Has Anyone Else Noticed Wesley Clark Lately?

That boy is really sounding impressive. I always thought he was the cutest of the bunch, anyway. But he is sounding good. Have heard him twice on Lehrer in the last couple of weeks.

He actually can talk about issues and sound like he really knows whereve he speaks. Such a huge change from what we have now.

I liked Clark the last time around. But I think he is really impressive right now. But I also haven't had a chance to listen to Kerry or Edwards in a long time.

Forget Gore, Kerry, and Hillary. They will surely lead us into electoral disaster.

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

trash his legislative voting record - I just think I joined the Clark Camp!

www.securingamerica.com for his positions and a wealth of other material, and do download the campaign '04 video "American Son." Wes Clark inspires like no one since Bobby Kennedy if you get to see Clark in person, or in venues other than where he gets 30 seconds to soundbyte. His speech, reclaiming the flag for Dems. at the Convention nearly took the roof off the building. Elizabeth Drew wrote during the primaries that she attended a Clark rally where the intensity, the loyalty, the response to Clark's words, were unlike anything she has seen since RFK. This guy doesn't have to be a down home charmer--he's himself, which is all about duty, honor, country, and plain talk in easy-to-understand-language. He recently coined the phrase, "Two foot rattlesnake in a box" when referring to not needing to give a priority to going after Saddam Hussein. This guy gets it and has it.
I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

It was the most incredible thing. The NY Times reported on it the next day and mentioned the fact that he talked to her after.

Yep, the guy is certainly strong and truly compassionate. He exudes authentic authority. He's been a success his entire life. Can't you see Bill Frist up against him? And I think he could take on McCain, point out his flip flops, and takehim down while still respecting his service. It'll be hard for anyone else to do that.

Thanks for reminding me again why I was for him in that brief run up to the 04 convention.

we must all work hard to promote him to avoid the MSM/GOP pushing the inevitability of the Hillary upon us. Howard Dean's grassroots organizing and fundraising forced the media to pay attention to him, to the point where he became the annointed one. Wes Clark represents our chance to have a true leader, true progressive as POTUS. BTW, I was not aware that the NYT reported on the event in Heniker.

I don't buy the line that Wes Clark is some kind of creation of ultra left bloggers that is unacceptable to Washington Dems. Some of course want to advance themselves and don't like any popularity he might generate but that is to be expected.

I think with Clark we have a candidate that will be acceptable to most dems, as Howard Dean never could be (don't get me wrong I like Dean but he was an irritant to Washington dems, which is fine with me, but you get what I mean).

If we can get Clark front and center I think the rest will fall in line behind him. We better this time.

never win the general election.

We must, as you say, work hard to get Clark and prevent Clinton from getting the nomination, but it's not just the MSM that want her. We have to change minds right here on DU.

was as General Clark went on to the next questioner, there was a noticeable change in his eyes. I didn't notice watching it live, I was so caught up in what had just happened, but I have it on tape and watched it several times. You could see in his eyes, the tilt of his head, his shoulders, that he wasn't moving on to the next question as he'd been doing, but that what had just transpired was still with him. It is a testament to his genuine concern for people.

The same type of thing happened when he announced his withdrawal from the race. As he left the stage and was walking through the crowd, a young woman was in tears and he put his arm around her shoulders for a minute and then the crowd swept him on. A minute of so later, he turned to his aide and told him to bring the young woman over. Then he kept moving with the crowd, but I have no doubt that before he left and away from cameras, he and Gert offered her a few words of comfort.

It's not about pandering to "red states."

There are no red states. There are only shades of purple. Don't buy into this divisive red state/blue state crap. That's part of the problem, not the solution.

not writing off the South, or the Mountain States, or the Great Plains, but fighting for our values all across this country. That is the point.

re-read my post. Clark is a true progressive who happens to believe in duty, honor, country and lived his life as one with great moral values. His uniform can appeal to moderate Republican types, and if they vote for him not realizing that he's a real Democrat, so be it. And it IS about getting more states to vote for the Dem. candidate. Without it we don't win--period.

putting our message into a package (like Wes Clark) to whom they'll listen.

Many red voters don't bother listening to, what they term as, "New England libruls," because the right-wing media has made them such paraiahs.

However, they WILL listen to liberal values, values they'll find they share, if it comes from the mouth of a Southern former military man. Get it?

To get thier base to hate him. That's not the point. And I'm not saying this against Wes, I'm just saying we shouldn't pick a candidate because he seems like what we think the south will vote for.

We should pick him because he's an unapologetic liberal and he speaks to the common man.

In Wes we have an unapologetic liberal who speaks to the common man AND he's someone the south could vote for....That's the beauty of the whole thing....As Kris Kristofferson so eloquently put it "Wesley Clark is a prayer answered."

