What's with all the Clarkies?

Many have wondered about the steady following that Wes Clark inspires. Others have been dumbfounded, annoyed, jealous, resentful, exasperated, and even hostile. Switching to bashing Clarkies when arguments against Clark fail on logic is a common tactic. I won't go into those retreads, just look for your nearest flamefest, but I would like to address the support that Clark gets on DU, and perhaps make it more understandable to some. Why exactly is Wes Clark so popular with the grassroots? His grassroot supporters drafted him when he had no intention of entering elective politics, scrutinize his every interview or article, stuck with him when he left the race, and pine for him to run again. Why are his followers so committed to him?

The thing about loyalty is that you must give loyalty in order to recieve it. Loyalty begets loyalty. The reason we are loyal to Clark is because he has always been unfailingly loyal to us. He stood up for us when all others refused. Not because of self interest or political calculations, but because it's the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, it's often been against the prevailing political winds, and against his own personal interests. But he stood up for us anyway, because it was the right thing to do.

When the nation was gungho about going to war in Iraq, and Michael Moore condemned Bush at the Oscars, everyone ridiculed Moore and castigated him for being unpatriotic. Being anti-war was not only considered "unpatriotic" but also unpopular. The media was drooling over the ratings they would get and giddy over their "embeds." The politicians who had signed the IWR were all trying to prove how "patriotic" they were with little American flag lapel pins. But, even against this backdrop, when the popular thing to do would have been to agree with condemnations of Moore or to remain neutral, Wes Clark defended Moore. He stood up for Moore even when he didn't have to, and when no one expected him to. He did it because it was the right thing to do. He stood up for us.

When everyone was running away from the label of "liberal" as if it were political suicide, including Howard Dean, Bill Maher asked Clark on national TV if he would dare touch the label. Wes Clark embraced the label and then proceeded to defend "liberalism" on national TV, at a time when almost everyone else was trying to move to the center and considered "liberal" to be anathema. He stood up for us.

When Howard Dean's Chairmanship of the DNC was under assault for supposed verbal gaffes, so-called Democratic leaders were claiming Dean "didn't speak for them." Leading Democrats went on TV and tried to distance themselves from Dean and his chairmanship. These Democrats claiming "Dean didn't speak for them" ended up weakening not just Dean and the position of DNC Chair, but -- more importantly -- party unity and solidarity in the face of Republican attacks on our party and our Chair. When the media was having a field day with Dean's supposed gaffes, and the political pressure was to disavow association with Dean's Chairmanship ("Dean doesn't speak for me"!), Wes Clark stepped up and said he was proud of Dean and the job he was doing. Clark could have just sat the storm out and not commented. But, instead of caving to political pressure to disavow Dean, Clark defended Dean. He defended Dean, Dean's Chairmanship, and our party. He stood up for us.

A couple of weeks later, when the media excoriated Durbin for his comparison of Bush to Nazis, pundits and politicians fell over each other asserting Durbin was out of line. The media pressure -- and even peer pressure from other Democrats -- would eventual force Durbin to issue a tearful apology, where none was due. Prevailing political pressure was to denounce Durbin, batter him until he apologized, score political pundit points by saying, "See? I'm reasonable and politically correct, unlike that Durbin fella." But Clark refused to condemn Durbin as being out of line, and supported and defended Durbin all the way until the end of the fiasco. Clark kept faith with his own words, "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats!" Clark defended Durbin because Durbin was a Democrat, and because it was the right thing to do. He stood up for us.

When the Wall Street Journal published an attack on Democrats, claiming the Democratic Party had no plans for Iraq and only went around whining about surrender, Clark responded. When pundits and even a few weak-kneed Democrats were nodding their heads, acquiesing to Republican talking points, Clark refused to buy the lie. He wrote and got published a Letter-to-the-Editors of the WSJ countering their assertions and defending the Democratic Party. And when the WSJ later refused to publish his plan, he would not let them stifle him and went to the Washington Post. No one was going to get away with smearing Democrats as whiny negative people, weak on defense with no constructive criticisms or ideas of their own -- not on Clark's watch. He stood up for us.

I may not always agree with Wes Clark on everything, and we do differ on some issues, but I know I can always trust him to stand up for what he believes is right, not what is most popular or politically expedient. He will always stand up for us. He has stood up for us when everyone else refused to. Even as we speak, he is running himself ragged trying to help Democrats win back this country in 2006.

We "Clarkies" are loyal to Clark because Clark is loyal to us. Loyalty begets loyalty. He will always stand up for us, stand up for what is right, stand up for Democrats and all those who repudiate the radical extremists who have hijacked the Republican party.

So when the critics come calling, or when political operatives sneak around to smear him, or complain about how Clark supporters are fanatics (or "a cult of personality" as one critic of Clark claimed recently on DU), they should remember this fact about Clark's grassroots: we fight for Clark because Clark fights for us. Clark has proven himself and continues to every time he stands up for us. I stand with Wes Clark.

This sentence sums it up in a nutshell "we fight for Clark because Clark fights for us."

He's outside of government, yet is well versed in government, especially foreign policy. His statements are clear and show thought behind them rather than being crafted for political expediency. His military experience sits well with Americans, who have elected generals to the Presidency at least five times. His Arkansas roots appeal to the South.

I did not support him in 2004, mainly because I felt we needed someone with government experience in executive office(I was for Gov. Dean). But with the whole government being tainted with the corruption brush (and, sadly, the average American often blames ALL of Congress for Congress's troubles), an outsider with the intelligence and experience of Gen. Clark is needed.

"The reason we are fiercely loyal to Clark is because he has always been unfailingly and fiercely loyal to us.

:kick:

I am loyal to Clark because he is loyal to me.

I'll say that loud and proud and over and over again.

I am fiercely loyal to Wesley K. Clark because he is fiercely loyal to me (and I think he could flip a red state or two or three).

international stature to win back allies, the brains about war to end this one and the smarts about EVERYTHING else -economics- and a love for the environment to do the job. He's the man. So says the sign hanging in my window.

I will proudly support him in his future endeavors and will speak out publicly and privately. Also, stating on his behalf that Wes clearly exemplifies executive leadership. Wes will not go along to get along and will speak up definitively in the face of total opposition.

Another point is that not all Clarkies post during high tension times, but they clearly make the numbers at the various internet polls.

I sincerely hope and pray, Wes runs again as he is the President America deserves. Honor and dignity would be restored to the White House.

on edit: sp

Your words speak for me as well.

:patriot:

started. I make no apologies for it. Your post pretty much says it all for most Clarkies.

After the debacle that is the administration of Spongehead Dumbass, we're going to need the strongest, most genuine, sincere, courageous President we can find to clean up the mess and fix the international damage. Clark is that man.

I've never been so impressed by a candidate; I supported him wholeheartedly and I sure hope he runs again.

It may be wishful thinking, but it would do my heart good to see us take back our democracy with the leadership of President Clark and Chairman Dean.

Hey, I have always found you to be fair and kind to those of us who chose to support a different candidate.

Your feelings are strong, that is good, but the best thing you have going for you is that you always are able to back up what you say and not fall back to the familiar, "You just don't get it."

There are a lot of things to be said for Wes Clark. I still feel a little iffy on some things but I am certain when and if the time comes that he is running again they will be answered. I like the guy, he seems honest and thoughtful and capable.

So, go right ahead. It would be awful if we all supported the same person all the time.

:hi:

I still remember with some fondness a thread the two of us shared early in the primaries where I defended your right to choose Kucinich even though I was a Clarkie. And I would do so again. :)

I remember that and I will be there for you as well. There are so many good people here and some really good people who support candidates that I never could but that does not mean we can't be kind and supportive of each other. The Clark supporters were almost always the first to come into a Kucinich thread to congratulate or to show kindness if the result was not good and to face facts it was almost always the latter.

You all have taken some hard knocks here at times but you all stood firm and that is quite admirable, especially because you were always able to back it up.

Now I am getting mushy! Time to leave before in true Kucitizen style I form a peace circle and ask us all to hold hands. ;)

And I mean that ;)

YOU are SUPER awesome!

:rofl: I mean that too and thanks for making me laugh and smile.

have never been malicious or prone to attacking others just for supporting another Candidate. I guess a lot can be said about a candidate by the type of people who support him or her - and a lot can be said about a group of people by the candidates THEY support. I have always found the General to express himself in a thoughtful and dignified manner, and the same goes for his most ardent supporters.

Nothing better than NH in -20 degree weather.

Oh, and I'll need another old person with me to buy foot warmers. :)

Nothing is nicer than foot warmers in -20 degrees and I have
plenty of fleece socks for the both of us so we will be OK. :)

I am proud to be a Wes Clark supporter, since the draft days...for all the reasons, you so elequently wrote. Thank You So Much.

He stands with me and believes in my vision of a better and peaceful world.

I stand with Wesley Clark!

:dem:

I too am a "Clarkie" and proud of it.

The rest of the Democratic party will eventually come along with us...just be patient.

It's too bad he entered so late and it's too bad Iowa and NH got to decide who our candidate would be. Kerry was never a good choice!

call them liars and thieves to their faces, and demand to be sworn into the office for which he was elected?

:shrug:

Cleland didn't do it.
Mondale didn't do it.
Kerry didn't do it.
Hackett didn't do it.

At some point we have to stop saying "Well, he didn't know it was stolen" and support someone who has every expectation that it will be stolen and who will FIGHT.

:kick:

After one NH townhall, when he was circulating amongst the crowd, unaware a camera was following him, someone asked him how he would respond if they criticized his loyalty or military record. He said "I'll beat the shit out of them." When this was reported in the media, he didn't back down. Instead he had his press guy issue a clarification, stating that what he REALLY meant to say was that "He would beat the living shit out of them."

And he was as good as his word. During a Fox interview with Asman, when Asman tried to imply Clark was unpatriotic, Clark got indignant, tore him to shreds saying, "Don't you dare twist words into disrespect for the men and women in uniform," and still managed to end the interview with a smile. It humilated Fox so much that Fox even had to briefly take the video clip off their website, I think.

