him. I find most other Clark supporters did the same.

except Joementum maybe. He didn't seem to have many adherents.

Today, the only place I see it extant is among Clark supporters.

expect?

And before you give me the "well, he's the DNC Chair" line, how many people had that attitude towards Terry Mcauliffe? And do you not see it among John Kerry supporters? Maybe if you took a moment to pop into the Kerry forum, you might see a few things that would change your perspective. You don't see it so much for John Edwards for the sole reason that he had such a small base of committed grassroots supporters, that they make up a negligable force here on DU, though they give it the old college try every so often.

So what I really think you're doing is judging the behavior of Clark supporters by one set of standards, while choosing to ignore similar behaviors when other groups engage in them. In short, you seem to have a willful blind spot where anybody other than Clark supporters is concerned. This is a phenomenon that I am genuinely curious about.

It's not cheerleading and it's not hero-worship. It's loyalty to a man who has always shown total loyalty in return: to this nation, to his wife, to his friends, to the soldiers he loves, and even to us, his supporters.

Many of us wouldn't give a hoot in hell for your average run-of-the-mill politician. Even those with the best intentions always seem to put their own ambition and power above anybody or anything else. Clark is something more, because he has given more, he has accomplished more, and he is capable of more. For most of us, he has inspired us to be more and do more than we have ever been called to be or do before.

If Clark doesn't inspire you, fine. That's your choice. But apparently it's much easier to label and deride those of us who are inspired by Wes Clark than to try and understand why, or even to just accept that we are.

and your right he acknowledges his supporters. He encourages those around him to more than just talk, but to walk the walk. His speech in NH and other places about what true family values are were inspiring across party lines. I know he inspired me to get involved with my local community. Meeting him and watching how he treated his supporters and those who worked with him and for him gave you a great sense that he was very humble, you could not help but want to go out and encourage others to work hard for him. I'm glad that I was able to meet him, he inspired me right into volunteering and ultimately into public office. I've never worked so hard, made so little money (none), we get paid a stipend and been so rewarded in addition to having so much fun. I'll be volunteering, working, doing whatever it takes to help get this man the nomination and ultimately the WH. He is the only person I would trust with my draft age sons life.

Cindy Trigg

on getting invloved..and your public office position. He does inspire us to be more than we thought we could be, doesn't he? Somehow, I can't figure out how that's a bad thing....

Something I think a lot of DUers don't get is that a large chunk of Clarkies started working and pulling for John Kerry not so much because he sounded like a good idea but because Wes ASKED us to nicely. We drafted him to run, he answered the call, and he has yet to disappoint.

inspire his supporters and somehow this is a bad thing for Clark??

I still don't know WHY he used that phrase.

I hope to have the opportunity to support Wes again in 2008, but if not, there are others I would support, just as much as Wes. I am hoping . . . .

You believe the Pope is God's gift. I think that's childish mentality. Because people feel strongly that this Party and this country need wise, intelligent leadership at this time is hardly the mentality you ascribe to it.

Does Clark have any weak spots to the radical left.

And?

He was an independent who voted Democratic in the last 3 presidential elections.

His views are very reasonable, often quite liberal, and always well considered, articulated, and grounded in reality.

... it's a very poor defense, somewhat akin to pleading that you're an orphan, after murdering your parents.

That one is a real stretch, in fact it is such a stretch I don't think it connects.

Are you saying that anyone who was at one time an Independent can never be a true Dem? With my union background, I put a high price on being a team player and loyalty, but even I don't think that. C'mon.

If the defense is that he was a registered Independent, then it logically follows that he was not a Democrat until late August of 2003, when he changed his registration. Logic 101.

It was what you went on to say that has me scratching my head. (Logic 555)

"... it's a very poor defense, somewhat akin to pleading that you're an orphan, after murdering your parents."

The best his supportes can say about his very conspicuous lack of Democratic credentials is that he was an Independent until he entered the race for the Democratic nomination? That's pretty weak.

Being an Independent or even switching parties isn't illegal, at least not yet.

