My biggest problems with Clark and Kerry

I’m trying to prepare myself to vote for whoever wins the primaries. It looks like it will either be Dean, Clark, or maybe Kerry. As evidenced by the logo on the left, I hope it’s Dean, but anything could happen and I’m trying to be ready in case my guy loses.

I’m somewhere close to being a pacifist; maybe it would be more accurate to call me a “war as a very last resort” sort of person, and all of the trimmings that go with it. So my biggest problems with both Kerry and Clark are military in nature. I’m not talking about their prior service in the military. Wes Clark has impressed me with some of the statements he’s made about domestic issues that sounded, well, non-military. And there’s no doubt that Kerry has been a pretty good liberal in the Senate for a long time now. If it weren’t for these issues, I think I could vote for either of these guys with a big smile on my face. So please do note that I understand that candidates are multi-faceted and that we live in a nuanced world and that your candidates have pretty good platforms and that one or two issues don’t completely define them. That said…

Clark’s support of the School of the Americas bothers me a great deal. I hate that place and everything it stands for. I’ve seen some Clark people hereabouts trying to minimize the importance of the SOA, or the damage it’s done, but I just don’t buy it. It’s a terrorist training camp, and I’m very bothered that Clark apparently made remarks supporting its continued existence. I wish he’d change his mind about that support. I don’t have a problem with someone changing their views. People change, and I wish Clark would, on this point.

Kerry’s IWR vote and his recent comments about increasing military troop strength by 40,000 in his first 100 days in office also bother me. The IWR thing has been beaten to death here. Nonetheless, I don’t at all like the way he voted. Nor do I like the way many of his fellow Democrats voted, for that matter. On the issue of troops, I believe we have a sprawling military, overextended and in too many places. I think a large percentage of them should be brought home. I think there should be an eventual drawdown in the size of the military, not an increase. I think this is wrongheaded of Kerry and it makes me wonder if he’s doing a little fearmongering.

So I ask myself just how strongly I feel about these issues. Should either of these gentlemen get the nomination, would these issues be a deal-breaker for me? No, I don’t think so. I know what the alternative is. At the same time, these are more than just checkmarks in the negative column to me—they’re pretty much diametrically opposed to my way of thinking. But then we go back to that alternative, the Boy King, and I just can’t fathom another 4 years him.

Are any of you Clark or Kerry people also bothered by these issues? Are any other candidates’ supporters bothered so much by these issues that you’ve stayed away from these candidates? I’d be interested in hearing how much import others attach to these issues.

Some may be inclined to tell me that Dean is not anti-war. Well, I’d disagree with you, and I think the overwhelming body of his statements on the matter would disagree. That’s one of the big reasons I’m supporting Dean.

Some may be inclined to tell me that if I feel this way, I should vote for Kucinich. I’ll say it again: Dennis Kucinich is a better candidate than Howard Dean and I like his platform better. My decision is based on pragmatism, and Howard Dean is still well within my acceptable margin of error.

And some may be inclined to tell me in one way or another about how Howard Dean is wrong about this issue or that. And they might be right, depending on the issue and whatever their contention. But on matters military, of the candidates who have any possibility of winning the nomination, Howard Dean comes out way ahead in my personal calculus. Sure, I wish he had a plan to get out of Iraq sooner, but it looks like I don’t get my way on that score.

I guess I'm just hoping for a world where we can start to de-emphasize the military, and war-making, and the like.

Thanks for listening.

pledges pretty much answer the mail for me regarding his attitude on the use of force and his general approach to international affairs and security. You've probably read them but you might want to give them a quick review again. It doesn't take long.

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

And Clark's restraint impresses me. I just keep getting stuck on the SOA thing. And I know that the SOA was open for business during the Clinton Administration. I really just wish they'd shut the damned thing down.

To reiterate, it's not a deal-breaker, and I think Wes Clark is a pretty good candidate.

The average folks who will ultimately decide this election......

Do you honestly believe that they give a flying fuck about the school of the americas?

They care about their kids school.

We NEED as Democrats to view this primary in the eyes of the general electorate. If we choose poorly we will lose badly.

his take on the SOA is and if he plans to do anything about it if he can? If the SOA means that much to you, you owe it to yourself to at least know where dean stands on the issue.