So, you see, Clark will fight and not worry about appeasing pundits by being safely politically correct and meek. As seen in the examples in my post above, he fights for what he believes is right, even if it's unpopular.

On the issue of voter fraud, Clark was one of the few (maybe only) candidates to even address it during his campaign. In a radio interview, he likened the theft of 2000 to the last days of the Roman Republic before the fall into Empire -- saying that you had people pounding on the doors while the votes were still being counted inside.

I believe that during a recent National Clark Community Meetup event in Arkansas, they had a workshop on the very issue of voter fraud. Someone who was there could probably tell you more.

Now why couldn't Kerry have issued that sort of clarification re: Mark Crispin Miller?

Mark Crispin Miller claims that Kerry said he now believes (re: election 2004) that he wuz robbed.

Kerry spokesperson clarifies, "Kerry believes he and more importantly, the American public, wuz robbed blind!"

:woohoo:

He's a fighting man, not a spinning man! He doesn't pussyfoot around the issue he flat out nails it to the wall with the guy in the way having his head stuck up there with it!

Thats part of the reason

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


He is a true patriot that has fought hard for the ideals and values this country was founded on. The America that the majority of us know and love and feel we have lost. He has fought for the soldier and his family and now he wants to fight for us.

Enough said!

I've met my share of generals' wives in my time. Most are fine people, but there's a lot of truth to the stereotype of the bossy, self-righteous woman with gloves and hat, wearing her husband's rank among the other wives, and seeking to advance her own status by working for his next promotion, kissing the ass of senior officers and their wives. Not that I haven't seen a similar phenomenon with the wives of CEOs and politicos. Growing up in the south, you see a lot of women who live vicariously thru their husbands' careers.

But none of that is Gert Clark. God love her, I don't think I've ever met a more down-to-earth, caring, hard working, patriotic woman.

As a feminist and a professional woman, I must admit to a certain prejudice, and perhaps a little jealosy, against women who stay at home to take care of family and support their husbands' careers.

Gert has shown me just how much a woman who does can contribute. She has done more for soldiers than many who have actually served on active duty, working to provide them better educational opportunities, housing, and child care. Now that they're retired, she's still active in Little Rock, trying to protect the environment there from out of control developers.

Gert is smart, she's passionate, and she cares about people. And she helps keep her husband's feet nailed firmly to the floor. He's lucky to have her, and so are we.

outside of a polling booth on Primary Day. She spend at least 10 minutes there talking with about five clark supporters. I swear I can see her as a friend and next door neighbor, and the thing the is there is nothing about that image that rings untrue. I can picture that BUT I can also picture her at a table talking comfortably with the President of France. She is such a real and naural person, with the type of charisma that might not shout at you from 200 feet but floods you from 15. She really is great. I met a sister of Gert's at an upstate New York Meet Up once and I loved her too, just a down to earth real person.

presidential campaign. Your post was excellent.

and still have this banner rolled up in my closet.



He is sincere in his love for our country. His intelligence, experience and high ethical standards gave me confidence back in the spring of 2003. I continue to believe that he would make an outstanding President.

Thanks for starting this thread!

for reasons you have stated above, and more.

Intuitively I just think he is most intelligent, authentic - a great man!

DemEx

Rare and wonderful. :)

:pals:

As supported by Rep. McGovern of Mass.?
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5284969&mesg_id=5284969

It would certainly increase my respect for him.

according to some of what I have read and heard, General Clark understands that the "jig" is basically up....and that the American people will be justified in wanting the war ended at a time called "immediate".

That said.....I believe that The General also believes that an immediate pull-out would only possibly save the lives of some of our Soldiers, but not the lives of many Iraqis...nor will it provide a closure for the Pandora's box opened up by the bush Administration.

Clark does hold the lives of Iraqis as precious as those of our volunteer army, as opposed to believing that our Soldier's lives are more dear....and that when we do leave, all will NOT be "peachy-keen".

Further, I strongly suspect that he understands that this bill will probably not change Bush's mind, beyond the fact that they, the Bush administration are currently increasing the troup numbers in Iraq today....and they will announce a partial pull-out shortly prior to the 2006 elections, to much publicity and Photo ops.

So Democrats are demanding a pull-out or a Stop funding.....and at some convenient time that it helps the GOP.....the Democrats will get what they clamor for.......and the rest will can be read in our election history.

Like some would say....be careful in what you wish....cause you just might get 1/2 of it!

Not only should we be concerned with Iraqi's lives, but also their clearly stated desire to have a rapid withdrawal of US forces.

It is about democracy.

I understand that things will not go smoothly when the US leaves. However, I only see that it will be worse if the US stays, and the longer it stays, the worse it gets.

I would like to hear Wesley's views on this.

campaigne on it by saying the Republicans had to be pressured consistantly by us before they would start making some kind of exit plan and thank you very much for finally pulling some of our men out, and then ram it down their throats with not enough, put an end to it now...and we'll show you how it should be done..

and I would add, that he has always stood up for the US to live up to its ideas and follow the Geneva Convention. Torture is wrong and unamerican. He did it again today on the Ed Schultz show.

This Kucinich supporter really appreciates it. You guys do a great job promoting your candidate, and you've always treated my guy with respect.

I'd be happy to vote for Wes Clark in 2008, if it comes to pass.

who voted for Kucinich in my state's caucuses and was a delegate for him all the way to my state convention.

I would always be happy to vote for Kucinich.

Wes and Dennis both stand up for their beliefs and do not back down. No looking to the polls for either of them before they take a stand. Clark was my guy in 2004 and will be again in 2008, but Kucinich, Conyers, Boxer, and memories of Paul Wellstone... they all make my loyal American heart go pitter-pat.

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

really felt that he was the one to make a change. I think he still is!

I am also a Clarkie. I have been from the Draft days. And, that feels like a long time now.

So, I'd just like to say... I, too, stand with Wes Clark. If you don't know why I say that by now, you haven't been paying attention!

:patriot: Go, Wes!

TC

As a "hard head" Clarkie, I will just add to your list the fact that he drew up the plans for saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans in 1994....a plan that was never used over his objections.


And he stood up for me with his AA stance as he wrote it in the Amecus Brief to the SCOTUS during the U of Michigan case.

Well said.

We will fight for Clark because Clark fights for us.

And if each of us can find some portion of the courage and tenacity he shows every day, we will win.

:patriot:

who worked for everything he has, including an unbelievable education, yet who still remains humble and honest. One of the coolest guys to have a beer with, or with whom to talk about anything. He listens. He understands. And if he can do something to help you, he will. Doesn't have a racist or sexist bone in his body. He wants people to be rewarded for work, and to have the opportunity to work. He gets rankled by injustice and he will stand up to anyone if he thinks they are wrong. He should be President. That's not going to stop him from working for and supporting people like Hackett or Ed Shultz (we won!) and getting this country back into the hands of the people. What I don't get is why all DUers aren't fond of him, but there are quite a few trolls on this board.

I met the General at the Florida Democratic Convention at the Coronado Springs Resort on Disney property here in Orlando.

We need a Democratic General to rebuild America after its ravaging by the Bush hoard, for the same reason that Europe needed General Marshall. (There's so damn much to fix)

Repairing America will require a Marshall plan, or if you will, a Clark Plan.

Hyernel

(Note to Clark Aids:: Feel free to use this idea.)

:hi:

Always great to have another Clarkie on board.

:toast:

Clark has managed a lot of people and managed a lot of money in his military background. I think he is mainstream and would get a lot of votes.

He has stood up for those who need it, not those who can give him something in return. He does it because it is right and thank you for doing the same.

for saying what was on my mind, but ever so eloquently.
Not since Bobby Kennedy have I been so inspired by a public figure as I have been inspired by Wes Clark. It is no wonder that General Clark has so many FIERCELY LOYAL supporters.

Believe me I know :(

with zero substantiation, or are you just a flamethrower lurking here?

She keeps saying that, yet provides no proof.

Veterans come out by the hundreds in every city to hear him speak - they admire him. Just ask Eric Massa and Paul Hackett.

whose name :freak: shall not defile this thread.

I forgot about Eric Massa. Another great vet who should have been elected to Congress!

...and you? You can check my profile and search my posts, so I "don't think" I'm a DU trollster...:rofl:

Please, this is not personal against Nice Guy Wes, he rocks, but he won't be the Dem Candidate in '08. I would LOVE to see him use his talents and WAR skills running our Defense Department with the Dem Administration from '09 to '17 :))))

"run the Defense Department from '09....."

And you're right about one thing, Clark IS definitely one of a kind.

Thanks for playing :hi: I never liked that "law", a civilian running the Pentagon? Then again, civilians run hospitals too, and look where that got us (generic) in health care failure :( Would Dean be able to be Surgeon General then?

But to answer your original "statement", mainstream Amerikka has no clue about constitutional law. It's our job to "learn 'im" !

Not veteran friendly? Where is that from?

Not if you're trying to persuade anybody.

You don't even define what you mean by "military trenches." Where? Active or retired? You've implied both, but there are not many communities that include both. What sort of numbers? And assuming you're not just making it up, why shoud we believe your impressions are based on more than anecdotal evidence?

You said in a different threat that Clark is "more loathed by vets than Kerry," smearing two good Dems in one post. And yet when another poster (not a Clarkie) cited numbers that Clark won a higher percentage of the vets in the primaries, you never replied back.

Look, I am a vet, and retired Army. My husband is a retired Army Vietnam vet, who works for the railroad with a lot of other vets and Guardsmen, and is a lifetime VFW member. My brother is a retired Army vet and DoD contractor. My son is in the Guard now. So that's the "trench" I live in. And I know that Clark is not "loathed" by any of the above, or any of the groups to which they belong.

just makes a poster look ridiculous. No link, no substantiation.

How can anyone make a post like that and then complain that Clarkies come onto Edwards threads and hi-jack them? That contention makes as much sense as this one. It's bizarre. :crazy:

TC

Again, nothing personal, just politics, thats all :silly: As a lifelong military brat/wife, there has been no such thing as a liberal General.

