i can no longer support Clark (for VP)

I was hoping for a Dean/ Clark ticket.
Not anymore.

I don't want a military guy running the country.
Military men grow up in a culture of rules, laws, discipline, war, death, following orders, no creativity, etc.


Furthermore,
CAPPS II
against flag burning
said, "we need to use all the reasources available to the gov't to fight terrorism without infringing on civil liberties" (but where would he draw the line, i am against the patriot act)


I think a Dean/ Bob Graham ticket would be pretty cool.


Just my opinion.

I've been saying this all along.

I don't want a military guy running the country.
Military men grow up in a culture of rules, laws, discipline, war, death, following orders, no creativity, etc.

You mean structure? And don't you think you are generalizing? I know military men that are for peace and wonderful writers as well. Howard Zinn is a WW II vet, yet he is a creative, influential person.

By the way, I also think a Dean/Clark ticket would not work.

one survived the military, the other thrived in it. that takes a different mindset and personality. i don't want that type of mindset or personality in the white house.

Look for Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark.

Like that would've happened!

ABB!!! Bush Out!

anyway. He has already said that....a million times.

Go, Clark!

Military people are trouble? GWB was not military and look how much trouble, disorder and chaos he's delivered to us and the world. I think it's time for some organization and vision. Clark fascinates me because he's a combination of strength, vision, displicine and humanitarism all rolled into one. The one thing we all have to keep in mind that there will no nominee or elected person that is perfect. Our job is to bick the BEST candidate. I still say Clark is just the man to do it.

Military people are trouble? GWB was not military and look how much trouble, disorder and chaos he's delivered to us and the world. I think it's time for some organization and vision. Clark fascinates me because he's a combination of strength, vision, discipline and humanitarianism all rolled into one. The one thing we all have to keep in mind that there will never be a nominee or elected person that is perfect. Our job is to pick the BEST candidate. I still say Clark is the best - he's what our country needs at this time.

he would make a terrible VP, but an excellent president.

Being from the previous quagmire AKA Nam era I know of no military man that supports war.Checkout the chicken in command.This creep is all to willing to send the nations best in harms way to promote a greedy agenda.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

But then you'll be faced with what, judging by your posts, will be an even bigger dilemma--Voting for a "military" Dem nominee or providing assistance to Chimp by staying home or voting Nader.

taking his job is Vince McMahon....

As a career military man, approaching my 20 year mark, I have to say that I did not grow up in a culture of ... discipline, war, death, following orders, no creativity, etc.

I grew up in Los Angeles, before I joined. Since then, I have had to follow orders (disobey your boss, see how long you stay employed), follow rules (ditto), and obey laws (I do want to stay out of jail)...

Don't we hammer Bushco for not obeying rules and subverting laws?

Now, if you don't want Clark in, fine. I don't care who you support. But don't smear all the military because you don't like Clark.

Some here feel that military service should be a DISQUALIFIER to run for higher office. How insane is that? If we continue to insult everyone in the military, we'll continue to lose...

Don't like my candidate, fine. But don't disparage the entire service.

There is a world of difference between "military service" and being a career militarist. I think the former is not only fine for a presidential candidate but quite likely an asset. The latter, on the other hand, means that the candidate was a professional soldier, is likely to be deeply involved with the defense industry, and has spend the better part of his or her professional life in an autocratic environment. THAT is not good preparation for presidential leadership, IMO.

Please stop trying to blur the difference between "military service" and career militarism.

view of "militarists" and an individual running for President.

Clark is also part Jew. Should we question his commitment to Israel?

He has appeared on the cover of The Advocate. Does that mean he's gay?

Wes Clark is a man who comes from normal, working class roots and who found a ticket out through the military. He made a career out of that kind of public service and gave the US taxpayer more than their money's worth. Now he is a civilian and running for office.

