The case for Wesley Clark: A Democratic Congress.

General Clark briefed Congressional Leaders several times this cycle as part of his effort to assist Democrats in framing both the message and substance of Democratic alternatives to the Administration’s vision.

· Senate Chiefs of Staff Luncheon (x2)
· House Democratic Caucus (x2)
· House Democratic Caucus Retreat (x2)
· United States Senate Democratic Caucus Retreat (’06)
· Democratic Policy Committee (US Senate) Luncheon (x2)
· Joint House and Senate Leadership Briefings (x2)
· Rollout of Joint House and Senate “Real Security” Plan at Union Station
· House Democrats Rollout of the “New GI Bill”
· Gave the National Democratic Radio Address (x2)

“Is Anyone Doing More for ’06 Candidates Than Wes Clark?” – National Journal’s Hotline
The Clark Community Network has engaged in netroots activities including petitioning, fundraising, research and guidebooks to support campaigns up and down the ballot. Here is a summary activity:

Online Advocacy Campaigns
· Stop the “GI Tax” and support GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century (29,919 letters sent)
· Stop Blaming the Troops — Investigate the Real Culprits of Prisoner Abuse (14,778 signers)
· Put Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio (26,722 letters sent)
- Ed Schultz placed on Armed Forces Radio following advocacy campaign
· Demand Body Armor for our Troops (17,331 signers)
· Support the Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006 (16,728 letters sent)
· End the Widow’s Tax (16,948 letters sent)

Endorsements: Total Candidates Endorsed: 96
Fundraising for Candidates: $1,362,179.94
In-Person Fundraising and via ActBlue for 60 candidates

Candidates/PACs/Organizations For Whom General Clark Traveled:
Bill Nelson for Senate in FL
Bob Gammage for Congress in TX
Brian Moran for VA Delegate
Bruce Braley for Congress in IA
Carol Shea-Porter for Congress in NH
Carolyn Maloney for Congress in NY
Charlie Brown for Congress in CA
Charlie Rangel for Congress in NY
Christine Jennings for Congress in FL
Claire McCaskill for Senate in MO
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Dan Maffei for Congress in NY
Dr. Selden Spencer for Congress in IA
Dr. Victoria Wulsin for Congress in OH
Eric Massa for Congress in NY
Florida Democratic Party
Francine Busby for Congress in CA
Goffstown (NH) Democratic Committee
Harold Ford Jr. for Senate
Harry Mitchell for Congress in AZ
Hawkeye (IA) Labor Convention
Henniker (NH) Democrats
Hubert Vo for Congress in TX House
Iowa Polk County Leaders
Iowa Warren County Democratic Party Dinner
Jack Carter for Senate in NV
Jay Fawcett for Congress in CO
Jill Derby for Congress in NV
Jim Pederson for Senate in AZ
Jim Webb for Senate in VA (in the Primary)
Joe Sestak for Congress in PA
John Cranley for Congress in OH
Jon Tester for Senate in MT
Juan Garcia for TX House
Kentucky Dem Party
Kirsten Gillibrand for Congress in NY
Leonard Boswell for Congress in IA
Lincoln Davis for Congress in TN
Marty Meehan for Congress in MA
Mike Beebe for Arkansas Governor
Mike Weaver for Congress in KY
Nashua (NH) Democrats
Ned Lamont for Senate in CT
Ohio Democratic Party
Patrick Murphy for Congress in PA
Patsy Madrid for Congress in NM
Paul Aronsohn for Congress in NJ
Portsmouth (NH) City Democratic Committee
Ron Kind for Congress in WI
Russ Warner for Congress in CA
Santa Barbara (CA) JJ Dinner
Seabrook (NH) Democrats
Steve Filson for Congress in CA
Tessa Hafen for Congress in NV
Tim Kaine for Virginia Governor
Tim Mahoney for Congress in FL
VetPAC
Will Pryor for Congress in TX