I hope to God/DNC/DLC/DCCC, that if Gen Clark is our 2008 Dem Candidate, there's more on his resume other than war hero/nice guy, which I do agree with :)

There are lots of liberals in the military, and some of them make general. Clark is one, and if you would bother reading about him, in this very thread, you'd know that there are specific things he did while on active duty that demonstrate it.

But isn't it interesting. First you argue that he is "loathed" by the military. Now you argue that he can't really be a liberal since there are no liberal generals. Well, if he's not really a liberal, why is he so loathed?

Your ignorance about what else is on his resume is absolutely precious. You're out of your league, dear. Learn something about the man before you make blanket statements about what he is or isn't.

I took you simply as someone who was enthusiastic about their favored potential candidate, but I never thought you would stoop to making up crap about others.

I have no respect for you now; how could I?

I'm married to a retired 0-6, 3x-war hero and a repug. I do like Gen Clark, but the vets will not vote for him. Sorry, I wasn't clear, but if you think the SBVT were nasty-ugly towards Kerry, oy, please, my observations are not personal, believe me :patriot:

I'm not sure who I'm supporting for 2008 yet, but if you're just going to toss this out without so much as saying why, I don't think I'll want to hear from you through the primaries.

I think Wes Clark would make a fine president. It just gets a little exasperating when any group hoists their candidate up on a pedastol, treating him/her like a sacred cow.

Not only Clarkies, but also Deaniacs...many of these candidates' supporters get carried away. It's one thing to make a positive case for your candidate, but a lot of this people get really personal in their rhetoric.

Although, by and large, the Hillaristas are far, far worse (perpetuating the MSM talking point that their icon's presidency is "inevitable").

DO Clark for some reason. I think it's because I was RAISED in a Military family, and even though my father was NEVER the over-bearing First Sgt. type, I couldn't stand the lifestyle!!

I couldn't wait to graduate and leave home, and you'd have to live it to understand it!

Mlitary types pretty much STAY that way! There's a certain niche they get into and "lifers" are just that "lifers!"

I have a problem with a lot of "military politics!"

How can you support Edwards, knowing there are unscrupulous lawyers out there? That would be just as dishonest.

It makes sense for me, and I certainly don't expect open agreement here. It was a lifestyle that I lived. I came from a family of six kids, and it was ALL about RULES & REGULATIONS!!

We had it drummed into our heads VERY EARLY on that how WE comported ourselves was a reflection on my father. Had any of us gotten into any criminal trouble we were told he could "get busted" or in layman's terms loose a stripe or two.

Now that may NOT be how it is today, but just check how "scripted" our military of today is. You follow the rules, don't ask too many questions and you'll be fine. Sort of don't roam off the reservation type thing.

Guess you had to be there. My brother-in-law was in the Air Force and I see it in him all the time!

I left the reservation a long time ago... not going back! I'm NOT BLAMING the soldiers per se, it's just HOW it's done!

How far off the reservation did Colin Powell roam, and look where we are today!!! Clark was a "lifer" and a great person, he doesn't stand down much. I guess it's just a perspective. My father was my political nemisis... a True Blue Democrat but still had to walk a certain walk regarding certain issues. That was HIS choice... not mine!

superimposing your own personal experiences to that of all families who grew up with one of their parents being a military officer.

It's ok, because at least you admit it....so that's a good start.

Unfortunately, I think that what you are saying says way more about your personal experiences than anything relating to General Clark.

Wes Jr., is a wonderful progressive and outspoken individual and Hollywood screenwriter, who doesn't appear to "regret" his childhood one bit.



a few more....
From the Mouths of Babes
http://www.slate.com/id/2094860/

http://karik.wordherders.net/archives/000819.html

Interview with Wes Clark Jr.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/25/sm.09.html

was a personal experience. My father was fantastic and I was the one closest to him. Just not big on the military way of life, PERSONALLY.

Since, based on your personal experiences, you've admitted that you can't seem to be objective on an individual such as Wes Clark.

What I think I'm saying is that I'm not drawn to him and was explaining the reasons I think I'm not.

I can't do a point counter point about his views, nor am I saying he's not capable. I'm just not fuzzy for him but can't be more specific.

I don't know what you call it, sometimes I just say it's my "hinky" feeling. I certainly could be totally off "base" here. It's just me, myself & I. I'm pretty open about most things, maybe I just need to see more of him.

I need a hard sell to make up my mind, it's just not there now.

That's OK with me. You are not saying untrue negative things about another person, just trying to explain why you are not drawn to Clark. Something like that often is subjective and a lot of people won't even talk about things like that but it is always a big part of the equation. So though your comments might have set off a bit of back and forth, as long as you are reflecting your real feelings, they are valid for you. The same goes for the people who can't get where you are coming from.

You said you will keep an open mind on Clark and I believe you. And if your feelings don't change there is still a great deal we can work together on.

I'm NOT An antagonist...

Clark, that he stands up for people..how Refreshing!..Michael Moore liked it so much he supported Clark in the primaries!

prefer them is horse shit. Wholesale attacks of one candidate's supporters simply because you have another favorite is childish, unnecessary, and all too common here at DU, I'm afraid. If supporters of Wes Clark have been bashed just for being supporters of Wes Clark, I apologize for that, though I have never done it, and never would. I imagine it's pretty painful to see the person you support slammed up one wall and down the other just because some closed-minded nitwit has another Dem in mind that they like better. We are all on the same team here, like it or not, and need to stand united against the Bush regime - not against each other.

This is a great post, and my hat is off for you for speaking for ALL of us who stand behind our favorite Dems - whoever they may be.

Recommended.

:patriot:

when they are being bashed needlessly. And I would hope others would do the same.

We don't need to be so factionalized.

What I think folks forget is that one group knows their guy well, and another group knows a different guy well, etc. I don't understand everything about Dean and Clark, others don't understand Kerry all that well and so on. What we SHOULD do is listen to each other instead of fighting.

We always learn more by listening instead of ranting. Besides, we have a lot of great guys in our camp, all with strengths of offer. I like to celebrate all these great Dems instead of going out of my way to look for reasons to attack them.

But that's just silly ol' "the glass is half-full" me. :-)

I hate what you Kerry people are going through right now. I hate seeing this place turn into Democrat Bashing Underground. I wish that people here were able to disagree in a respectful manner and not always feel like they have to be so hurtful.

There are Dems who are not my cup of tea, but NOBODY should be condemned or attacked just because they're inspired by a particular Dem. We should be glad when anyone on our side is inspired, no matter who it's by, as long as it's not a Repuke.

Us Clarkies get it sort of off and on. Things will be okay for awhile, and then we'll get hit with massive waves of hate. I don't have a problem with some people disliking Wes Clark, but I have a real problem with that kind of hatred being directed at ANYONE who's on our side.

Why the hate? I'm pretty sure some of them are just disrupting trolls, while others just have real issues that they try to cope with by putting others down to make themselves feel better. Still, it really weakens the party, and is quite juvenile.

If there is one thing all the bashing accomplishes though, it reinforces one's staunch support of their candidate, so the desired affect of these disruptors is really not being achieved.

Thanks for the kind words, Crunchy Frog - you're one of the good guys.

for old times sake...

Loyalty is indeed what it's all about, not blind loyalty but loyalty based on character, words, and actions.

:toast:

:woohoo:

I can count on Clark to continue taking clear stands on issues that matter. What other leading National Democrat, or perhaps I should say White Democrat, talks extensively about issues in Africa? Clark considers the international AIDS epidemic to be a compelling national security issue as well as a profound moral one, because when disaster befalls any region, the implications are always international:
http://securingamerica.com/issues/aidsstrategy

Earlier this year Clark made a major push to mobilize American public and political interest in the ongoing catastrophe taking place in Darfur:
http://securingamerica.com/articles/npr/2005-08-22

Caring about what happens in Africa has never been a standard way for an American Politician to position him or herself for approval from the electorate. But Clark thinks these are important issues that must be addressed, so he speaks out, and he asks his supporters to join him in speaking out also. Clark never shut down the grassroots supporters aspect of his Clark 04 website, the Clark Community Network. It didn't matter to him that Kerry and Edwards were the Democratic ticket or that his Presidential ambitions most likely over at that point, since we all believed in a Kerry victory. We were asked to keep organizing to help the Democratic Party.

More recently we were asked to organize for Paul Hackett in Ohio when he ran for Congress. We are being asked to organize for Tim Kaine in Virginia at this very minute. Tim Kaine of course is close to current Virginia Governor Mark Warner who very well may run for President in 2008. If Kaine wins that can strengthen Warner for that potential race. Clark knows that, but that isn't what matters to him right now. Rebuilding the Democratic Party is what matters right now, so that we can offer effective opposition to and soon replace the Republican Party as the majority Party in this nation. I can be an active Clark supporter now because Clark is actively supporting the Democratic Party now. It isn't just a shadow dance for 2008. It's about making a difference now. The victory announced today in getting the Pentagon to clear Ed Schultz for broadcast over Armed Forces Radio is a proud one, but there will be many more such efforts. Wesley Clark is providing effective ongoing leadership and I am glad to assist those efforts.

And I really want to acknowledge the many heartfelt comments from supporters of other Democrats made above on this thread. Thank you for the kindness, and your commitments are honored also. I respect that other voices speak stronger to other people. I worked hard for Kerry last year, and I expect to work hard for a wide group of Congressional and State Democratic office seekers in 2006.