So he does, indeed, need a defense, if he expects to gain the nomination.

who cannot be smeared by something in their past, or failing that something made up about their past.

So I prefer to focus on what he actually brings to the candidacy or office, not what someone somewhere may try to throw at him.

Seems like a pretty big boo-boo, to me.

He didn't even declare he was running until September of 2003, so I fail to see how changing your registration the month before is an issue.

before the New Hampshire primary that he was a Republican.

What you seem to misunderstand is that career military people don't get active in politics. They purposely avoid it, because they work for the Gov, not Dems or Repugs.

And they form their opinions over the years, but keep their mouths shut about it.

If you're looking for a party hack, Wes Clark ain't your man. I like him because he's not a POL. He hasn't spent his life lying to raise money, & he hasn't learned political speak or soundbytes.

If you're looking for someone who will put party above country, the General certainly isn't your man. But I don't think that's anything that he or his supporters should have to apologize for. It's one of the most appealing things about him, I think.

He was registered to vote in Texas that year. He was a DEMOCRAT in 1992.

We know because he requested a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ballot that year, from the county clerk of Bell County. (He was at FT. Hood at the time)

There is NO party registration in Texas. None, nada.... it is not possible to register officially as a 'party member' of any sort. Even George Bush is not 'registered' as a Republican in Texas. The closest you can come is to 'affiliate' yourself with a party by voting in that Party's primary.

So your argument just bit the dust. Clark was as 'registered' as a Texas Democrat can be by voting in the Democratic primary in 1992.

Just FYI, it wasn't possible to register with a party in Arkansas either till 1996.

I happen to like Clark, but C_L has made a perfectly valid point, that point being that Clark could have but did not register as a Democrat until August 2003. That's all he said, period, and nothing any of you have posted refutes that. For God's sake, let it freakin' go, and move on.

:eyes:

It states that Clark is a Republican. What point is C_L trying to make that has anything to do with anything. The majority have pointed out that Clark was an Independent and had voted Dem in the last dozen years. What is the proper pedigree for a Dem? The only way any one knows how Clark voted before that is because of his own honesty. This is the first clue to his character and one of the reasons most supporters have been drawn to him. Honesty is a refreshing change that has not been real relevant in either party. Did C_L just drop by to let us know that Clark had been an Independent?

And hard-core party loyalists, most party members SHOULD be able to see that is a HUGE asset that he would appear nonpartisan to the general public BECAUSE he hasn't been a Dem all his life.

He lacks credentials because he was involved in National Defense not politics. I don't need a pedigree, I'll take a mutt in a dogfight any day. Weaker are the pedigreed candidates who talk but have no courage or leadership ability.

especially in a fight like the one we're in.

to have open primaries with no need to register with a party.

People down here know that. People down here also voted for both Reagan AND Clinton - not so strange. I think having someone like Clark, who voted with the majority, would be something of a connection to the voters in the very states we are trying to switch from red to blue.

Nothing at all is "weak" about that. They are not encouraged to be partisan for good reason during active duty. After his retirement he began his political career.

I would certainly doubt their independence. I thought Clark had also said he HAD NOT voted for Gore, which meant he either voted for shrub or Nader....

I do remember that. I guess it's just easier for me to understand because I voted for Bush 1. I am horribly embarrassed by that, but it is true. I was raised in a far, far right wing family, and was not as informed at that young age as I should have been. You could say I am on a crusade to absolve myself now! But people can and do change. I know that for a fact.:)

How did his being an independent in any way damange, much less "murder," either party?

Believe me, you want military officers to be non-partisan. Many of the problems we have now are because too many in the military have lost sight of that obligation.

That said, Clark was a GREAT asset to Clinton, even to the detriment of his own career. He was was relentless in carrying out the Commander-in-Chief's objectives in the Balkans, much to the displeasure of the many in the Pentagon, to include Clinton's own Sec of Defense (a Repub). It was his duty. And he paid for it.