He doesn't have a record that proves he's a liberal. We have to trust him. I'm more willing trust someone with a political history that dedicates a committment to liberal principals. And I'm not convinced that the "South will vote for him." Personally I think he comes across kinda weak on TV.

if a lifetime of actions taken in very public service mean nothing, if the only way you think you can trust someone is by looking at a history of political votes, then I imagine you’ll stay unconvinced. Some people are like that. Luckily, not everyone is. ;)

Do you honestly think a career in the military (which isn't open or transparent at all) is more indicative of how a president would govern then having a record of your votes?

That's some interesting logic. You'll bend it anyway you can.

The truth is Wes is asking us to trust him. I don't think a politicians word is worth much. Thier record is what counts. Wes doesn't have a record. Let him run for Senate from Arkansas, build up a record, and then I'll consider him.

At least, it is to those of us who were in the military and speak the language. There's a public record of almost every decision, and they are usually made in consultation with a large number of people. You might not see it now, in Iraq, but that's partly because it's a war, mostly because the Bushies are secretive about everything.

Clark had an excellent RECORD (yes, record) of liberal actions as a military officer, supporting education, human rights, labor, health care, and the environment. He even won an award from the Audubon Society while he was at Ft Irwin as a one-star.

Otoh, the way a senator votes on one issue is not necessarily an indication of how he will vote on the next. I will grant you, over the long haul a patter can be established. But even Feingold, a liberal's liberal, voted for Roberts for example.

Besides, Arkansas already has two Democrats in the US Senate.

I would also submit that being a legislator, of either House, is the kiss of death to most presidential campaigns. Very few ever get elected. And it's largely because those voting records are so complex and easy to twist one way or the other.

So he had a great career in the military and he ran the Kosovo war.

Tell me what running a war has to do with education, human rights, labor, health care, and the environment?

Wes Clarke's military record demonstrates that he can run a war and the military effectivly. What it doesn't do is give us any indication of what kind of president he'd be. He can talk the talk but I'm going to look more closely at a candidate's record than empty campaign promises.

As for the Roberts vote, I don't demand a candidate to vote 100% with how I'd vote. I do demand they at least have a record I can look at. If Wes had a record as an elected official it'd help me evaluate him. But he doesn't. And that's the problem. A record in the Military tells me nothing.

Wes has no record in politics. Running for the highest office in the land without so much as being elected dog catcher strikes me as arrogant and overly ambitious -- what about paying your dues. Even Hillary had the good sense to run for Senate first.

military effectively" is to short change Wes Clark and not give him his due props nor to understand that within the military many jobs are required to be done...and those jobs are done by people.

Those people, military personnels, have families who require housing, education, health services, etc.... Being Commander in Chief within the military means in essence that you are the governor or the President of that sector which you have been assigned. Granted, the military is not a Democratic institution as a state would be....but instead it is the most socialistic of institutions America has....which in fact would have provided experiences that might make an open minded individual understand better the pros and cons of weaving the best of socialistic aspects into a Democratic/Capitalistic society, which is why Wes Clark is currently looking at Single payer health insurance and clearly understands that it should be our goal http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/30/17455/5250

Wes Clark in addition to nearly dying in the Vietnam War (which is an experience in itself) has been a professor at the university level teaching ethics and economics; a Budget Planner as a White House Fellows; a Peace negotiator (as in the Dayton Peace Agreements), a Scholar, as in Rhodes; a Team player; a renegate maverick (as he was retired early for insisting on Appache Helicopters and Boots on the ground during Kosovo in order to fight the "air" war at lower altitudes and on the ground therefore reducing civilian casualties), a courageous being (read about his adventures at saving lives here)---> http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html and in Holbrook's book "To end a War" http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0375753605/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1206820-8205618#reader-page as well as a humanitarian according to Best Selling non fiction authors Samantha Powers http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/ghistory/powers.htm and David Rieff http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684819031/026-6114881-7964460
and is proficient in many, many areas including disaster preparedness-- http://www.wittassociates.com/ ,understands housing and its importance to individuals and communities.

Certainly I'm leaving out a lot of his experiences .....but to underestimate Wes Clark and attempt to make him a one trick pony is a disingeneous task, at the most, previously attempted by the GOP and it's media during the last Democratic Prez primaries.

It's one thing not to know much about General Wes Clark....it's quite another to diminish the sum of his life for political purposes.

Clark's testimony before a House subcommittee on education reform, from back in 2001, a little over a year after he retired and well before he was considering any sort of political career. Just the formal statement, not the question and answer session that I suspect followed. It's probably available on line somewhere. But this snipet demonstrates that Clark just didn't have experience in "running a war".....

***************


Edited to add - If you want to understand why I have supported Wes Clark all of this time, go to my DU journal (whenever you have a moment) and read the third entry listed. It will provide additional insight..... :hi:

What I want to read is his political record. He doesn't have one. He doesn't get my vote.

are the ones that got us where we are. :shrug:

It would seem that you were struck with a divine inspiration long ago, and if I offended you by offering my views in response to your post, for that I am sorry.....