I think Gen, Clark has a list of positive accomplishments a mile long. He's a straight shooter, and he gets things done. Just because I have "another man" pictured in my avatar whom I have a soft spot for doesn't mean I don't appreciate the General. ;-)


I hope Clark's presidential aspirations are NOT over and that he'll continue to stay out there on the forefront. We need all the strong capable men and women we can get helping us out in this long arduous battle against the Repuke machine. Instead of all the infighting, I just wish people could appreciate all the strengths of the different members of our party combined, and what they all bring to the table. Sure, nobody's perfect, and yes, our guys who ARE only human, will err at times, but the big picture of their accomplishments is what's important IMHO. Keep in mind, I'm not saying ALL at DU are divisive. Most are great - but the squeaky wheels often get the oil, don't they? :-) It can be disconcerting at times how the naysayers can often, at least temporarily, drown out the voices of those of us who want to have reasonable discourse. But still - if that's the price you pay to allow free speech, I'm willing to pay it.

to the gates of hell, if he asked. I say that in part because I know that he would never ask unless it was absolutely, unavoidably necessary. But mostly I say that because I trust his judgment, I trust his motives, and as you have so eloquently pointed out, I trust his loyalty to the ideals we all share as Americans, and as human beings.

When he talks about "Duty, Honor, Country" I know that he doesn't mean blind obedience or mindless jingoism. He speaks instead as a true patriot, whose love of country inspires constant improvement, and whose love of his fellow man demands constant vigilance on their behalf. I want to be proud of my country in ways that I have never been able, and I know that he shares that goal.

My father was in the Marine Corps, and they have a motto, too: "Semper fidelis." Always faithful. Clark has given that phrase new meaning for me.

"In August 1995, the general — three stars, working as J-5 for the Joint Chiefs — went to Bosnia as part of the negotiating team Ambassador Richard Holbrooke had put together to end the civil war that had resulted in the massacre of as many as eight thousand Muslim men and boys at the town of Srebrenica the month before. In Belgrade, Clark had met for the first time Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, who was sponsoring the Bosnian Serbs. Now the team had to travel to Sarajevo. Told that the airport in Sarajevo was too dangerous to fly into, the team decided to drive and asked Milosevic to guarantee its safety on a road held by Bosnian Serbs. Milosevic did not, and so the team wound up taking a fortified Humvee and an armored personnel carrier on a pitched, narrow, winding mountain road notoriously vulnerable to Serb machine-gun fire. Clark and Holbrooke went in the Humvee, the rest in the APC.

In his book, the general describes what happened this way: "At the end of the first week we had a tragic accident on Mount Igman, near Sarajevo. were killed when the French armored personnel carrier in which they were riding broke through the shoulder of the road and tumbled several hundred meters down a steep hillside."

It is not until one reads Holbrooke's book…that one finds out that after the APC went off the road, Clark grabbed a rope, anchored it to a tree stump, and rappelled down the mountainside after it, despite the gunfire that the explosion of the APC set off, despite the warnings that the mountainside was heavily mined, despite the rain and the mud, and despite Holbrooke yelling that he couldn't go. It is not until one brings the incident up to the general that one finds out that the burning APC had turned into a kiln, and that Clark stayed with it and aided in the extraction of the bodies."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/868.html

A 50-year-old 3-star general rappels down a mountainside in the rain and under gunfire to try to save people from a burning vehicle -- and then he never even mentions it in his own book. Try to imagine a chickenshit loser like Bush doing that!

...and I found it a very telling incident, and a sure measure of the man's character.

"There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: it works."

"Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated."

"We don't want to be the kind of country where grandmothers need to travel to Canada to afford the medicine they need to stay alive. We don't want to be the kind of country where school budgets get cut to pay for tax breaks so millionaires can have more leisure time. And we certainly don't want to be the kind of country where our own President implies that we're unpatriotic if we question the very policies that got us into this mess in the first place."

"As president, I will employ every weapon in the U.S. arsenal to beat back the forces of terrorism...But the weapons of our country must not be limited to our awesome military capabilities. They must involve the web of international relationships we have built over generations."

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back."

-- Wes Clark, loyal liberal

I'm copying this for future reference. Nice post.

-Paige

We are supposed to be liberals and Democrats. How come so many attack feel they have to attack other Democrats? I would never say an unkind word about General Clark even if I didn't agree with him on every issue. That is loyalty and that is respect. ALL the Democrats (with notable exceptions such as Zell Miller) deserve respect. You don't have to support someone else's candidate, but why are so many people so hateful. Don't we have enough to hate on the other side?

General Clark is a hero and a true American and it hurts me to see this kind of thing happen, especially here in a forum that is supposed to be one of support for liberal ideals.

This is the time when we should be elevating our heroes rather than tearing them down.

And Clark isn't the only Dem being trashed around here. It happens whenever anyone says something nice about any Dem. The attackers come in with their hate speeches and the thread goes down in flames.

God bless all our Democratic heroes and protect them...especially from their own.

Just my two cents.

Please stick around. We need voices like yours.

The reason for my post was because it really hurts to see all these attacks. I love Wes Clark and I love all the other Dems too. I remember watching the Democratic debates last year and I was proud to see that the candidates showed more common cause then they did dissension. It mad me proud to be a Dem. They reminded me of the lineup of astronauts in "The Right Stuff." Okay, Lieberman has been a disappointment in some of his actions and statements, but he's still a Democrat, for God's sake. Until he goes completely Zell, I'm not going to attack him on a liberal board.

Why do some people think that loving Howard Dean means that you have to trash John Kerry? Why do some people think that loving Dennis Kuchinich means that you have to trash Wes Clark?

Is there no place safe from Republican propaganda? They infiltrate and not not only do they tear us apart; they get us to tear each other apart too. It is damn depressing. I've written to the administration here asking that they address the problem. Don't know if it will do any good, but I gave it a shot.

The Democratic Candidates can't win if the people of the Democratic party spend their time attacking and cannibalizing other Democrats. Then the Right Wing wins and we are up Sh!t Creek AGAIN.

Clark may not be your Favorite Candidate or
Hillary may not be your Favorite Candidate or
Edwards may not be your Favorite Candidate or
Kerry or Kucinich
But we need to be supportive of those who do like that candidate and not tear down the Candidate or his/her supporters
Because then we all lose

we can muster up some unity.

Personally, I believe that there are people here with the express purpose of stirring the pot. Republicans. It is hard to believe that true Democrats would be so backbiting and negative.

The more they try to divide us, the more we have to stick together.

When Bush said he is backing Cheney (on torture) he showed who has always pulled the stings.

Howard Dean would do well hanging around that guy as much as possible. They both seem the Cerebral yet 'Get it done' type of guys

There is so much I can go on about clark but you nailed it for me. Is clark perfect- no no one is. Clark is the closest thing you can get though. Clark is Senator Kerry without the baggage. And I mean that with the upmost respect from the good senator from mass. :D

He didn't utter a word of criticism against any of the other Democratic candidates.

Good name for a novel or tell-all?
Anyway, we both were for Clark. I don't/didn't bash Kerry but he was not my first choice. Why bash Clark and Clark supporters?

Clark will unite this country and stop a lot of hatred between reds and blues. He'll turn this country purple! He'll do that with the whole world too. We'll be respected again. If anyone can do that, Clark can.

I just got a call from my son ... I'm a Grandmother of a baby girl who is 2 minutes old. You're the first to know.

I hope you'll tell us all about it and post all kinds of pictures when you get the chance.:bounce: :toast: :hug:

:toast: :popcorn:

A new baby! We need to make sure she has an America to grow up in! And, being a Gran is great, isn't it?

TC

Congratulations--I'm really happy for you!

:party: :toast: :bounce: :loveya: :grouphug: :pals: :applause:

A couple weeks ago, my Republican boss was suddenly willing to listen to my opinion, he asked me about Hillary...I told him that if it boils down to her, I would vote for her...But that I really wanted Clark, we are at war, and we need someone who can handle that and that he also taught economics, so he would know what to do about the economy too....

I did go see him last year, and took my daughter and her girlfriend...we all walked out with stars in our eyes...

and then get home and get to work. organize, find candidates, run yourself for local offices, get involved with your local Democratic group, feet on the ground passing out info about candidates, make phone calls, support local Democratic events etc. There is a ton of work to be done in every town and city in this country;the goal "take congress back"

Back to work, many emails to send out.

but frankly, and at the risk of causing anger here, growing up in the military it soon became obvious to me that to become a one star general one had to display a very rare kind of assholery, and to become a two star general one needed a brutality and ruthlessness that is seldom encountered in the civilian world. To reach the level Clark did,

Jeezus -

And think about it. Why wouldn't you want the leaders in your military to be hyper-agressive, cutthroat people?


Don we now our asbestos...

The most people most literally supportive of sending young Americans to war are the Chicken Hawks who all managed to avoid facing war themselves; people like Bush and Cheney, people like Rush Limbaugh and that list goes on and on. They are the ones who posture in flight suits on Aircraft Carriers and sneer "Bring it On!"

Cutthroat is used as a metaphor for a type of fierce competitor, I understand that, but I find your associating the terms brutal ruthless, aggressive and cutthroat almost exclusively with military officers to be quite dubious at the very best. Those who have seen war are seldom gung ho about it. Granted, when one must be fought they would rather win than lose. That isn't being ruthless, that is being honest and competent.

The upper echelons of politics are often described with same words you used. CEOs of major corporations as well have that capacity. All of these men, and less frequently women, can be charming in their public faces. That too is part of their skill kit. They are all aggressive to rise so high in highly competitive environments. At the very least they are extremely tough in ways, because to rise to the top of any organization with thousands of people competing to acquire very real power, they must fend off ruthless and cutthroat competitors. I have seen more honesty and personal integrity in the military officers I have known than in the politicians and business executives I have known, though there are good people in every field at every level. If you don't realize that you are prejudiced.

Pay attention to individuals, not a fixed mind set.

I spent over 20 years in the military. General officers are no different than the senior executives of any other large organization.

Some are good; some are bad. Some are brilliant; some are dumb as rocks but rode the right coattails. Some made their way by working their butts off; some got promoted by playing the political game well. Some take care of subordinates and exhibit real leadership; some only look out for #1.

The competition to general is tough, and most people who make the grade truly excell at one or more of the above traits. Which I suppose means if they are assholes, they are fire-breathing assholes. But the ones who get there by real talent and hard work are some of the most capable people of any profession you could name. And the ones motivated by love of country and devotion to the soldiers they serve with are the finest people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. I can personally attest that Wes Clark falls in both of the latter catagories.