Fwiw, I've been reading Clinton's bio, and he affirms what Pepperbelly has been saying, that no one registered by party in Arkansas until the mid-90s, iirc. And then it wasn't mandatory or encouraged.

You'll find that you are asked to register a party affiliation, but if you choose not to do so, you will be registered as an Independent. As for the rest of your screed, I have no idea how it in any way whasoever relates to what I wrote, so here's a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head:

You don't know screed. But I can give you screed if that's what you want. I can do screed.

OK, so easy part first. Your link is to the form in effect now. Not during the time frame in question. As, if you read MY post, you would know. As a military man, Clark would not have had to re-register so long as he was on active duty. And in fact, his registration form (a photo of which has been posted to DU many times) shows his old home of record so was likely first filed many many years ago.

Now, if you don't understand how the rest of what I said replies to what you said, you're not trying. But let me lay it out for you. I'll type slow...

Chris said:
He used to be registered Independent.
He voted for Clinton, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

You said:
Continuing with that logical progression, then...
.. he was also not a Democrat until late August of 2003, when he changed his registration.

Chris said:
And?
He was an independent who voted Democratic in the last 3 presidential elections.

You said:
And...
... it's a very poor defense, somewhat akin to pleading that you're an orphan, after murdering your parents.

To which I reply, and still do, WTF?

As I parse back thru the conversation, I'm coming to the conclusion you didn't know what the fuck you were saying, but thought it sounded cute. Altho, with your casual use of the term "screed" maybe you're just sloppy with words.

Nevertheless when I responded, I understood you to be saying that Clark's having been an independent was somehow harmful (the murder analogy) to the Democratic Pary. So I was trying to point out that it is perfectly appropriate that a military officer not register with either party. That partisanship in the military is a VERY bad thing.

You know, Eisenhower had not only not registered for either party, he hadn't voted either. And it didn't stop Repubs AND Dems from courting him as a presidential candidate.

BUT anyway... I went on to say that, even tho Clark was an independent, he was in fact an asset to the party, by supporting a Democratic president who, if you recall, was under very heavy fire from the right, and who was not exactly Mr Popularity within the military.

Clinton needed a victory in Kosovo, and Clark delivered. Even tho it meant bucking a Repub-oriented Pentagon and making more than a few enemies there. Enemies that would terminate his career, and speak out against him during his campaign.

And don't think for a minute that most of the Repubs on the Hill wouldn't have been pleased as punch for there to be a thousand US deaths in the Balkans if it would have embarrassed Clinton and hurt the Democrats.

'Course, Clark didn't support Clinton because he was a Democrat, since he wasn't one, but because it was his duty to carry out the orders of his commander-in-chief, regardless of party. Would that SecDef (and former Repub Senator) Cohen had seen it the same way.

First of all, here's a clue--- Wes Clark didn't register as a Democrat until late August 2003; all the screeds in the world won't change that fact. Second, the statement that has your panties in a wad is called an analogy, i.e., it is a poor defense to murdering one's parents to assert that one is an orphan. At no time did I ever say Wes Clark 'murdered' the Democratic party.

Some Clarkies need a lesson in reading comprehension.

in constructing meaningful analogies.

WesDem has posted this a couple times, but here we go again. Notice the date, Jan 7, 2002 of the registration, and the date declared as a Democrat, May 21, 2002.




Also from an earlier WesDem post, a quote from an AP article entitled "Clark's Lack of Party Affiliation Normal" by David Hammer, October 2, 2003, 4:31 PM EDT (sorry, but the link is dead):
"Arkansans couldn't even declare party affiliation until 1996, when an amendment to the state constitution let voters add optional party information box to their registration forms."

In the same article, a spokesman for Clark's campaign is quoted:
"A piece of paper doesn't make you a Democrat. Wesley Clark is a real Democrat, and this is simply a tactic that the other guys are using to distract Americans from the real issues."

That about sums it up for me. Actions speak louded than any piece of paper from the government. And Clark has always stood for the core principles of the Democratic Party. Because he stands for people.