In the words of Wes Clark....."We live in a liberal democracy.... 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."
--Clark's answer to Bill Maher during interview, 2003
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Peace to you! :hi:

What I want to know is... will he walk the walk? He doesn't have a track record for me to help me make an informed guess.

I'm sure he's an excellent man, and I'd love to see him in the Senate. I fear that he thinks that is below him.

opinions.

If you don't understand that he has already walked his talk.....then this is where we can end this.

Your own opinion that "he thinks that is below him" to run for the Senate comes from where? There are two Democratic Senators from Arkansas presently in the Senate....so I don't know why you would decide that "he thinks" anything beyond the fact that as a Democrat, he would very wisely choose not to run for such an office.

Currently what he is doing is what needs to be done. that's walking the walk for the 2006 elections....

President. Doesn't Arkansas need a Democratic Governor?

I think he'd be unbeatable.

coming back for more, with statements which indicate that he hasn't read anything here, and knows so little about Clark that he can't even spell his name? I admire your tenacity in engaging this person, but there is some agenda there. We'll never get through.

Elect a known quantity -- someone with a record in politics. Not some glory-hungry Johnny come lately.

I don't need to steep myself in pro-Wes propoganda to form my oppinion.

The only thing I want to know is... what is his record in politics?

If you think that means part of some anti-Wes conspiracy so be it.

considering that you don't care what I write..... is confusing.

You opened the thread with Wes Clark in its title, asked your question and got your answer.

For you to continue on now that it has been established that Clark is not the kind of individual that you are interested in voting for (although I don't recall him saying that he was running for anything) is starting to seem hypocritical on your part (when one is not interested, one should certainly move on).

Whomever you support or end up supporting....more power to you and that one person. It is a democracy afterall, as I vaguely recall. You are certainly free to do what you want to do. Doing it here if you insist is also your choice.

Again, Peace to you! :hi:

as IconoclastNYC is not the only person who read (or doesn't really) what's posted here in these posts.

Even if I have informed one person that actually read what I wrote....then that's a good thing.

Discussing the merits of Wes Clark's accomplishments...is never a waste of time.

And in fact, here's more:

When I look at history, what I see are Presidents that were elected Not because of what they had done in a previous office, as much as what they had to offer in personal character, style, temperament and life experience. Also, the issues they raise, the time in history, the way their campaign was ran, and the media’s own influence. Those are the major factors used to win elections.

President Kennedy didn’t get elected because he was an experienced senator, as much as because he had a compelling life story with his PT109 heroism and his personal charm and demeanor. Reagan was elected because of his affable great one liners and his rethorics (I can make us great again) and his movie star persona. He certainly did not become President because of his Governor’s record in California. President Carter won because he appeared honest, thoughtful and was literally an unknown to most. Voters, not what great things he did for Georgia.

John Kerry didn’t run in ‘04 based on the fact that he had accomplished great things in the office that he has held for over 20 years. Rather, he chose to run on his personal story of 35 years prior and the current issues. Most voters really don’t have a real clue has to what Kerry had achieved in office all of these years, because that is not what he chose to highlight.

So if I was asked why Wes Clark, it would be because of his personal life story and achievements. Maybe the fact that he has never held office is a plus, but remember that to some, it’s a minus...and the excuse they give for not supporting him. So the issue of holding an elected office is a mixed bag.

The facts are that Clark has not held any elected office, and is not per se a professional politician. However, is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.....because I believe that it is his executive experience, character, leadership abilities and courage do make Clark “elect able”, because it is what Presidents need more so than anything else; Clark has these traits, IMO, although not via an elected position.

Bush Jr. had elective office experience, and worked with legislatures....and IMO, that did nothing for how well he has performed on the job. I disagree that what this nation is in need of right now....or possibly in 2008 is another professional elected politician.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:
The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

----------
Some will stay thinking in the box that we have been put in....and when thinking "President"...will only think about what the CW will push.....celebrities politicians (Hillary and Edwards) and Senators (Biden, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold and Boxer)and Governors (Warner, Richardson and Vilsack), and that's OK. But if you look at what this country needs right now - a leader with courage, and determination to do the right thing, those other candidates pale in comparison to Wes Clark, IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1548301

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1517151

Some surely say that Wes Clark has no legislative or policy accomplishments at this point, and to that I will disagree because it depends on what you would label as "policy accomplishments".

Clark, a Rhodes scholar with advanced degrees from Oxford in Economics, Political Science and Economics was also a White House Fellow and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He taught economics, and social science at West Point. He has worked as an Investment Banker since his retirement in 2000. So Clark is intelligent, experienced and qualified to deal with more than just National Defense and Foreign policy.

Did his "policy accomplishments" take place in an office? The answer is No.
Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
Snip
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Testifying against a war before both houses of congress when you don't have to, counts as an accomplishment in my book.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Is standing up to the Pentagon and trying to get done “what’s right” an accomplishment? I think so.