I don't know how many generals you could have met personally as a military brat. I doubt my kids ever met one, and I was a field grade officer so had exposure to quite a few. I'm thinking your view of generals is more likely filtered thru the perspective of your military parent. If that parent had a bad experience, or you perceived from the outside that he or she was being mistreated, then maybe your low opinion is understandable. But it is anecdotal and in no way approaches the truth about general officers overall, and certainly not about any one general officer in particular.

and like I stated, I would LIKE to believe in Clark, but my own experience prevents me from ever trusting someone who was that intricately involved in the American Military Machine. I believe that what this country suffers from the most, beyond all other problems, is a slavish devotion to militarism. I grew up with, and spent plenty of time in the households of high-ranking military officers and it SEEMED to me that the higher up in rank they got, the more they were used to getting their way and the more intolerant of dissent they became.

Is Clark like that personally? I don't know - I can only see things from my limited perspective, but couple that with my empirical observations of this starry-eyed astroturf devotion, all these "Is their none more glorious than our beloved General?" "Yes, he certainly is the most intelligent human being to ever grace this planet" posts around here and my distrust meter justs gets pegged. The Powers That Be have obviously cut their boy Bush out of the will and will soon be selling their new, improved model to the American people. Is it Clark? I sure hope not.

Sorry.

is directly related to the OP.

Clark has always promoted dissent as the highest form of patriotism. Even his detractors recognize that.

Here's a snip from a very snarky Chris Suellentrop (isn't he always?) Slate article 5 days after WKC became a political candidate (9/22/2003) on the occasion of a speech to the cadets at the Citadel:

but if someone criticizes his loyalty or military record he'll beat the shit out of them.

Clarification:

He'll beat the LIVING shit out of them.

OK.

as I'm sure you know.

:silly:

I'm free to beat them to a pulp?

:silly::silly:

...that a Democrat running for office, a highly honored American veteran who won medals for valor shown in battle, should say something other than: "I'll beat the living shit out of them" when asked by a concerned voter what he would do if the Republican attack machine tried to smirch his honor and service the way that Karl Rove's minions tore into John McCain during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina.

That is the question that Wes Clark was responding to. That question was asked of him months before the "Swift Boats for Truth" hit men did a full frontal assault on John Kerry's military service, remember? Within the rhetorical context of the question, I think few here will find fault with Clark's reply. Or are you so challenged about the use of public speech that you thought Wes Clark meant that he was going to lure Karl Rove into a dark alley somewhere? Around here even that would probably win majority support, but one would have to be very naive or very disingenuous to think that was Clark's meaning.

Since I hope that you are accountable for your own actions.

Though I suspect many might benefit from being 'beaten' figuratively.

Including (I'm sure you'd agree) the right wing noise machine. It's particularly appropos since that's what the person in NH who asked Clark that question was referring to.

Ooh, Ooh, Ooh.....me, me, me...I Do, I Do, I Do......want a Democratic leader who states that he'd kick the living shit out of anyone who questions his patriotism.

If I had served 34 years of public service for this country, and one accused me of not being a patriot....as the GOP frequently does........hell yeah, I'll threaten to kick their ass.....figuratively and literally.

I mean, what else is there to do? Kiss that bootey? Don't think so!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!......

You crack me up!

------>

This is such a tired form of attack on people who have respect for Wes Clark for many specific and concrete reasons. Are you this cutting and sarcastic toward those who speak highly of Kucinich, Dean, Gore, Kerry or Edwards for example? What makes one thread reflect "astroturf" and another an honest expression of opinions? If this is your idea of empirical observations, and if this is an example of how you arrive at them, it might be time to visit an optometrist. You complain about lack of substance and then you resort to using broad brush smearing of others for the content of your own posts. So career military officers are people intolerant of dissent, and people who express support for Clark are either and/or starry-eyed and astroturf.

You can sit back and be and be arm chair judge based on your empirical observations, or you can talk about the specific issues facing our country. Are you concerned about the right to dissent? You might be interested in this. If you want to talk about substance, then talk about substance.


CLARK ON SCARBOROUGH 9/11/03

SCARBOROUGH: General, you, of course, sir, have served this country proudly in times of war, in times of peace. I know you were listening to General Al Haig’s words earlier about the importance of everybody lining up and supporting the president in a time of war. Do you take issue with anything he said?
CLARK: Well, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dissent. In fact, I think it’s important in time of war. It’s one of the things I fought for during the Vietnam War.
I fought for my people who were in uniform over there searching their country. But I also fought for the right of people to take to the streets and protest that war, because I don’t think you can stop democracy because the country is under challenge. When the country is under challenge, I think you need democracy. You need to hold on to your fundamental values even more strongly.
If you take the position that General Haig gave-and I have the greatest respect and admiration for General Haig-he was my boss. And I learned a tremendous amount from him. And I think he has been a fantastic leader and made a great contribution, and still making it to this country.
But that having been said, I just couldn’t accept the idea that, if you have a different idea, you can’t express it publicly, because that leaves all of the authority and all of the challenge within the administration. Does it mean there shouldn’t be an election when there’s a war? And if it’s a war of indefinite duration, should we give up our democracy?
Look, we did this during 2002 in the election. We went into and supported a congressional resolution to go into Iraq. I was one of the skeptics. I doubted. I couldn’t quite see the evidence that compelled it. But, OK, we all went along with it. It turns out that there wasn’t an imminent threat. At least, no evidence has been produced to suggest that. It turns out that the operation was not planned effectively. It turns out that dissent, questioning, open challenge, would have produced a stronger, more effective operation, might have saved lives, would have certainly saved our fortune, and would have helped this country to be successful.
And so I think the dissent and criticism can have a very constructive purpose. And, indeed, it’s essential in a democracy to do that."

If you people really want to make headway with those of us who don't trust military leaders, and we are legion, you would do well to tone down the back-slapping "you certainly are one of the good guys because you understand as well as I that Clark is the second coming of Jesus Christ" posts.

And yes, when people went on about how John Kerry was THE man who could defeat Bush and would never put up with any election shenanigans, I would generally pipe in with, "yeah, right!" But for no other candidate did I ever read such effusive, over-the-top praise than I did for Clark and it was never enough to overcome my innate distrust of people who made it that far in the military.

Are you going to send the General over to beat the living shit out of me now?

but it begs the question....

What would overcome your "innate distrust of people who made it that far in the military"?

I'll tone it down on my end, OK? I explained in another reply exactly what was going on with the question asked of Clark when he replied the way he did. I saw him make that comment of CSPAN by the way. It was at a New Hampshire Pancake breakfast . The person who Clark was talking with informally understood exactly the point Clark was making. There was absolutely no confusion. She (I think it was a woman though not sure, don't quite remember) got the point that Clark was making to her personally, that he would strongly defend himself against Republican attacks, don't worry. It was a great moment, and it was a warm moment, there was humor involved, Clark was being direct and not beating around the bush with some politically correct language. She loved it.

It is the use of moments like that taken out of context that characterizes so many of the "attacks" that are made on Clark. Often it has nothing to do with any discussion of issues, although most Clark supporters are always willing to talk about issues and usually are well prepared to do so. Often it is some dismissal of Clark as damaged goods just because he served as a General, or because twenty years ago he, like over 80% of America's military officer core, leaned Republican because of national security concerns. Clark broke with his natural peer group a long time ago on issues of deep significance and importance. But you were not talking about Wes Clark, you were talking about your impression of high ranking career military, and it is deeply frustrating to me and others to be forced to respond to someone's two dimensional caricature being projected about Clark rather than Clark himself.

So here on this thread, the OP dealt directly with the specific things that Wes Clark has done, in great detail, to win that posters trust. It was documented, it was detailed. Exact reasons were presented to support the opinion of the poster. That was not fluff. Later on this thread a real discussion of some issues took place. Clark supporters were asked to reply around specific matters and Clark supporters did. I made a substantiative post regarding Clark's views on Iraq for example. Clark's environmental record was discussed by others etc. Above on this thread I posted links to Clark writing about AIDS, and about what is happening in Darfur. His progressive taxation positions were raised too, and despite all this what you chose to comment on is your distaste for hero worship.

This thread exists in a larger context that includes dozens of threads started about other potential Democratic leaders who someone thinks should run for President in 2008. Very very few of them recently have been about Clark. I often don't read the Gore Dean and Kerry threads but I don't begrudge people posting on them.

All you have to do to meaningfully interrupt a flow of positive comments Clark supporters might be posting to redirect the conversation toward something you believe would be more valuable is ask an open question, one that is not sarcasticly framed or overtly belligerent in tone, and chances are good that more than one person will attempt to answer you honestly. You might get hit with a cheap shot or two, no promise can ever be made that it won't happen on an open bulletin board, but you will be met with sincerity also.

I understand your frustration. If he is this fantastic, honest, loyal, courageous, unfailingly scrupulous man without a bone of sexism, racism, or any other ism that you Clarkies keep shouting about, I can truly understand how maddening it would be to meet resistance from people like me. Please understand this - I am so completely distrusting of the ruling elite, who use the military to go around stealing natural resources from indigenous peoples and profiting from death that I would fully expect them to send one of their military men wide left in order to seamlessly fill the executive seat after removing their last stooge.

Am I paranoid? Damn straight. How did I get so paranoid? I grew up watching the way this government works. And when the message board where I get a good deal of my information suddenly fills with flowery posts of praise that was heretofore reserved for The Beatles and Jesus from a bunch of people who show up at the same time and continually congratulate each other on their perspicacity, the claxon goes off in my head. When I have listened to Clark speak, what I got in my gut was a whole bunch of queasy.

I have obviously raised some hackles. For the record - I am pro self-defense. What I detest is militarism, and we crossed that line more than thirty years ago. I am far from alone in that belief.