I'm really getting annoyed with being told that A is B. All that document does is show which primary he voted in, not which party he registered with.At no point have I said he did not vote in the Democatic primary in 2002.

But I fail to see how there could possibly be a line inbetween them.

If the analogy to a poor defense can be made any clearer, I'm damned if I know how.

:shrug:

He was working for Uncle Sam and the President was his Commander in Chief and THAT is who he worked for PERIOD. Didn't matter if there was a D or an R, Wes Clark supported the President.

Who Wes voted for was an independent choice, as he wasn't REGISTERED with ANY PARTY.

He has voted Democrat thruout the 90's AND as far as I'm concerned the FACT that he wasn't a lifetime Democrat (which most people are not), would make him a more formidable candidate as he would appeal to a broader spectrum of people.

Most voters are NOT hard line Democrat or Republican, so getting a candidate that would appeal to THAT group - including most of the Democrats WOULD be a winning ticket!

Nothing wrong with being an independent and voting democrat if you were not in politics.

There’s no dispute about Clark ’s voter registration: he was an independent. This by itself means little, however, as nearly 96% of all his home state of Arkansas voters express no party preference when registering. Party preference is “optional” on Arkansas voter registration form, and only 2.6% of the state’s residents were registered as Democrats at the end of 2001, according to the most recent statistics published by the Arkansas Secretary of State. Only 1.4% registered as Republicans.

Wes was a supporter of Republicans back then because he thought they were stronger on defense.

In time he came to see the differences in greater detail, so that the commonly held belief of Republican strength in defense loses it's strength to persuade.

If a person cannot change and have their opinions and positions evolve, then what do you have? Bush et al.

He changed? No, he will be seen as a political opportunist who modified his positions because he decided to try to run as a Democrat.

That's why I am urging life long Democrat Senator Boxer to go for the nomination. I live in Nevada and there is no doubt in my mind that Senator Boxer could carry Nevada in 2008. And she is no Johnny come lately to the Democratic Party.

he started voting Democratic in 1992 so that he could be a political opportunist and run for president in 2004, and that in 2008, if he runs, everybody will conclude that he started voting Democratic for opportunistic reasons so he could run as a Democrat nearly 2 decades later.:crazy:

Although that "logic" can be found occasionally at DU, I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect it to predominate amongst the ordinary electorate. Nice try though.

By the way, I have tremendous respect for Senator Boxer, and would certainly support her ahead of many who have been mentioned as potential candidates. My ideal ticket, however, would probably be a Clark/Boxer ticket.

I find it sad that so many Democrats primary consideration seems to be purity of Democratic pedigree. As I have pointed out before, if the Republicans had the same attitude, Reagan would never have become president, as he was once a New Deal, FDR Democrat. Oh well. Who needs winning, or genuinely advancing a progressive agenda when you can maintain your purity, stay out of power, and have something to whine about in perpetuity.

Yes, and wouldn't that have been a good thing? If Reagan hadn't become president, we almost certainly wouldn't have Bush as president now. And BTW, I was very critical of Reagan at the time for his political opportunism, among a myriad of other criticisms of course.

Yes, it would have been a very good thing for us Democrats if the Republicans had been more purist. It would not have been a good thing for the Republicans. For all the bad that Reagan did, I don't think that anyone could deny that his presidency did a tremendous amount to advance Republican power in this country, and to advance the RW agenda.

We Democrats have an opportunity, in my opinion, to get behind a candidate who, despite his impurity, could advance a progressive Democratic agenda in this country, in much the same way the impure Reagan was able to advance a RW Republican agenda.

The point I'm trying to make is that Republicans don't allow purity tests to get in the way of advancing their agenda. The Democrats seem to have somewhat of a problem with this. I would like to see us become more committed to advancing a progressive agenda and less fixated on purity. If we don't, I think we are placing ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage, and doing so completely unnecessarily.