Clark policy action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details.
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
".....Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"...I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...
---------------
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/11/26/how_i_beca.php
--------------

I think that the below Awards speak volumes of Clark's policy accomplishments...although they may not have been for being the Governor of a small state or a Senator, and although the following are military related, it's not everyone that has been decorated by so many nations...
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.
His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.
(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....

Iconoclast has made it clear that a record of political votes is the only thing that matters....actions taken don't matter, votes do. As I said, some people are like that...Fortunately, not all are. It's cool. We're all different.

But, as Frenchie also says, Iconoclast is not the only one reading here. There may be some who sincerely don't know about Clark but are willing to learn, even if he doesn't have a history of political votes...and that's cool too.

They are the record and they mean more then saying : "I support this, I support that."

Campaign promises are empty.

as opposed to a life's record...

For some, the sum of a person is measured by votes....

for others, the sum of the person is based on the life led....

Everyone is free to decide what sums up the person...

You obviously admire politicians and all that they represent. I say more power to you and your personal choice.

And to be sure, next time you hear a campaign promise, make sure to be consistent with your philosophy and consider it for what you say it is worth--nothing. While you're at it, make sure that you take a look at those votes you so admire....and understand, that based on your philosophy, whatever Supreme Court judges are sitting on the bench, carefully review who voted for whom and when. Cause I guess that the vote should be more important than anything anyone has ever done with their lives....and certainly more important than anything that they have ever said.....according to your own rethoric.

And thier votes and their actions as an elected official.

Clarke only has his record in the military. I'll vote for someone who has a record in politics.

C L A R K (no "e" on the end)

Thanks.

TC

and raising money for our causes for the last two years is a record in politics?

Or campaigning for his own candidacy in 2003-2004.

Or

Testifying before congress
Writing advocate briefs to the Supreme Court
Negotiating peace agreements between nations
Dealing with the Pentagon and other NAATO countries as the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe?

This is all experience in politics hon. And many years of it.

Those are all great things and I think he'd be a great senator or governor but lets not forget he's only willing to take the highest office in the land. I think you should have a background in governance to be the President. Crazy I know.

Even GOP Puppet men Reagan and Bush cut their teeth as governors.

I'm sorry but I just want to give Wes ClarkE a trial run first.

(misspelling was intentional this time)

details and links.

Anyway have a nice day, and I understand that we won't be seeing you in anymore Clark threads....considering! :hi:

I guess when your candidate has no record you can't tolerate dissent.

In every single one of your posts here you have called General Clark "Wes" or "Clarke," or no name at all. Are you deliberately taunting Clark supporters? One thing that I've noticed over the years is that it is some of the most disrespectful, inconsiderate, insensitive people who screw up another person's name when they know what is correct. Why are you even on this thread? On the other hand, in a perverse way, you may have helped us. This thread contains more of "The best of Wes Clark" than almost any thread I can remember. You have stimulated us mightily! And other readers may have become Clarkies in the process.

My citymate Icon better watch it. He's going to be accused of being a secret Clarkie operative planted to post negative things to give us Clarkies a reason to respond with positive postings about the General if he keeps it up. ;)

if Mother Teresa ran for office while she was alive, her life's work would mean nothing to you? What about the Dalai Lama? His lifetime of peace work would mean nada unless he voted in Congress or as a Senator for you to get some idea what he was all about?

It's absurd. I'm sorry, if Wes is not your "thing", then so be it. But to say it's because a lifetime's service to his country gives you no idea what he's about is absurd.

TC

I’m talking about actions taken when faced with certain situations...about persistently pushing Congressman Jerry Lewis until he finally succeeded in getting a new school built in Ft. Irwin, CA while he was in the military because the one they were stuck with was lacking and he knew that the education of the children of his soldiers was too important not to push; about pressing for action to stop a genocide to the point where he lost the job he loved; about being an integral part of a process in which seemingly irreconcilable parties were brought to an acceptable, if imperfect, agreement against all odds; about speaking up to support Michael Moore’s right to criticize Bush and his War when NO ONE else would; about testifying before Congress against the Iraq invasion...stuff like that. To me things like that mean something when I’m picking a President. (And, to tell you the truth, having men like my Congressman Charlie Rangel, President Carter, Senator McGovern on his side means something to me too.) As you’ve said a number of times on this thread, they don’t to you. To you, if a vote is not involved, the actions tell you nothing. Good for you. As I said before, we’re all different. To me, watching the way a man has lived his life and responded to challenges and situations he’s been faced with means more to me than a record of votes. I’m sorry if that freaks you out.

But, if you’re looking for a fight, you’re not going to get one with me. If I want to fight, I’ll go and duke it out with the right wing nuts on the Cat Stevens discussion boards. As far as I can tell, we’re supposed to be on the same side, right? I am not your enemy and neither is Wes....