Claiming his career in the military should disqualify him for consideration is totally bogus. He is an educated, erudite man experienced in international affairs and with a good sense of the extent and limitations of America's power and influence in the world.

He is at least as qualified as the current president and much more likely to make substantive changes than candidates who carry with them decades worth of compromises and insider deals.

It wasn't professionals that built the Ark.

I'm carreer military, and proud of it.

I think W is trouble, and should be hammered. I am ABB.


I am just saying that i would not prefer to have a military president.
Especially one that may reduce civil liberties.



Also,
I would prefer not to have a religious fundamentalist leading the country or the justice dept. or the education dept.

Most of my family are/were career military. My father was highly ranked and one of my uncle's is in the Pentagon now (pulling out what remains of his hair and headed for a heart attack, but there nonetheless). This ignorant judgmental anti-military crap makes me sick.

of leading countries into war. Is bush a peace loving man that is measured when commiting the US to war? Draw your own conclusions but the premise is flawed.

#2 - Clark has said a million times he would neither choose Dean for VP not be his VP.

Yes, Graham would be better for Dean. Unfortunately, that would not be a winning ticket.

The comment attempting to relate military people with lack of creativity is mindless and really doesn't deserve comment. I've worked with the military for 31 years and I can tell you that our modern military is extremely resourceful and creative.

But this has no real bearing on anything....truth is....you don't really need a lot of creativity to fix the problems created by the right wing, they are so obvious.

But since you've raised the issue of Clark and the relationship with the military, I'll inform you of the outstanding positive that Clark has in this regard.

Actually Clark represents all the right things at the right time in terms of his connection with the military, and what has to be clearly reversed in terms of abuse of the military by bush. Clark clearly recognizes that the military has been shafted in this whole affair. bush took one of our best assets, a highly trained, highly motivated volunteer Army, and treated it like a piece of chit by sending these guys over to annihilate an enemy that had really no means of fighting. The right wing mentality looked at Iraq and said "it's doable"....without thinking of the consequences. It was really that mindless. But what many people simply fail to realize is the crime of exploiting one of the United States best assets. Bush exploited this wonderful volunteer Army and used it for a head hunting expedition.

Stop and think for a moment. Do you think this highly motivated volunteer Army will ever be the same after this abuse? W gloats with arrogance that the rest of the world will never doubt the "WORD" of the United States again. I think the rest of the world is smart enough to know that bush's war was the epitome of overkill. It really is nothing at all to be proud of. This is like a bully going over and punching a little girl in the stomach and saying....look how tough I am. It ain't gonna fly in terms of any long term respect. And in the end it feeds directly into worldwide disrepect for the US.

RAH RAH zis boom bah....suppport our troops. Nice try. Clark KNOWS what is really going on better than anyone in this regard. Clark has the ability to set us on the right course in terms of what we stand for and how we use the military. He has very clearly articulated that such all out military actions would be used only in the very last resort....which is the way it should be.

Your comment is uninformed and unthoughtful. Clark is EXACTLY the right guy for the right time and especially in the context of correcting the greatest misuse of our forces in the history of the United States.

But your guy isn't much better. He hasn't had the courage to tell us where he stands. And anytime I ask one of his supporters for more information they avoid the question.

Is the same as my position on the following question: "Giovanni, if you are elected president, and you're going to the bathroom and all of a sudden you shit out a basketball-sized monkey made of solid gold, would you have it displayed in the Smithsonian?"

Sure, I would, but it'll never happen.

Basically Clark has said that IF the population at large wanted an amendment against flag-burning (they don't), and IF they went through the petition process (they wouldn't), and IF they would go through all of the processes revolving around getting a constitutional amendment passed (they won't), and IF all the requisite states would ratify such an amendment(they wouldn't), then yes, he would support it because at that point it becomes very obvious that it's the will of the people.

You should fear my basketball-sized golden monkey being in the Smithsonian before you should worry about Clark having to sign an anti-flag-burning amendment.