I guess if you are a independant thinker, and decide in your lifetime to vote for a Repub...you can't be a Dem...or Indie...what a load! I think the idea we have free will is a good thing. Also, Many Dems voted for Reagan...that I know! and were hoodwinked...
Gen. Clark, is a gift to this Democratic Party, and if everyone would open their minds and research his policies, on foriegn policy , economics, social, healthcare, they would see his vision for our country. He is not myoptic, he is a true visionary.for the future of the Country, and the people who live here, and around the world!
There is NO one perfect...but to negate someone who served his country, with honor, is saying, you have not really looked at this man and his credentials.
Just the other day....2 Republicans in my office, said if Wes had been the candidate, they would have changed party and voted for him...he makes sense..and is sincere. They did their research!!!

of it all that gets me.

Wes had position papers on just about everything. He was as liberal as any other candidate, more liberal than most.

He supported the right to have guns, but re assault weapons said that if you want assault weapons, "join the army, we have them."

Wes is a warrior and we're proud of him.

That he was in the military most of his life is being used to blind people to a statesman like individual, whose views many would be closer to than other candidates.

Nobody died in the Kosovo war.

Knowing first hand the horrors of war, he will do everything possible to avoid them. Way more than W, to put it mildly.

He is smarter than smart, understands quickly, intuitively, and is able to digest new information.

Soldiers are issued selective-fire rifles which are legally classified as machineguns.

"During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: 'And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.'"


Clark praises United States President George Bush with these words:


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

WE NEED THEM THERE ??????

He also gave a similar speech at the Dem Jackson/Jefferson Day Dinner, minus the accolades for Bush at around the same time. He was a dinner speaker at the time - not a tactical politician.

You'll find statements like that from almost every Dem. Go back and read this in context where he follows with warnings not to lose sight of the total picture, which they did in Iraq.

It was during the period commonly known as the "honeymoon period", when everyone, even the most staunch Democrats, find nice things to say about the new President.

One of these days, I'm going to do some intensive research to find out what various other Democrats were saying about Bush during this same period. Judging by some of the people on here, they may never vote Democratic again after what I'm sure I could dig up.:evilgrin:

At any rate, as far as Bush's "team" goes, at least Clark only said nice things about them. He didn't vote to confirm them the way most of our good and pure Democrats did.

They were trying to find a way to attack Clark, and the focus group reacted to the he's a republican shit. Apparently the thugs that produce American elections know their audience. See, look at this thread. Proving once again that you can manipulate even the seemingly well informed.

Maybe if the Democratic advisors could actually run a campaign, we would be doing better.

Anyway, this is what they came up with. Something that will never effect our lives or the future of our country.

he like the others, regret that choice.

Lies are a significant political tool.

for a while, but now I believe him when he says that he was apoliitical while in the military, and gradually grew to see the Dem side of things. Maybe it was easier for me to believe because I have experienced such a journey myself. I was apolitical or even slightly conservative on some issues because of my upbringing, but by the time I was 30, I was very liberal.

We discussed this ad nauseum during the primaries.

For starters, no one in Arkansas is registered by party. The party determination is made only by which primary in which the voter decides to vote. Period. So there are no gop registrations in Wesley's name. If you see one, it is a fraud.

One can choose to register as a Democrat or a Republican, but most do not, and 'Independent' is the default registration for those who do not otherwise choose.

Period.

I'll Google and come back. Don't say you weren't offered the chance to back off, because you were.

Jebus, see my reply above.

:eyes:

That's certainly an articulate refutation of the facts.

I bet you're a lot of fun to be around.

If that makes me 'not fun to be around', so be it.

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

:eyes:

I live here. I have voted here since 1972. My recollection is that there is no space for party afiliation on the registration form. You insist that there is although I suppose it would be reasonable to ask you when was the last time you registered to vote in Arkansas?

I had to re-register for the last election and I do not recall such a blank being on the form.

It would seem reasonable to believe the SOS, rather than you.

Try this one:

www.sosweb.state.ar.us/elections/ elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf -

it appears to have a blank for that if one wants to put it in. I didn't even see it when I voted last year.