If Clark were only 96% of all that you listed in your post, would you have to reject him? You continue to speak in such dramatic and reality defying terms about all you address. I gave you some honest comments and you came back with, "Well if Clark is really God than I can see how attacks might frustrate you". Simply put, I do my homework about who I support and why. If you read my posts you know that. I'm looking for a good honest competent and liberal person who can win a national election. Nowadays I think that's actually asking for a lot, more than that is icing on the cake, but I think Clark gives me some of that too.

Look Nostradammit, I'm 56. I've been a campus radical. I helped surround the Pentagon, in 1967. I brought supplies down to Resurrection City when Martin Luther King Jr. staged a camp out near the White House. Helped organize a Switchboard on Long Island that offered Draft Counseling and provided Abortion referrals. I did support work for A.I.M. around Wounded Knee. I fought Tricky Dick and Ronnie every step of the way, year in and year out, from DC Anti Viet Nam marches to Sit Ins and blockades against the Contra war in Nicaragua. I was staff for the Abalone Alliance organizing direct action civil disobedience against Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and I rallied against Desert Storm. I marched with Chavez and the Farm Workers, and did direct support staying with a Dine Family facing forced eviction at Big Mountain. Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap.

I do not need lectures about the ruling elite and paranoia, I need to see some changes made in this country and I am frustrated by my leftist friends who talk a great game but are essentially clueless about how to bring them about. The stakes are too high for self righteousness to suffice. I mentioned in an earlier post, never jump to cheap conclusions. There is no stance easier to take than cynicism. I've met Clark several times, far as I know you haven't. I am close to people who know Clark extremely well. I like this guy, I think he's in this for the right reasons. Due to quirks and happenstance, I've gotten to know several former several high ranking military officers pretty well over the years, mostly through work initially. They happen to be good decent folks. I still hate war mongers but I no longer knee jerk associate all career military with war mongering.

So simple radical phrases don't cut if for me anymore, you know? I understand why you are angry with the system. So am I. I've found the therapeutic properties of expressing anger to be over rated. I want changes made. My most radical work has never been through electoral politics. I still believe in creating new facts on the ground, but I no longer continue to ignore electoral politics. The power of the right wing to do massive amounts of damage in short periods of time spent in office is too significant to ignore. When I want to protest, when I want to confront, when I want to build a better world from the grassroots up, I don't do that by working with the Democratic Party. I work with the Democratic Party to provide a check on the abuses of power done by the extreme Right working through the Republican Party. I check my rhetoric at the door when I enter mainstream politics because there it is the mainstream that I am trying to shift, and rather quickly.

But having said all of that, I found myself quite favorably surprised by Wesley Clark the more I came to know about him. He has far exceeded all my expectations, and it has honestly been an honor to associate with him. I am not speaking empty words. That's the truth. That's my story, and I long ago grew weary with lightly throwing opinions around on a message board. There is important work to do. I hope you have or will soon find a personal outlet for making the changes that you know need to be made in this world. Like I said, talk is cheap. We need action.

We need action, indeed. My serious reservations about Clark have been two-fold: That he is career military, which is a knee-jerk reaction on my part, due to the fact that I had a whole bunch of career military types hammering on my knees for years and years. You call that reality-defying and dramatic. Bullshit! That was my reality. Can I extrapolate that to conclude that Clark is a knee-busting jerk? No - maybe he is one of the exceptions, but it is of serious concern to me.

Of equal concern is the way Clark supporters often show up on a thread and play softball with one another, which usually goes something like this: (a dramatization)

Deafrat: I'm still sort of unclear on Clark's environmental positions, could somebody help me out?

ClarkforSavior08: Well did you realize that the Good General once rapelled down a thousand foot cliff under enemy fire to save a litter of wild ferrets?

Deafrat: No kidding? Gosh, I have 50 ferrets in my basement! General Clark must really love animals and the environment.

One or two such conversations and I wouldn't give it a second thought but I kept seeing them and pretty soon it's :wtf:

It's entirely possible that Clark DID save a bunch of ferrets, but it's just as possible that the Clark campaign is paying a bunch of people to flood the liberal message boards with such things. It makes me very, very suspicious, which I have tried to express here in my own clumsy, humorless, overly dramatic and reality confirming way.

Your reasoned and tempered responses are greatly appreciated and have alleviated some of my concerns. The 62 year old Clarkie that wants to beat the shit out of me hasn't.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:tinfoilhat:

I never heard of blingpig before this thread. So I checked his profile. He's been a member of DU since 2003. The advanced search function is down for now, but a quick check shows no pro-Clark posts anytime for as far back as it goes.

You really think we would keep a sleeper agent embedded for over 2 years for just such a critical occassion as asking a couple questions on a thread like this one?

:rofl:

Why can't you just accept the simplest explanation? Blindpig asked legitimate questions, and he was provided truthful answers. If you doubt any one of 'em, you could ask for a link to evidence, or google it yourself. But instead you accuse one DUer of being a plant, and the rest of us of being liars, and all without a shred of evidence. That is amazingly offensive.

Ya know, I could assume you're really a freeper who's trying to stir up anti-Clark sentiment, internecine squabbles, and hi-jack a very pro-Clark thread. But I don't. The simplest explanation is you're just nuts.

because the title promised to raise questions about Clark supporters. To my surprise, it was another Clark jack-off session. Why don't I trust a former four-star general who is on the board of Acxiom and was working for the Fox News Channel? It's just crazy not to trust such a man.

Or to use spin to make the good they do look bad.

Clark was never on the board of Axiom. He lobbied for them for a short time after 9/11. And it was before CAPPSII.

Clark is an independent contractor with Fox. There a legitimate argument that maybe he shouldn't be, but you imply that he's doing it to advance their right wing agenda, when ALL EVIDENCE shows that he is making that agenda look ridiculous.

purpose of being able to see someone "knock' (uh, excuse me) raise questions about Clark supporters?

And the OP didn't give you a clue that it wasn't what the thread was about.

Oh, how disappointing for you.....!

:eyes:

Edited to add:

And we're all so glad you stayed to try to turn it into your dream thread.

PAYING us? Never in a million years! We fund WesPAC to keep Wes out there, and slugging away. During the primaries, I SOLD MY CAR to give the legal limit to Wes, all for the HONOR of phone-banking hundreds of out-of-state voters on my own dime.

I drove out-of-state to lobby friends of friends on Wes's behalf. I have never gotten a penny from Wes to do it, and wouldn't take it if it was offered. His voice out there on my behalf is all the "payment" I need! His candidacy, should there be one, is the only reward I seek.

I have a very similar activist history to Tom's. I am, politically, an ultra-Leftie, particularly on social issues. I demonstrated for PEACE. I was for it then, and I'm for it now. I have no qualms at all supporting Wes Clark. I am honored to support him, in fact. And, I have never been paid for that support.

TC

Two agendas; attack Clark and attack Clark supporters.

ON THE VERY SAME POST WHERE HE "THANKED" ME" for giving him long honest answers to his questions, he was accusing me of playing a pretend game of dialogging with a secret plant poster elsewhere on the thread. That's what giving this guy the courtesy of sincere replies got me. Lobbing soft ball questions? I don't consider entering a serious discussion about U.S. options in Iraq to be a softball question. That was the first question I responded to from the person who turned out to have turtles in his basement. I can't believe this arrogant posturer actually defamed the one person who raised serious real questions on this thread, by insinuating that person was a "plant", after having gone ballistic complaining that serious issues were not being talked about on this thread.

Very quick to attack and make accusations this one was. Deaf Rats indeed. It's starting early this cycle, isn't it?

think about it -- Wes PAYING us! LOL!

You can't buy the kind of support Wes has, people... you have to earn it, and he has earned our support a thousand times over.

PAYING US! :rofl:

TC

so that I can get them back tenfold in payment for my flooding of liberal messageboards with pro-Clark propaganda. I'm a wealthy woman now. :rofl: :P

So basically you're accusing the pro-Clark posters on this thread of being operatives from the ruling elite, if I may distill your post to it's essence?

Um, have you noticed that this board is filled with flowery posts of praise for John Kerry, Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Edwards, to name just a few? Does your paranoia meter go off everytime you see a thread praising a particular Democrat, or is that especially reserved for Wes Clark?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and cash the gigantic check that I just got from the ruling elite as payment for making this post.

I don't expect to "make headway" with anyone like you, who has already made up your mind than every general is a brutal and ruthless asshole.

But fortunately, you represent a small minority of Democrats--hardly "legion." Even among Democratic activists, such blatant anti-military attitudes are not rampant, and it seems to me your bigotry will be pretty obvious to most readers.

As Tom said, all the good things said about Clark in this thread are backed up with at least one example of behavior that exemplifies the quality described. Too bad you're too closed-minded to entertain the possibility that he really is one of the smartest, bravest, most honest men of our generation. Your loss.

But then, what do I know. I'm just another military asshole. I'm intolerant of dissent.

Or maybe I just recognize stupidity when I see it.

pleasure all to myself. :hi:

"Are you going to send the General over to beat the living shit out of me now?"

Is that what you are into?

judgmental sort such as you would definitely give this 62 year-old, semi-retired woman a kind of satisfaction, you bet it would. :bounce:

While I'd rather pummel Freepers, I'm bound to say I don't see much difference these days between the far right and the far left; they even use many of the same talking points against good Liberal Democrats.

You might want to give that some thought before you continue your campaign of cynicism and insult against Wesley Clark and his supporters here on the DU.

I'm into that and would enjoy that very much right now. Ready when you are.

I think you would enjoy it. In fact, I think you're subconsciously looking for it.

Come out of the closet and embrace your submissive nature and desire for punishment, Nostra!

T-Dammit.