Endorsed Candidates:
AL-AG John Tyson, Jr.
AL-Agricultural Commissioner Ron Sparks
AL-Gov Lucy Baxley
AL-Lt Gov. Jim Folsom
AR Gov Mike Beebe
AR-03 Woodrow Anderson
AR-HD89 Jim House
AZ-01 Ellen Simon
AZ-03 Herb Paine
AZ-05 Harry Mitchell
AZ-08 Gabrielle Giffords
AZ-SD25 Pat Fleming
AZ-Sen Jim Perderson
CA-03 Bill Durston
CA-04 Charlie Brown
CA-11 Jerry McNerney
CA-46 Jim Brandt
CA-50 Francine Busby
CO-03 John Salazar
CO-04 Angie Paccione
CO-05 Jay Fawcett
CO-06 Bill Winter
CO-07 Ed Perlmutter
CO-SD9 Keely Marrs
CT-04 Diane Farrell
CT-05 Chris Murphy
CT-Sen Ned Lamont
FL-16 Tim Mahoney
GA-01 Rev. Jim Nelson
IA-01 Bruce Braley
IA-03 Leonard Boswell
IA-04 Selden Spencer
IA-Gov Chet Culver
IA-SD25 Daryl Beall
IL-06 Tammy Duckworth
IL-08 Melissa Bean
IL-14 John Laesch
IL-17 Phil Hare
IN-02 Joe Donnelly
KS-02 Nancy Boyda
KY-02 Mike Weaver
MD-06 Andrew Duck
MN-01 Tim Walz
MN-02 Coleen Rowley
MN-06 Patty Wetterling
MN-Sen Amy Klobuchar
MO-Sen Claire McCaskill
MT-Sen Jon Tester
NE-03 Scott Kleeb
NH-01 Carol Shea-Porter
NH-02 Paul Hodes
NH-HD102 Steve Shurtleff
NH-SD22 Elizabeth Roth
NJ-05 Paul Aronsohn
NM-01 Patricia Madrid
NV-02 Jill Derby
NV-03 Tessa Hafen
NV-Gov Dina Titus
NV-Sen Jack Carter
NY-13 Stephen Harrison
NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand
NY-25 Dan Maffei
NY-29 Eric Massa
OH-02 Dr. Victoria Wulsin
OH-04 Rick Siferd
OH-12 Bob Shamansky
OK-04 Hal Spake
OK-05 Dr. David Hunter
OK-HD85 Jennifer Seal
OR-SD10 Paul Evans
PA-07 Joe Sestak
PA-08 Patrick Murphy
PA-10 Chris Carney
TN-07 Bill Morrison
TN-Sen Harold Ford, Jr.
TX-03 Dan Dodd
TX-04 Glenn Melançon
TX-06 David Harris
TX-10 Ted Ankrum
TX-17 Chet Edwards
TX-21 John Courage
TX-22 Nick Lampson
TX-23 Lukin Gillibrand
TX-31 Mary Beth Harrell
TX-32 Will Pryor
TX-Gov Chris Bell
TX-HD32 Juan Garcia
TX-HD42 Richard Raymond
VA-02 Phil Kellam
VA-05 Al Weed
VA-10 Judy Feder
VA-Sen Jim Webb
WA-08 Darcy Burner
WI-Gov/Lt. Gov Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton
WI-03 Ron Kind
WI-08 Dr. Steve Kagen
WV-02 Mike Callaghan

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTFkM2Y5N2I1NTFmN2U1NjQ3NDQ1ZTRlMTk3OGZlMzM

Ron Sparks, is considering a run for the Senate. I remember some snarky newspaper article about Wes traveling to Alabama to swear in Sparks as Sec. of Agriculture. Well, the it turns out the man is REAL populous with a chance to unseat that fool, Jeff Sessions. Wes will be there for him, and we have a chance....a real chance for a red-state pick up.