I have the honor of the exact same voting record that Clark has...and I couldn't be a greater hater of that weasel bush. So am I a wolf in sheep's clothing too? Get real! Don't forget Reagan had a pretty substantial majority. If you eliminate everyone who liked Reagan from your approval...you and the Democratic party will die alone and Bushivites will rule. Live with it! Work for the person that can beat this plague that has invaded our White House. Who better than someone that really knows how to fight a war and win! Open your eyes!
Who needs a god damn politician? All those politicians in congress don't seem to be doing so good!

statement. Anybody can say anything about anyone that they want to, but if you are unwilling to document what you say with any evidence, people may begin to question, either your knowledge, or else your honesty.

So please, I would like to see the documentation that Clark was ever a member of the Republican party.

Even if he had been, are you saying that the Democrats should be more closed minded than the Republicans who chose to run a former New Deal, FDR Democrat for president?

That is an absolute fact, and there is nothing to discuss on this issue.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

to take some responsibility for making the claim and show some willingness to back it up. I'm not holding my breath.

like you suggest we reject Clark.

Isn't it?

hmmmm???????

In any case, Clark never was a member of the Republican party.

One political opportunist in the White House over the past few years is quite enough. In Reagan we saw what a disaster someone who changes political stripes for political gain can be, so now we certainly don't need another one in the name of Wesley Clark.

Plus, I just don't trust someone with a background in military culture. We don't need a former general in the White House. We need a civilian who will fight the Pentagon tooth and nail. Do you think that Clark would be tough on his former buddies in that five sided building?

Yep, tougher than anyone else out there.

If Wes Clark could do for the progressive, Democratic agenda what Reagan did for the RW Republican agenda, the Democrats would be absolute idiots to pass up the opportunity.

Just because a person alters their political outlook over time does not make them a political opportunist, especially if the change took place a dozen years before their supposed attempt at opportunism.

Do you really believe that Wes Clark started voting Democratic in '92 because he was calculating how he was going to take over the Democratic party a dozen years later?

As far as having people in charge who have no military background, well we're doing a bang up job with the gang we've got in there now. The current administration probably has the least amount of military experience between them of any administration in American history. Yeah, that's sure worked out great.:eyes:

His buddies in the Pentagon? Why don't you do a little bit of research concerning what those relationships were actually like before you make any pronouncements like that. Your characterizations are very inaccurate to say the least.

You seem to be very naive if you think Du'ers are going to equate Clark with Reagan as similary dangerous because

a. They are political opportunists (Clark is not a political opportunist. He was quite happy in the private sector, and ran out of a sense of duty when he felt he could help the Democratic Party be stronger. I won't comment on Reagan because there is no point.)

b. They changed political stripes (Reagan did change stripes, Clark did not - he had no stripes until registering democrat. Also, do you really think "changing stripes" is what made Reagan's policies dangerous. What made many of Reagan's policies dangerous were the policies themselves.)

Most Du'ers dislike Reagan's legacy for far more substantial reasons than that. Nice try, though.

If I'm mistaken about you being a troll, my apologizes. But bizzare posts like this from one with a relatively low number of posts is bound to arise suspicion.

He never was registered as a Republican, and having been an independent most of his life helps in the general election, it makes him appear middle of the road and nonpartisan.

STATING THEM AS FACT! He wasn't REGISTERED IN EITHER PARTY!!!! He voted for Clinton and Gore and Kerry. How many years does that go back?

I like it but it was used against him in 2004 by the media. He also seems to speak about the issues instead of spouting the acceptable party lines.

the only weakness I can think of is the way
my friends on the more left side of the party
perceive him .

They really don't like the idea of a "GENERAL"

of course there really is nothing that Wesley
can do about being a General :shrug:

but that is all I can come up with :hi:

My hubby, a very liberal DUer, feels the same. Even he was almost won over by the end of the campaign, however. But he DID take the time to really listen to Clark and do his research.

Personally, I don't think it was wise of Clark to associate himself with the George McGovern and Michael Moore crowd. And skipping the Iowa caucus turned out to be a bad idea too.