I protested outside the SOA a few years ago, so I'm no friend of the SOA, from what I understand, Clarks involvement with them was in the form of a speech given to a graduating class, nothing more, nothing less, so while like yourself I too would like to see the SOA shut down, I don't consider Clarks speech there to be any more than what it was, an assignment, given by a Superior officer.

I doubt we'll see any of the candidates address the SOA, so while we know what Clark did in the past, we may never know what any will do in the future.



Food for thought from….”JAFO”

very bothered by the militaristic tone of the campaign. I just believe that someone from the military will have a much better chance of reducing military spending and the influence of the military. I can't imagine a non-military President having the credibility to fight Congress and the right wing junta over the issues.

The support for the school of the Americas is atrocious. However, other issues matter more to me. Environmental issues and the threat to our very existence are number one. None of the candidates is terific but Clark and Kerry seem to have the best understanding of environmental issues and the long term consequences of our industrial society. I could name many other issues and positions that sway me.

For what it's worth, I can't find any statement by Dean about the SOA. I guess whoever gets the nomination, I'll do my best to pester the hell out of them r.e. closing the School of the Americas.

I disagree with you about the non-military President fighting the Congress, but that's nothing but a difference of opinion.

I thank you for your reply.

"Clark’s support of the School of the Americas bothers me a great deal."

Yes.
It's just harder'n hell to honestly discuss any issue with
any candidate because people will pounce on the post to attack.
But, that's one of the few remaining issues about Clark
that I have (and I don't mean to minimize it; it's just that so
many seeming "issues" have turned out to be smears).

Kerry's IWR vote was taken into account when selecting candidates.
Though he constantly surprises me...like today.
And most of the candidates, except Kucinich, have been sort of
wobbly on the Iraq invasion issue.
Really, Kucinich is the only one who can *prove* he was against it.
He voted against it when it mattered and was in a position to do so.
So with Kerry, I'm currently more bothered by his *supposed*
comments on James Baker, though I probably haven't researched
them enough to know if he truly said something wrong, or if
it was a smear.

Like you, I am a Dean supporter. And while I would vote for ABB if Dean didn't get the nomination, I am having problems with Clark's defense of SOA and Kerry's IWR vote. On paper my political views match up pretty closely with Kerry's, but I just can't forgive his vote on Iraq. And truthfully, Gep.'s vote doesn't make me as mad and I don't know why. As for Clark, SOA is one huge issue and the other is lack of elected experience. And while he is very smart, I would prefer him to start out as a senator or govr. first. So, I am having a really hard time finding a second choice candidate. Right now my second choice is CMB.

statement that he "never said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States, not ever"

When in fact before the war he said:
"Clearly Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States"

Is that a problem for you?

What about Deans support for the IWR and Bush, does that bother you?

You may as well make CMB your tie-in for first place because both of them have the same chance in the GE. I would give CMB heavily favored odds ahead of Howard.

Just the *other* candidates I guess.

I thought it might be. Don't make the mistake of thinking that someone not responding to you immediately is because of their intellectual inability to do so.

Because it was by one of the only posters who displayed irrational anger and hatred in this thread whose purpose was quite the opposite. Thanks for trying.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

but I'm getting kind of tired with the military thing. His involvement in the School in South America doesn't bug me. A good explanation of what really happened was given on the Clark blog this morning. The information helped some supporters who were wavering.

Clark has great ideas. I wish he would get off the military kick and talk more about the future...and not in foreign policy terms.

I'm still a supporter and hosted a house party. I just have some issues...just like I have with people in my real life.

Granted, the thread hasn't seen much action, but all of the responses seem to be rooted in the real-world. By that, I mean that everyone is being really eccuminical by saying that they have problems with their candidate but then stating why that candidate is still a winner in their eyes. As you say, you have problems with people in your real life, and by the same token, you have problems with your candidate. Just as I do with mine, Howard Dean.

This is a refreshing change from the typical thread fare of getting your back against the wall and defending your candidate to the hilt and never admitting that they're human too.

Anyway, thanks for your response.

We could do a lot worse than having a Clark or Kerry Presidency.

the SOA thing bothers me as well. I would not let it sway me in this election (this election is too important) but I would certainly let President Clark know in no uncertain terms that the SOA is a disgrace to our nation and should be either shut down or totally revamped.