We're lucky to have Wes Clark on our team. Leading our team would make all the difference, a realignment of the parties.

Yep, Ron really appreciates all Wes has done for the Dems in Alabama....

Once he's in the White House, his naysayers will become his strongest supporters.

that if you placed a decent bet in Las Vegas on his winning and he won, then you would be one very rich individual. I have nothing against Clark, but I do like to check in on reality once and awhile.

Non beltway dark horse are always undervalued. Clark is by no means a favorite, but with his skills if I were a betting man I would love the odds I could get on him right now.

Clark has let the big horses in the race get way out in front of him and although the coming from way behind makes for a good movie, this is real life. Most Democratic voters already believe that there is a good selection of choice in the front runners and these candidates already have lots and lots of money. Clark is a good military man and I am sure he will decide that this is a battle that he cannot win and that he could better serve the Democratic Party by being one of its soldiers rather than its general.

As of yet, I have no favorite horse in this race so I have nothing against Clark and would be happy to support him if he got the nomination. Reality, though, tells me he will not.

The front runner(s) this far out from a Presidential election almost always lose when the votes are finally counted. I don't share your confidence in our current crop of candidates, and I am not alone in wishing either and or Wes Clark or Al Gore would enter the race.

but that most Democratic voters are confident that the front runners for the nomination offer them a good choice. Sure, anything could happen to one of the front runners which would only make it more likely that one of the other front runners would take the nomination. I just do not see any evidence that the majority of Democratic voters are unhappy with the choices they currently have.

so we shall see what is in the future for all.

Till then, I personally prefer Clark to the others...although it doesn't mean I'm "unhappy" with the choices.....just that none satisfy me as much as to see Clark in office cleaning up the mess.

From my personal experience, I'd guess that most Democratic voters aren't paying close enough attention this far out from the primaries to make a judgment on whether they are happy with their choices or not, if they even know what their choices are.

I knew it when you started talking about Las Vegas odds. Well, there are Las Vegas odds available, and depending upon what you call "a descent amount" and "very rich," you could bet on Clark and not end up rich if he won. Last time I looked he was running about 50 or 60 to one. A long shot, to be sure, but not out of the realm of possibility.

You are also wrong that the front-runners have too much money to catch. Early money doesn't buy elections since the candidates tend to spend it up. There will be plenty of enough left for Clark when he decides the time is right. There always is.

Finally, people don't have to be dissatisfied with the current front-runners for a new guy to catch their attention. No matter how good the current field may look now (and personally, I don't think people are all that happy with it), all Clark has to do is look better. If the war in Iraq is still going on, and if we have invaded Iran (which seems likely), or there is another terror attack, Clark may look very very good indeed.

And as for whether people are unhappy... if you see no evidence of it, then you just aren't looking. I'm not going to start a diatribe about what's wrong with the others, because I think you know darned well what people are saying .

Sorry, odds or not, that is pretty much reality. I know it is tough to live with, but's that's life. I just made a simple comment concerning my opinion and I didn't realize that somebody would get all bent out of shape about it. I will say this--as a Democrat I will vote for Clark if he gets the nomination.

What else can you say about someone who would shout (in caps) something that he or she can't really know? How can it be "pretty much reality" unless you have some sort of crystal ball?

Sorry if you can't take people getting "all bent out of shape," but I get a little tired of concern trolls who seem to think they're doing everybody a big favor by sharing their peculiar insight to The Truth, and always for our own good.

If you think Clark has no chance of winning the nomination, fine. But then, what's your reason for coming into a pro-Clark thread and telling us? If he has no chance, then he's no threat to you or whomever you support, right? There's no reason to get all upset about someone you think is irrelevant.

No, let's be honest with each other. You have basically restated the same opinion four times, always in absolute terms, without any facts to back any of it up, and without any reply to the specifics of any counter-argument. So you're not interested in discussion or debate, but there has to be a reason for the time and energy you've spent here. Either you hope to discourage people from considering Clark as a viable candidate for 2008, or it's to insult Clarkies for being so stupid as to not see your obvious "Truth" about his chances. Or you just think it's fun to piss in someone else's cornflakes. Which is it?