You seem not to know a lot about him and what he's done (a lot more than fighting a war) and I do wish you'd take the time to learn...but, of course, I can't force you to....and I do wish you’d spell his name right, although for some reason you seem to enjoy spelling it wrong....Oh well, if that’s what makes you happy....:shrug:

Be well, OK? Carol

The South is less "red" than the mid-West.

I wish DUers would stop that crap. It's the MID WEST that's so RED. The South is way more purple. Hell, if you look at the map below, there's more blue in the South than in California. FUCK! THere's more blue in Tennessee than California. It's just that there's fewer people in the population centers!

Wish I could nominate it, but I can only do so unofficially.

Gore has a better shot to flip some purple states than does Kerry or Hillary, but I think Clark has an even better shot than Gore to do so (and I'm a Tennessee girl who's first political "crush" was on Al Gore - love him).

I'll support Clark first, then Feingold, should Clark not run, and then Gore. Beyond that, I really don't like many of the people being floated as potential 2008 nominees. It's not that I think they're all bad, I just don't think any of the rest of them could win a general election (including Edwards. He just doesn't have foreign policy gravitas and seems to, well, "wimpy" for some of these fed-up righties to vote for, if you know what I mean - not a slam on Edwards, per se).

give whoever get the nomination the same support that I would Clark. But I really don't like Gore. He lead us to defeat once, and please don't bother telling me how he "really" won. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

He has a better understnding of the world than anyone in the Katrina Administration. He has always been this way -- studying abroad, learning about other cultures and he is multilingual. He is a spiritual man, but has a respect for other faiths.

Unfortunately for those that have served in Congress, any voting record can be manipulated to present someone as "Satanic".

Clark isn't my perfect candidate, but he is darn close.

I noticed him back in 2003, and haven't left his "camp" yet. Like fine wine, he only gets better and better. I am proud to support him... now, more than ever.

TC

General Clark will be on the Diane Rehm Show radio show, Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 10AM ET/ 9AM CT

U.S. Strategy in Iraq
A discussion on the latest developments in Iraq and implications for U.S. policy

Start time:
10:00AM EST | 9:00AM CST | 8:00AM MST | 7:00AM PST

Run time: 40 minutes

On the internet
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

to listen?

Is there a transcript or a clip available?

Thanks ahead of time for the info!

TC

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

Clark talked briefly about Milosevic first.

Then there was a panel discussion on Iraq.

At the end after Clark had given his prescription for success, he just said that he was not optimistic about our chances, something to that effect. Gotta run or I would elaborate more.

how wonderful he is.


this is the only place i hear tho, oddly enough.

and want a good reference to where Clark has appeared lately, try scanning this web site:

http://securingamerica.com/

Clark had an OpEd in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, he was on Jim Leher's News Hour yesterday, he was interviewed on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on March 5th, he was on the Ed Shultz show on March 10th, and as noted above he was on Diane Rehm's show today.

Clark was just a keynote speaker at Congressman Marty Meehan's St. Patrick's Day Breakfast in Dracut, MA on March 11th. He's doing a Town Hall meeting in NH on the 18th, he's doing a fundraiser for the Ohio Democratic Party in Cincinnati on March 21st, and General Clark will be the keynote speaker at the North Dakota Democratic-NPL Convention at the Fargo Civic Center on April 1, 2006.

as these threads put them all in the same place at the same time. Ya just gotta love that "ignore" feature.

nt..

Good enough for me! I mean, why not elect someone with no record in politics to be the President of the USA and the leader of our party. Sounds like a smart move for me. :sarcasm:

What you are talking about is a roll call of votes. And while a roll call of votes is a useful thing to promote, it is also a useful thing to attack. But putting that aside, there are very few courageous votes taken by most politicians while in office. Mostly Democrats vote with the accepted wisdom of their constituency tempered by the influence of monied interests, while Republicans do the same with their constituency, tempered by the influence of monied and religious interests.

Clark does have a record of governing, having been the head of major military commands with hands on administrative responsibilities roughly equivalent to that of the Governor of small state or the mayor of a fairly large city. His record regarding civil rights, promotion of minorities and women, environmental concerns, education, heath benefits and more was solidly progressive. Clark stood up for important principles during his 2004 run and took a lot of heat for it at the time. Clark's cover appearance interview on the Gay periodical "The Advocate" put him in the cross hairs of the religious right. Clark refused to distance himself from Michael Moore when the entire National Media was out gunning for Moore's hide over his "Bush as A.W.O.L." statements. Clark defended progressive income taxes during the 2004 campaign and called for higher taxes on the super rich than existed under Clinton's Presidency.

Clark advocated inside the Pentagon for U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there, an extremely unpopular position to take inside the military at the time. Clark broke the story to the Main Stream that the Project for a New American Century was planning a series of wars in the Middle East. Clark said during the 2004 campaign that Bush did not take the steps needed to protect America BEFORE 9/11, when most Democrats did not want to touch pre 9/11 with a 10 foot pole. Clark early and often said the abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq and Cuba was Un American, and that the responsibility for that outrage goes all the way back to the White House. Clark is calling for dialog with Iran RIGHT NOW, when most Democrats are afraid to be seen as being soft on a Terrorist extremist nation.