SOA is not a help to the war on terrorism, it is in very many real ways a contributing factor to terrorism. If we are committed to real internationalism, then unilateral intervention in the affairs of other nations has to be minimised, and dumping SOA into the ocean would be a grand way to start.

Thanks for your dialogue on this issue.

I wholeheartedly support Kerry for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that I feel he is not only the best candidate to beat Bush but also would make an amazing, inspirational, progressive president.

Like you said, Kerry's IWR vote has been beaten to death here and everywhere else.

I protested in the streets in San Francisco against Bush's preemptive war and personally would have voted against the IWR if I was to vote on record.

But I understand Kerry's position. It is not a deal-breaker for me.

Unlike how Dean distorts the facts and his original position on the war (that's another story) and says that Kerry gave Bush "a blank check", Kerry voted for the UN to do its job. His words say it best about his vote in an interview with Paula Zahn last Spetember 25th:

ZAHN: "Is there a contradiction with your support of allowing the troops to go over to Iraq and now being so highly critical of this post-war... "

KERRY: "No, none whatsoever. There's no contradiction at all.

I am absolutely convinced I voted for the security of the United States of the America with the assurance of the president that he was going to go to the United Nations and build a international coalition, that he was going to make a plan to win the peace, that he would do the preparations, he would respect the U.N. process and that he would go to war as a last resort.

The president set the date for the start of this war. Not us. And he did not go as a last resort. He broke his word to the American people. He broke his word to the Congress and through us, the American people themselves. And he rushed to war. He doesn't have a plan. We need to go to the United Nations, Paula. We need to get the sense of American occupation off the table. We need to strengthen America by taking the target off our troops and bring the world to the table to help us. "

Kerry is a smart man with years of experience with the Foreign Relations Committee and working in national security concerns. No other candidate comes close in that experience.

Kerry's other strong points:
1) The strongest pro-environment platform among all the candidates;
2) A potent investigative background as a Chief prosecutor and in the Senate with Iran/Contra and BCCI which gives him keen acumen on the causes and effects of terror in the Middle East, as well as knowing the current "Players" currently in residence at the White House and DoD (Department of Defense);
3) A good foreign policy perspective that will allow Americans to feel safer at home because American relations abroad will have more global appeal.
4) A strong economic incentive plan that includes alternative fuel resources development, environmental opportunity zones and stronger healthcare platform--all growth industries in the new millenium.
5) In his twenty years as a US Senator, the strongest liberal voting record for a woman's right to choose, for the arts, for civil rights for ethnic minorities, LGBT and for economic development.

Honestly, the more I dig deeper into Kerry's record, issues, policies and background, the stronger my support for him grows to be the next president and take us out of these disastrous times. I seen Dean in a Kerry cabinet with Health and Human Services; Clark possibly in Defense or Chief of Staff...

My problem with Dean is that he changes his mind and flip-flops on issues and is prone to making a gaffe, which would be very damaging in the GE. Add that he has no national security or foreign policy experience and did not serve his country (that's not necessarily an issue, but his ski story is an open wound for Rove to nibble on) and is more conservative than I care to venture.

My problem with Clark is that he was fundraising for the GOP as recently as 2001. He has made statements on videotape praising Bush and company post-911, which would not only be played over and over again by Rove&Co. Add that he has no real domestic policy experience (yes, he's for this and that, but..) and Madonna endorsed him (kidding...)

Anyway, Kerry is a true progressive, a strong environmentalist, a decorated veteran and one that has generally fought against the idea of war. If you remember that he was very much against the Viet Nam war when he returned and helped build support for Viet Nam vets as well as the Viet Nam wall, you see the track record of a smart soldier. He helped start Earth Day in 1971. He was not for the Gulf War in 1991.

I've met him a couple of times and can tell you he's a humorous, dedicated, intelligent and towering individual. He'll even drink a Guinness if you buy him one. :->

As you say- he would make an amazing, inspirational, progressive president.

indefensible CAPPS II no fly list. The SOA thing also bothers me.

That said, the guy seems smart and classy.