Goes something like this:

"MEMO FROM TURNER
(Jagger/Richards)

Didn't I see you down in San Antone on a hot and dusty night
Weren't you eating eggs in Sammy's there when the black man drew the knife
Didn't you drown the Jew in Rampton when he washed his sleeveless shirt
With a Spanish speaking gentleman, the one that we call Kirk

Come now, gentlemen, there must be some mistake
How forgetful I'm becoming, now you fixed your business straight

Weren't you acting down in Broadway back in 1956
You're a faggot, little leather boy with a smaller piece of stick
You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man, your sweat shines sweet and strong
Your organ's working perfectly but there's a part that's screwed on wrong

Ah weren't you at the Coke convention back in 1965
You're the misbred, gray executive that I've seen heavily advertised
You're the man that's careful .. .. .. Brooklyn...
You're the man who squats behind the man who works the soft machine

Come now, gentlemen, your love is all I crave
You'll still be in the circus when I'm laughing, laughing in my grave

Yeah when the old men do the fighting and the young men all look on
And the young girls eat their mommy's' meat from tubes of plasticon
So be wary, please, my gentle friends of all the skins you breed
They have a nasty habit, that is they bite the hand that feeds

So remember who you say you are and keep your trousers clean
Boys will be boys and play with toys so be strong with your beast
So Rosie dear, don't you think it's queer, so stop me if you please
The baby's dead, my lady said "You schmucks all work for me"

MEMO FROM TURNER (London Years/Performance version)
(Jagger/Richards)

Didn't I see you down in San Antone on a hot and dusty night?
We were eating eggs in Sammy's when the black man there drew his knife.
Aw, you drowned that Jew in Rampton as he washed his sleeveless shirt,
You know, that Spanish-speaking gentlemen, the one we all called "Kurt."

Come now, gentleman, I know there's some mistake.
How forgetful I'm becoming, now you fixed your bus'ness straight.

I remember you in Hemlock Road in nineteen fifty-six.
You're a faggy little leather boy with a smaller piece of stick.
You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man;
Your sweat shines sweet and strong.
Your organs working perfectly, but there's a part that's not screwed on.

Weren't you at the Coke convention back in nineteen sixty-five
You're the misbred, grey executive I've seen heavily advertised.
You're the great, gray man whose daughter licks policemen's buttons clean.
You're the man who squats behind the man who works the soft machine.

Come now, gentleman, your love is all I crave.
You'll still be in the circus when I'm laughing, laughing on my grave.

When the old men do the fighting and the young men all look on.
And the young girls eat their mothers meat from tubes of plasticon.
Be wary of these my gentle friends of all the skins you breed.
They have a tasty habit - they eat the hands that bleed.

So remember who you say you are and keep your noses clean.
Boys will be boys and play with toys so be strong with your beast.
Oh Rosie dear, doncha think it's queer, so stop me if you please.
The baby is dead, my lady said, "You gentlemen, why you all work for me?"

:)



Put no pearls before swine, please.

would it bring YOU pleasure? I'm not really into that sort of thing myself, but I'll try to oblige you as best I can. Now bend over and take your punishment.

Betty Paige will now take over. She's much better at this sort of thing than I am. (By the way, can we arrange some sort of payment for this transaction? It just doesn't feel right providing this sort of service gratis.:evilgrin:)

out of Republican operatives who engage in vicious, disgusting smear campaigns, like they did against Max Cleland, or the Swifties did against Kerry. And even then, only in a figurative sense, though I understand that Repukes are such wussies that they're even afraid of just a verbal dressing down.

Anyway, if you aren't one of those disgusting Repuke operatives, then I'm sure you have absolutely nothing to worry about.;-)

If I could pick one Democrat to speak for our party, Wes Clark would be the one. Rags to riches, Rhodes Scholar, fluent in several languages, background in economics, impressive military history, solid family man.

Clark`s ability to empathize with the neediest among us helped formulate his admirable ideas for addressing our social and economic justice issues. His understanding of international issues helped to formulate his position against Bush imperialism. His position on the invasion of Iraq didn`t change with the wind.

Wes Clark is a tough guy with brains who can level a rightwing opponent with a simple sentence. I really respect the man.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I may not always agree with Wes Clark on everything, and we do differ on some issues, but I know I can always trust him to stand up for what he believes is right, not what is most popular or politically expedient. He will always stand up for us. He has stood up for us when everyone else refused to. Even as we speak, he is running himself ragged trying to help Democrats win back this country in 2006."

I feel the same way. His personal integrity is unshakable; his personal moral compass is all he listens to, and always tries to do what is right, and not what is politically expedient, or just to enhance his political "viability". There's such a dignity in that. Wes is aces with me.

TC

what about policy? He's a standup-up guy, yes, but where is he on the issues? From what I understand he is not for immediate withdrawal, understandable considering his immersion in military culture, but still the wrong answer. Other questions I have:

What would he do about bu$hes tax cut?

What is his position concerning ANWR?

What is his position on Kyoto and global warming?

What is his position on these horrible pro-corporate trade agreements which we are enmeshed in?

How does he feel about enforcement of th ESA on military land? During the Clinton years the military had a pretty good rep for maintaining habitat on it's land but bu$h has thrown those policies in the trash.

These are just a few questions that come to mind. Please inform me, this thread hasn't thus far.

First I will say that Clark's position on Iraq has nothing to do with immersion in military culture. Whatever immersion Clark had left him arguing against invading Iraq to begin with. Clark believes force should only be used as a last resort and in testimony before Congress he was on record saying there was no evidence that Iraq posed any immanent threat to the United States that would warrant use of force. Further Clark has been very outspoken that the United States is making a critical mistake by increasingly using the military as a primary instrument of foreign policy. He argues that use of military force, unless reserved for urgent and unavoidable action undertaken with significant international approval, frequently brings about an outcome other than intended. He faults the Bush Administration for forfeiting the high ground of moral persuasion repeatedly through arrogance, and through the undermining of international agreements and standards, such as the Geneva accords, which reflect Americas true values and which America fought to implement in the first place. Clark thinks we need to be competing with ideas before we pick up guns, and is trying to advance dialog with non jihadist Islam.

You can read more about Clark's position on Iraq on his own web site, which is also where your research for the answers to your questions perhaps should begin. Clark does not advocate staying the course in Iraq, he advocates changing the course through a regional initiative that puts much greater emphasis on diplomacy. That is his preferred option for reasons that he articulates at length, but essentially he fears that without such an initiative that region of the world will spiral into geographically spreading warfare. If a regional diplomatic initiative is sincerely and seriously pursued, Clark thinks providing a specific dated timeline for U.S. force withdrawal is counter productive to achieving regional stability, which is defined as advancing the legitimate national interests of Syria and Iran as well as Iraq. Under that scenario, there are sound diplomatic and military arguments against announcing ahead of time when the United States is withdrawing it's forces, but Clark is strongly on record as saying the United States should clearly state that it will not maintain permanent military bases in Iraq.

It is possible of course to disagree with Clark about the above, but his position is not an outgrowth of military immersion thinking anymore than the Marshall plan reflected a military mind set because it was proposed by a General. Further Clark is on record that the window for a significant regional diplomatic initiative is rapidly closing, and failing to achieve one soon will result in rapidly deteriorating conditions under which an American withdrawal from Iraq will be the best of the remaining poor choices.

This is taking me longer to write than I expected, I keep getting interrupted. I will give you Clark's web site and then post this as is and follow up with another post:

http://securingamerica.com/

Your point is taken concerning the military pov.

I can speak to to your environmental questions, because it is a very important issue to me. The hardest part will be keeping it brief, so I will probably leave some stuff out.

Clark was, imo, the most pro-environment candidate of '04. It ain't for nuthin' that he was endorsed by the late Gaylord Nelson, former Senator and father of Earth Day.

The very first document to go up on his campaign website was his 100 Year Vision. His two most fundamental long-term priorities are the protection of our democratic system and of our physical environment. The original text is still available at his PAC website, http://securingamerica.com/vision

Clark was on board with RFK Jr's Stop Global Warming initiative from day one, and sent an e-mail out to all WesPAC members encouraging us to join up. He participated in the Clinton Global Initiative on the panel on global warming. He views global warming as a security issue and has articulated this position on his personal blog at http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1023 He has been extremely vocal on the need to reengage on Kyoto, and that the rebuilding of NOLA must address protecting the wetlands and barrier islands. He is opposed to drilling in ANWR, and even when campaigning with Tony Bowles in Alaska last year, did not back down from that position.

Nor is it all a bunch of talk. Clark, during his tenure as commander at Ft Irwin was a strict enforcer of environmental law. He even won an Audubon award for cancelling a Dept of Defense project in order to save the habitat of the desert turtle. It did not make him popular among many of his seniors in the Pentagon. Note, this was when he was only a one-star and several years before Clinton became president, so a much more difficult position for him to take professionally.

Other than the environment, I also know that Clark opposed the Bush tax cuts, opposes their continuation now, and that his own tax proposal involved an increase for those making over $200K/year. He is somewhat fiscally conservative, has called "trickle down economics" a failed theory that the Repubs cling to as tho it were religious faith, and he believes progressive taxation is essential to our system of government.

I'm not as well informed about NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO etc, but I do remember hearing Clark say that one of the largest problem with NAFTA was that the protections written into the law are not being enforced by the Bush administration. He has also expressed concern that environmental concerns are not always part of the equation when it comes to international trade and development. He is a big proponent of putting money into research for new energy alternatives, and prior to entering politics served on the board of directors for a company involved in developing some sort of energy conserving technology (that was a while ago and my memory is fuzzy). He is now on the board of a company developing an experiemental design for new, more efficient aircraft. Clark is VERY science oriented, both in the hard sciences and the softer social fields. He has the the educational background and intellectual capacity to comprehend both at great depth, and a natural intellectual curiosity to keep himself up-to-date on new theoretical developments.

And finally, his WesPAC mission statement advocates for "holistic economic strategies," which when I google around for the term, find that it involves "an economic theory that recognizes that a successful economy must be one that relieves poverty, provides for participants' health and welfare, and minimizes or eliminates environmental damage. It also calls for a reassessments for how we measure economic strength, by applying real human values, as opposed to simply GDP, balance of trade and similar traditional measurements." I'd better leave it at that. Clark is, afterall, an Oxford-trained economist, so his view of economic theory is complex and probably in many ways over my head.