Clark was endorsed by George McGovern and Andrew Young in 2004, and Jimmy Carter was among those encouraging Clark to run for President before Clark decided to enter the 2004 race. I think I'll go with those men's judgment about Clark over yours.

:applause:

(And he filed an amicus brief in support of the U of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policy.)

Yay, Tom! :yourock:

TC

GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

The interviews I have seen of him lately seem much more relaxed. I always thought he was a confident
man but it didn't come across so well on tv, but today I see the a great man before me. I don't know if
someone has been coaching him or he has done all of it on his own but it's working for me.

Clark and Feingold are the two that speak to me right now. They aren't perfect but they are progressive, and intelligent leaders.

and my choice at present.

TC

Look, Clark is VERY likeable, but dammit, we can't waste an iota of energy on Presidential Primary squabbles. Besides, those things aren't settled by the people, and the sooner you realize that the better. If Clark wins one primary he shouldn't, or looks too strong in the polls versus who the DC enclave has selected, they will destroy him with avengance, no matter how strong his support is online.

So my suggestions:

work on winning in '06, and then maybe the DC insiders will see the writing on the wall and back off and let the people decide.

Right now we don't have time for anything else.

You are right about '06... even Wes has sent us regular e-mails about what he's doing for 2006, and what we should be doing. He has even said he is concentrating on 2006 whenever he's asked if he's running.

But, I know I can do more than one thing at a time, and with this Party, waiting until after the '06 elections will be too late.

TC

We can't do both at the same time. Look, digging out of the hole we're in takes 100% of our effort. 110%.

To spend any less because you like vanity posts about candidates is inexcusable. Wes knows this. He's said so.

We Clarkies ARE working for candidates. All over the US. In every state. In communities from California to Texas to Virginia.

Many Clark supporters are actually CANDIDATES this time around, inspired to stand up and fight -- even when the odds are against them.

Don't sell us short because we spend a little time communicating on the internet.

Don't for a minute think we haven't taken up the cause for '06.

I mean, why else would you be posting this if there is no time to be spent on it?

"there's no time for this discussion but there is time for discussion of this discussion" posts...Oi!

ahead to 2008...and in the last couple of weeks, that is certainly what I've been seeing all over the place, DU included....for folks like Gore, Feingold, Clinton, Warner, Kerry, Edwards and Clark.

So my wanting more discussion on 2006, doesn't mean you won't see me in a Clark thread...cause you will, but I will say that Wes has some great lines for the 2006 Democrats and is working his ass off for just that purpose!

When asked on This week (a couple of Sundays ago) about his 2008 political ambitions, this is how Wes responded....



(My note: Once we get back to a strong two party system, maybe we can branch out some more...but first things first!)

If we can't win some seats back in 2006 considering the state of Bush's affairs....then we are truly fucked. That will mean 2 more years of Hell (as Theresa Heinz put it). We really, really can't afford that.

Wes Clark is very attractive as a candidate in many ways that I won't go into here, but he needs more name recognition, more buzz and more moula ASAP! With those things, he can help 2006 candidates that much more, and he can help heal our country later on by helping hold accountable those who have done wrong to the American people.

For 2006 support Wes by supporting WesPAC -- that's will give him the strength that he needs to do what he can for those candidates who need his support, including the Fightin' Dems....those candidates that we need on board to give Democrats a more rounded image on the issue of our currently failing Foreign policy disaster.

Please note: Donations to his PAC are NOT transferable to a "campaign fund" for himself....unlike the election PAC of other elected politicians.

Right now, regardless of all the good work Clark is doing to get Democrats all across the country elected, Clark is not counted with the "insiders". Neither is Russ Feingold. Both of these men are still considered too independent minded by many beltway Democrats. Probably Al Gore is also now, but Gore at least has massive name recognition and some Party loyalties he can still count on after a lifetime spent at the upper levels of the Democratic Party. These are the three men who I am currently most drawn to for 2008. Wining in 2006 is critical, no argument there. But winning in 2006 won't cause the insiders to back off, it will cause them to press forward, smelling a Democratic tide that they think will carry whoever we nominate on to victory.