The good Gov. Vilsak recommended he skip it. If liberals chose to endorse him, I think it would have been far worse to reject them, especially when he considers himself to be a liberal.

Of course Vilsak wanted Clark to skip the Iowa primary. So much the better for John Kerry.

why he did that.

Prior to that he was constantly being accused of being a closet republican (by the likes of Lieberman no less), so he needed some liberal bona fides. Basically it was to say "look Moore and McGovern don't have a problem with me"

I think it took some courage to actually defend MM. I'm tired of the Al From take that we should run away from Moore and MoveOn (well then again, I don't think the party ever really alligned itself that closely with Moore. It's one of those dumb repuke media myths).

They don't. Seriously. Since when has either of them been a political kingmaker? Winning the McGovern and Moore endorsement sweepstakes didn't do anything for Clark, other than create a PR nightmare when Moore started calling the president a deserter. A more experienced politician would have realized that.

But it was something he felt he had to do, after being called a republican by Dean and Lieberman.

As for calling the president a deserter, he said he wouldn't condemn Moore's statements and he was right not to do so.

And either way, it was the truth. Bush was a deserter.

Michael Moore is a very popular figure. His movie won at Cannes Film festival.

And here in the US, it won "The People's Choice Award."

Nothing wrong with Michael Moore.

If you think he isn't popular you may be listening to right wing tv or radio. That can be very hazardous to your health, physical and mental.

among many, but very unpopular among others. I may like him and agree with his point of view, but many have been convinced he's spreading lies (it's funny though, that they are never able to disprove any of what he has to say though).

All I will say is he's a polarizing figure. That said, I never said the party should run away from him. In fact I explicitly condemned From's view that we should run away from Moore and MoveOn.

it seems.

So as long as our side of the polarity has more support and we can straighten out the election fraud, etc mess, it is okay with me.

He is now light years beyond where he was in the beginning of the campaign and going into Iowa.

However I can't imagine many others with the courage and sense to enter the race as a novice and end up winning Oklahoma and taking 2nd in several states.

He's improved a lot since then. I thought he did great campaigning across the country for Kerry and other Dems.

He's at the top of my list for '08.

Glad to hear it.

So many people in the left of the Democratic Party start out with a built in suspicion about anything or anyone having anything to do with the American military. I admit I was that way. Having people like George McGovern and Andrew Young and Michael Moore and Earth Day founder former Senator Gaylord Nelson and Mary Frances Barry, Ex Chairwoman of the US Civil Rights Commission, in Clark's camp was what many people needed to open up their eyes and really look at the man, Wesley Clark, rather than their own prejudices.

By the way I love Clark's reply when he was asked if he was a Republican wolf in Sheep's clothing. He said: "I never thought of Democrats as Sheep.

"By the way I love Clark's reply when he was asked if he was a Republican wolf in Sheep's clothing. He said: "I never thought of Democrats as Sheep."

He defended MM on the grounds of freedom of speech during the NH Primary Debate on national television without even flinching, that's more than JK or JE ever did by a longshot.

by General Clark's intensely sophisticated understanding of other cultures, history, and diplomacy.

I noticed him when he was commander of NATO back in '99 and thought, "Woh, a General with an intellect and a soul. One who wasn't just parroting the Pentagon's agenda. Wow."

Yet during the primaries, people would flame him constantly for an incident that transpired when the Russian's took the airport outside Kosovo temporarily. They said he made a bad call. Some British General said in response to his order, "General, I will not start WWIII for you." People were calling him a war criminal for bombing the Chinese Embassy and (I think ) a radio station(?) as well.

Next to what the neocons have done in Iraq, he's a total peacenik.

I dunno. I wasn't there. Am still enormously impressed with the man. He's political skills improved so much by the time he withdrew his candidacy. I very was sad when he dropped out and really hope he stays politically active.

I know... I know... He likes them after they've been left out over night. He also likes the Constitution very much, so I will ignore the cheetos, and the peeps.

:o