Thanks for the links.

and his issues statements are still available at:

http://www.clark04.com/issues

A quick note about something that might not not have been covered in the issues statements:

"How does he feel about enforcement of th ESA on military land? During the Clinton years the military had a pretty good rep for maintaining habitat on it's land but bu$h has thrown those policies in the trash."

During the time Clark was in charge of Fort Irwin in southern California, he initiated a plan for saving the desert tortoise - money was granted to researchers to figure out how best to help turtle populations from dwindling, and then the plans were implemented.

He was received an Audobon Society Award for his work.

a strong selling point to a guy with 50 turtles in the basement!:P

The Clark04 web site is archived and can still be read. There are a host of detailed policy proposals and statements of priorities found there. Here is the link to the home page: http://www.clark04.com/index.html

You can navigate from there through the various issues, but I call your attention to this for starters. It is long and detailed and believe it or not I STOPPED copying at the point where the real details got discussed, but they are there to be read (and the formatting is much better at his old web site than it is when copied over here):


On the Issues

Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform
Restoring Progressivity, Relieving the Working-Family Squeeze, and Reducing Poverty


Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform is the most sweeping tax reform proposal in years. It will restore progressivity to the tax code, relieve the working-family squeeze, and reduce poverty. Unlike President Bush's policies, which have been highly regressive and have dramatically increased the deficit, Wes Clark's proposal is paid for without raising the deficit by a dime.


Under Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform, a family of four making up to $50,000 will pay no federal income taxes and all taxpaying families with children making up to $100,000 will get a tax cut. The Families First Tax Reform will shift the tax burden from those who are struggling to get by to those with the most to spare. The entire proposal is offset by closing corporate loopholes and by a 5 percentage point rate increase on income over $1 million a year. The rate increase will only reach the income-over $1 million-of the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers.


The tax breaks in Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform all come from consolidating the existing confusing and uneven set of tax benefits for children, including the Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Dependent Exemption... and then expanding them to provide a $2,250 tax credit per child.


With Families First Tax Reform taxpayers will only need to fill out a simple, three-line form to find out if they need to pay federal income taxes, providing their income, number of children, and marital status. And the majority of families won't be forced to file any tax forms with the government.


The Clark Tax Reform provides relief for millions of middle-class families. Under the watch of George W. Bush, their incomes fell by nearly $1,500, their health care premiums rose by $2,600, their property taxes went up and their tuition at four-year public colleges increased a record 28 percent (adjusted for inflation). Rather than relieving the squeeze on working families, President Bush provided an average tax cut of $128,000 to taxpayers making over $1 million.


For lower-income families, Families First Tax Reform will increase the reward for work, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.


Wes Clark's Families First Tax Reform will meet his five principles for tax reform: making the tax code simpler, fairer, more progressive, and more pro-growth - without increasing the deficit. It will eliminate hundreds pages from the Internal Revenue Code and dozens of pages of different IRS forms and instructions. This builds on Wes Clark's previous simplification proposal to eliminate the Hope Scholarship tax credit and consolidate it into a Universal College Grant.



HIGHLIGHTS OF FAMILIES FIRST TAX REFORM


All working families benefit.
No families of four making under $50,000 will pay income taxes. Currently, a family of four making $50,000 pays $1,549 in income taxes.
All taxpayers with children making up to $100,000 a year will get a tax cut.
In total, 31 million families will get a tax cut; the taxes of the typical family with children will be cut by $1,477.

Low-income families get crucial additional assistance
Additional tax relief for 15 million low-income working families currently receiving tax refunds through the EITC and the refundable portion of the child tax credit.
Reduce or eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of low-income families.
Help lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
And tax breaks for 3.2 million poor childless workers, which can be used to defray payroll taxes and work-related expenses.

Simplify taxes for working families
Families will find out if they need to pay federal income taxes by filling out a simple, three-line form.
The majority of families will not need to file any tax forms with the government.

How this will benefit families
A married couple with two children-making $50,000-will get a $1,583 tax break.
A married couple with three children-both earning the minimum wage or $21,000 annually-will get an additional tax credit of $2,287.
A married couple with two children-making $85,000-will get a $975 tax cut.
A single mother raising one child on $30,000 a year would get a $793 tax break.

Families First Tax Reform Works by Providing a $2,250 Tax Credit Per Child


Families First Tax Reform consolidates and expands on the existing set of tax benefits for children-raising the benefit to a standard $2,250 tax credit per child. All families, whether they make $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000, will get the same tax break for their children.

Paying for Tax Reform

The plan will provide poverty-reducing relief and middle-class-tax-burden reduction of $33 billion annually. This will be paid for without increasing the deficit by:

Shifting the burden to those who can most afford it-a 5 percentage point rate increase only on income over $1 million per year. This increase, which can be used only for working families' tax relief, will not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains. It will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.
Closing corporate loopholes, including the one that costs America jobs by giving companies a tax break for moving their headquarters overseas.


DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF FAMILIES FIRST TAX REFORM...

(See this link for the whole page): http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

It's is a progressive tax program. The family aspect of the proposal does cause me some concern. While I certainly want to help folks in need as an advocate of ZPG I don't want to "encourage" or "reward" population growth. This is sticky business, how to finesse it is currently beyond me but I hope some smart person will figure it out.

Clark is Pro Choice if that eases your concerns any. He is not going to pull funding from places like Planned Parenthood.

P.S. 50 turtles in your basement. Now THAT is an impressive statistic!

the earned income credit for single persons would have also increased.

Families with children spend more than those without. That's just a fact!

Here's an editorial about Clark's tax program....

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

on his Tax proposals. I totally agree with everything in his plan.

I'm going to send that post to many friends who would be very interested.

Thanks Tom for all your other posts and dedication to Clark and defending this extraordinary man. We are so lucky to have him in our Democratic party.

All very illuminating. I'm not ready to join the club but I'm certainly more open minded.

Could ya'll please ease up on the gushing? Jeez, stuff like that can be off-putting to an old sourpuss!:-)

that went on for about 3 weeks without letting loose much on why they really like Clark. But it is really too early to focus on 2008, but not too early to track who is doing good work now.

I tried to push this at my caucus, but the Kerryites were already playing the "electability" angle. And that went well!

:eyes:

of someone a jolt of electricity goes up my spine.

General Clark is my man for all the reasons you stated and then some.

On today's PBS NewsHour, the Republican Senator just attacked Durbin for his NaziBush comments, and made a point of mentioning the name of Wes Clark. He was reading from his notes, too.

Coincidence? Or should I look for a tinfoil hat?

no coincidence. Hell, whenever they DON'T mention his name, it ain't no coincidence either!

Ya know what I mean?

Support him now.

He never stopped fighting for us. and I will never stop fighting for him. It's easy to see why soldiers that were under his command felt he was the kind of man who they would follow to the deepest pits of Hell and back because he actually cared about them and actually treated his people like people.

The fact that he has no political voting record also is a plus for me in terms of a candidacy.

However...of EXTREME IMPORTANCE to me, is the fact, that he seems to be AHEAD of the PACK on key issues...he's not AFRAID!!

Incredible post! Mind if I pass it around?

You have summed up exactly why Clark is the best candidate - he is a leader who has a message and is not afraid to stand up for the message and the values of the party. Instead of playing consultant games and trying to craft a poll-driven image, he's real. That's why I support him.:applause: :patriot: :kick: :kick:

Pass it around if you'd like.

In response to those who see it as hero-worshipping, I'll note that this piece was not written to proselytize or force people to like Clark (heck, I've even had a history of defending the right of others to choose other candidates). This was posted in response to the comment that Clarkies are "a cult of personality" I saw over the weekend, and to the attacks that Clarkies "hate everyone else" and "swarm" and "blinded by fourstars" and "jackbooted military thugs" and all the rest. You might even be able to spot a few of those attacks and character assassinations even on this very thread.

I wanted to detail why I like Clark, and how it wasn't based on empty words and hero worship but an analysis of actual deeds. It's not a feel good thread posted out of the blue to hype Clark, but a response to those criticisms that sparked it.

This is not the entire sum of why I like Clark, but points chosen to illustrate how he stood up for us when it wasn't politically popular to. I think that says something about his integrity, and is a direct contrast to most career politicians.

But feel free to use this elsewhere if you'd like, Wabranty. I certainly don't mind, and am a bit flattered. Thank you.

such common sense!

:toast:

The man is honorable, truthful, has served his country, and is not afraid to tell it like it is.

I do adore the man, as most Clarkaholics do.

hippie peacenik for Clark here! Yup, haven't been this inspired since... hmmmm. Well, I remember back back back in the '60's the inspired enthusiasm of those of us working to get Ron Dellums elected to the Berkeley City Council. LOL!!

Thanks for sharing this RandomUser!

RandomUser. I supported Clark when he first entered the presidential race. Although I have few posts here on DU, I have been lurking here for over three years. I also suspected the likes of Seventhson,Cuban Liberal to be Repukes with their attacks on Wes Clark. I am amazed at the strong support on this forum for the General. P.S. My favorite poster is the Magistrate. I enjoy is writing style!

206 :D

Please sign the petition in my sig. Thank you.

Maybe others will like it and copy yours.

Let's put these ratbastards away.

:)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

You know, just the other day I watched the speech that Wes gave in NH where he said he was proud of Dean. I'd never actually seen it before. It was great.

There he was, talking about China and health care and how we have to worry about taking care of people, and he says that he can't tell us how important is for us as Americans to have the courage to speak out. And then he says, emphatically, "I'm proud of Howard Dean! I'm proud of the Democratic Party!" and gets a big ovation. It was quite powerful, especially considering how, at the time, it seemed that just about every Democrat was backpedalling as fast and as far away from Dean as they could get. It was terribly frustrating and aggravating to see these people, one after another, claim that Howard Dean doesn't speak for them....and then there's Wes, applauding Chairman Dean for his courage in speaking out...It really was a great moment.

Clark's consistency and straightforwardness converted me. The man engages his brain before he opens his mouth, and he has a damned good brain. He says what he honestly believes and isn't standing around always holding a wetted finger to test the current direction of the wind. Clark understands what this country should stand for and why it is not doing so now.