There are some attractive qualities about Mark Warner for example, what I am about to say is not meant as a knock on him, but already Warner has been anointed as a "serious 2008 contender" by both the media and the Party Establishment. He has his own big money and he fits the profile of Candidates that beltway Democrats tend to rally around. But Warner for all the free publicity given him, still almost always polls below Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark. Doesn't matter in his case because Warner is already deemed "a player". Clinton Edwards Gore and Kerry have national name recognition now because they (or their husband) have already run for National office. The only reason why Feingold and Clark get mentioned at all in some 2008 speculation is because of the support both men have with "the netroots" as the MSM likes to call us. The most recent example of this phenomena was last Sundays NY Times Sunday Magazine piece which focused on, yup, Hillary Clinton and Mark Warner. And this quote comes from that article:

"To be a successful insurgent in 2008, a candidate probably needs a serious following online. The activists in the so-called Netroots, people who connect to politics primarily through MoveOn.org and the liberal blogs, will be even more populous and more motivated than in 2004, and while it’s impossible to generalize, it seems that most of the Netroots are eager to find a candidate who isn’t Hillary Clinton. Among the anti-Hillary contenders, Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark have the strongest constituencies online."

Whenever I have seen either Clark or Feingold mentioned as possible 2008 Dark Horse candidates it is almost always because the writer notes that each now has online support. I wish the political game had different rules, but it is played by the rules we have. All of the Democrats who have been mentioned as possible 2008 candidates are actively promoting themselves now, even if they do not come flat out and say so. They are lining up the top fundraisers, trying to freeze other contenders out of the chance to wage a serious campaign. I have one (count them, only one) really rich friend who I met through business, and he's the kind of guy who could pull off a really impressive fund raising Party if he wanted to. He kind of likes Clark, but he doesn't hear much about him so he figures Clinton has the 2008 race locked up already, so he's not motivated to do anything on behalf of Clark or any other Democrat. That is the message that Clinton and the media and Party establishment is pushing, Clinton in 08 with Warner positioned as the logical back up to Hillary should she stumble or decide not to run. If the resources needed to mount a 2008 campaign were not all being sucked up and locked away RIGHT NOW I wouldn't care, but they are. Another centrist and inner circle Democrat, Evan Bayh in Indiana, is piling up a war chest and hiring the best political operatives money can buy also.

Hillary and Warner and Bayh and maybe Vilsak and others like them do not need the netroots being active on their behalf in order for them to be considered viable candidates for 2008, their buzz gets generated inside the beltway, but Feingold and Clark and to a lesser extent Gore do need it. It is their primary source of media visibility right now, and out of sight is out of mind. Speaking of Clark, it's not as if he isn't traveling all around the country campaigning for Democrats and headlining fund raisers for Democrats. He is doing all of that, but the Washington based national media won't cover those activities. For some reason though they do give some coverage to bloggers.

I want my options preserved for 2008, I admit that. But I also stand with both you and Wes Clark that the 2006 Elections are critical, and along with him and many other Democrats I will be doing all I can to elect more Democrats in 2006.

Ditto here.

TC

Thank you.

BTW - Clark's people are incredibly well-informed and well-spoken. This was an excellent, informative post.

After all, that's what propelled Howard Dean (a very obscure former governor from tiny Vermont) to being the annointed one by the MSM. He forced them to notice him. And I believe that's what can propel Wes Clark in '08. The difference is that Clark will have staying power. Dean's support, it appears, was from very young people with short attention spans, so his support was shallow. From what I know about Clarkies, once committed, comitted forever. No one's support runs deeper.

I wouldn't describe it the way you did, and I have a great deal of respect for what they accomplished. Many of those same people are very actively engaged right now in the continuing work of transforming the Democratic Party. Some of them are effectively promoting the good work of several notable Democrats, Wes Clark being but one of them.

However we all learned from that campaign, including those of us who were supporting Wes Clark for President in 2004. The grassroots activists who stayed involved in the political process after the 2004 Election are dedicated and savvy, whether they were Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, or Kerry supporters then. Having said that I agree with your closing line. No one's support runs deeper than it does for Wes Clark now.

that a significant portion of Dean's support was flighty. I agree that his and others' core support was dedicated.

that the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch did NOT cover military weapons???? Every time he says "if you want to own an assault weapon, go join the military," it sounds like a threat to take away half the guns in our gun safe.

He appears to be under the mistaken impression that the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch covered automatic weapons, but it did no such thing. Automatic weapons, such as are used by the military, are already restricted by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch pertains to non-automatic CIVILIAN rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, and all civilian guns that hold more than 10 rounds, not military weapons.

Go for it. You can contact them at
http://securingamerica.com/feedback
You can even join and write your own blog about it.

I browsed the site earlier looking for contact info, and somehow missed that. Thanks!

which is that weapons meant for slaughtering people should not be in the hands of civilians; if you want to use them and potentially slaughter people, then join the military. IMO those comments by Clark were clear, concise, and even subtlely pointed out that the "chickenhawks" who got us into Iraq never served. Clark has creds as a gun-owner and hunter; he knows the proper place for weapons.

I always thought Clark was indicating his support for the Assault Weapons ban that was enacted during the Clinton years IIRC.

It was recently allowed to expire by the current regime.

and that legislation covered civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds, and civilian rifles with two or more features the Bradyites don't like (handgrip that sticks out, screw-on muzzle brake instead of pin-on brake, etc.).