You look at odds anywhere and they will all say that Clark is a long shot, right? I simply repeated that and I agree with that, which seems realistic. I also said that I would vote for Clark if he is the nominee. I have nothing against Clark, I just don't think he will get the nomination, but obviously there is a chance he might. People may not always agree with my opinion and if you don't, then just get over it.

Now, to update my ignore list. Life is too short.

We wouldn't be having any significant disagreement.

But that's not what you said before.

It's always interesting to see people change their tune and absolve themselves of any responsibility for whatever trouble they caused.

In my red state, no one currently running really floats anyone's boat. They don't think any of the front-runners has a shot in hell of winning the general election - mainly because none of them could pull in the necessary white-male swing voter we need to flip a red state or two or three.

We need Wes--Yesterday!!

...to see, in black and white, the magnitude of what Wes did for Democrates in 2006. He will make an extraordinary president. Just wish he's declare already!

Fundraising for Candidates: $1,362,179.94

Clark supporters were encouraged all the time to contribute directly to candidates' campaigns and did and the ActBlue page started not very long before the elections. I don't think we can really know what the true figure might be, but it's multiples of that one, I figure, since Clark's campaigning was going on a whole year or more.

Now, I don't know if Clark is gonna run. However, if he did, I think he would: 1) be the best Democrat in the field AND 2) the most electable.

McGovern called him a "Democrat's Democrat". He got the endorsement of Michael Moore and Andrew Young, as well as a slew of diplomats.

While other Democratic wannabees were hemming and hawing about how to support the Iraq War Resolution, Clark was giving speeches to Congress opposing this measure. Today, while even in the light of the American people opposing the war some Democrats are afraid to look "weak", Clark is out there up front warning us against involvement in Iran and advising us to involve the other countries of the region in seeking Middle East Peace, something that is so true it makes you wonder why more Democrats don't trumpet this with equal volume, since they have the media attention and they are the "contenders".

While other Democratic wannabees talk about tax fairness...Clark had the most progressive tax proposal in decades during the 04 campaign, a plan that would have taxed the rich and ELIMINATED income tax for families of 4 under $50,000.

I could go on, but who was it during 04 that spread the meme that Clark was not Democrat enough? Yup...it was the Republicans!!!! Drudge and the entire Repuke crew were telling us who was not Democratic enough, and some of us actually followed their lead! Like sheep, many Dems just figured that since he was in the military he had to be some sort of militarist instead of someone who first hand knows how horrible war is and first hand gut level feels that war is the last, last, last resort....a lesson that is lost on our chicken hawk cabinet today.

Now, as to the Republican opponents...Clark is the most sensible matchup and I think most Republicans know this. Who can trump Guilliani's 9/11 super-stardom better than the Supreme Commander of NATO? Ditto for anything McCain can muster. Ditto for the rest. Who can turn foreign policy and security into issues the Democrats would LIKE to campaign on instead of fear? Who can put these issues on the back burner and concentrate on traditional Democratic strong points such as the economy, the environment , constitutional rights, health care, tax fairness from a progressive view, and a host of other domestic issues? Clark is the Republicans' worst nightmare. They know most Americans support Dems on most of the other issues...and Clark takes away from them anything related to foreign policy or security.

Of course, another reason I like him is that he is more liberal than most....and in an incredible way is perceived as moderate. Much better than someone trying to look moderate but would be perceived liberal.....

thanks!

:thumbsup:

would be an excellent president, and would be a good choice to take out the trash that's currently stacked sky-high in the WH.


I hope he considers joining the race. :thumbsup:

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

I just wrote something on dailykos today taking down some nonsense said against Obama, though I am an avid Clarkie, myawld.