S.1431 (the "renewed and expanded assault weapons ban" that hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket so badly in 2004) banned any civilian self-loading rifle with a protruding handgrip, eliminating the two-feature rule.

FWIW, here's an "assault weapon" according to the gun prohibitionist lobby:



Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle

Banned by name by S.1431/H.R.2038, had it passed.

a non-gun owner but someone who is not in favor of greatly expanding gun control.

1. Automatic weapons
2. Weapons deemed to have been manufactured in a way that makes them easy to convert to an automatic.

As to the number of rounds in a semi-automatic clip, I guess I don't have a big problem with large clips, does it make a difference how large? I don't know. I would think not.

Then I think local jurisdictions should have their own gun control laws.

I favor waiting periods and a federal database check such that the Brady bill defined.

Both of these are covered by current Federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. It places all automatic weapons under VERY strict controls. Any non-automatic weapons that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms deems to be easily converted to full-auto is considered to be full-auto for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted. Conversion parts/kits are considered machineguns under the law and are regulated as if they were complete automatic weapons.

To be a bit more specific, automatic weapons, weapons easily converted to full-auto, and conversion parts all fall under the Title 2/Class III provisions of NFA. So do sound-suppressed firearms, disguised firearms (cell phone guns, cane guns), firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), rifles with barrels shorter than 16", shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", long guns less than 26" overall, smoothbore handguns, M203-type grenade launchers, all grenades, explosives, etc.

To own anything on that list, a civilian has to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance (background check takes six to eight months), your local chief law enforcement officer signs off on your application, you pay a $200 fee. If you eventually get clearance to own it, you receive a tax stamp and a BATFE Form 4 from the government, and then may go purchase the weapon from a specially licensed NFA Class III dealer. It is immediately registered with the Federal government and the BATFE gets to inspect it once a year.

For automatic weapons, the NFA registry was closed in 1986, meaning that any such weapon manufactured after 1986 is restricted to military and law enforcement only. Civilian-transferable pre-1986 automatic weapons run $5000 to $10,000 for a cheaply made submachinegun, $15,000 for an AK-47, $15,000 to $75,000 for an M16, and $100,000 and up for some collectible machineguns. We working-class people obviously need not apply...

Ay, there's the rub...the claim that civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, and civilian handguns like those police use, were "made for slaughtering people" is absolute bunk--a talking point from the gun prohibitionist lobby, not a fact.

My wife's 9mm defensive handgun is not "designed for slaughtering people." None of my rifles are, either. And while you and I may disagree on whether or not it is desirable for us to own them, we do own them, and we intend to keep them.


He won't have any "cred" among gun owners if he takes the position that he wants to ban half the guns in our gun safes based on anti-gun-lobby talking points.

Hunting is almost completely irrelevant to gun ownership; only 20% of gun owners are hunters, and most of them also own nonhunting guns like the Bradyites want to ban (handguns, modern-looking rifles and shotguns, over-10-round guns).

Not saying that Clark wouldn't be a good President, but he is either uninformed or misguided on the gun issue. I give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest the former.

Some thoughts at more length: Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

And I mean with a focused strategy to just pick off a few. Anything broadder and we risk losing the close races. I think a Clark/Edwards ticket flips at least Arkansas and N.C. and maybe even W. Virginia. I think that although Bush is polling poorly in most of the red states right now, in '08 given new conservative blood, many repubs that disapprove of Bush will still vote repub. Stupid is as stupid does, and these people are just plain stupid.

That's the point I've been making about Wes Clark's strength against ANY Republican. Bush is a lame duck, so we will not be running against him, except by tying the Rethug to Bush policies.

Kerry/Edwards lost NC by the same margin that our Democratic governor won it (45/55, 55/45). Meaning that many of the same voters who pulled the lever for (D)'s at the state level either left the national ballot blank or pulled the lever for W, despite the fact that they had no reservations about voting for other Dems, and the fact that a North Carolinian was on the ballot. So it boils down to the issues.

and when I suggest that I usually get responses back that the real problem is Dems don't have spines.

But it is issues. And issues that are not acceptable to half the nation should be controlled at the State level for the most part. There are exceptions to that of course.

for more than 5 minutes. He's a Rhodes Scholar. Head of his class at West Point. An economist. An environmentalist. Former Supreme Commander of NATO. Stopped genocide of millions of Albanians. Warned the Senate and the House of the problems with attacking Iraq. Told the neocons to f*ck off.

I don't care at this time what he plans to do in 08. He's doing a great job in 06.


:toast:

Ahem.

:wow:

who is nearly naked.

But since you did......Thanks! :loveya:

:evilgrin:

He's 62 also? So's Kerry.

Jesus! What the hell is in their water? Men half their age can't keep up!

:shrug:

I think that may be it...

Oh... I visited your group.

:-)

Spreading the love...

We certainly welcome you there! :hi:

I wholeheartedly believe the country needs him.