I just wish he'd come clean on these issues the same way I wish Kerry would stop trying to have it both ways on the Iraq War.

I may disagree with Kerry and I may think he sits on the fence to much and Kerry may be a pink tutu dem, but he's a democrat to the core. Bush-lite on some issues, but for the most part he's a good democrat.


Kerry is right about one thing...

"The number of full years Wesley Clark has been in the Democratic Party: 0 (still 0 if you round up). "

I thank the Clark supporters thus far in this thread who have mentioned the "military thing" becoming cumbersome and have been honest. To be totally honest myself, this one issue has unfortunately closed my mind and ears to listening to his domestic policy. I feel horrible about this, but when the first half of every stump speech of Clark's consists of this, I shut off the TV. Kerry touches upon his service, but not nearly to the same extent.


In both cases, unfortunately, this service has eliminated the possibility that I would vote for them in any situation, even if they were VPs. It isn't the fact that they decided to serve their country and defend their nation, it is rather the fact that they were coerced to attack on foreign soil in what I consider an unjust war (and now they flaunt and campaign on such embarrassing action). I could only forgive such if they apologized for their own involvement in such a farce, an action that I would not see Clark likely doing (it is his campaign's centerpiece). No matter what standard you hold military men to, you must admit that their contributions in times of unjust war make it easier for people like Bush to kill foreigners in such invasions. Bottom line, if you had soldiers who were responsible and thought before acting unjustly in foreign invasions, there wouldn't be any soldiers to have these wars with (hence no war). And if they didn't realize that then, which can be permissable, being of the liberal mind, I would require them (before supporting them) to realize such now and bare their responsibility for their personal actions.


I do not mean this to become a flame war. I come from a family of military men, other than my father (who stood for what he believed in and seeked a defirment). I respect any such man who decides to defend his nation, and acts in service. But I cannot respect those who do not do their job as they signed up (defense), and participate in these endevours for corporate America (unjust offense). My respect would go to those, who in such times, will put down their guns and go home.


For Kerry supporters, I know he participated in protests, but to what nature I am unsure. I am also unsure if he is apologetic for his own contributions. And his IWR vote makes it that much harder. Frankly for Clark supports, to me, he has dedicated his life (even after Vietnam) to greasing the gears the military machine rolls on. His early experiences should have taught him what direction such a machine rolls, so IMHO, either he couldn't figure it out the first time around, or did so and was not bothered by the reality of War. I think either way we could do better...


In the meantime, Im going to sit back and check out the other candidates. Hopefully during that time, no one insistantly tells me what hero I need because of their right wing appeal, or what leader I need because of their service. I know what I need and what works for me, which may relatively not work for anyone else. It doesn't make one person bad and another good, but makes us all simply unique. So in the meantime, please remember, it is you that needs the hero (and forgive me if I assume that is something indictative of your nature).


Remember, it doesn't take a gun, a pair of boots, and a trip to some remote jungle to become a hero. Some look afar to find men of valor, forgetting they may also have been some right here at home, trying to preserve what liberalism we have left in our nation.

How the painters house is bare and the mechanics car is falling apart?

Same principal but with much more pain, suffering and death mixed in. Kerry and Clark are the LEAST likely to send ttoops into combat for ugly, selfish, cowardly unnecessary reasons.

For whatever reasons, Clarks campaign has created more buzz, more interest than Kerrys. I believe the nomination will come to Clark or Dean.

If it comes to Dean, God help us all.

So Dean supporters are working damn hard to make sure God's helping us.

"Clarks campaign has created more buzz, more interest than Kerrys"

Perhaps he should wake up before his speeches? Ok...just kidding guys...but Kerry's mannerisms aren't exactly enthralling. :)


God help us all if it comes to Dean and more people say:

"If it comes to Dean, God help us all."


This mindset alone and the resulting split of the normal democratic base will be the only thing that could sink his chances IMO. Bush wont beat him, the democrats will defeat themselves.

field a candidate which the Rove/Bush machine will easily devour.

End of an era.

Don, you have been seriously mislead on how Dean stands, stood on Iraq. His position on Iraq is so similar to the other candidates you mention, it only shows how poorly his position was examined by the press.

Hear is an interview you should read from Feb '03:

http://www.livejournal.com/community/howarddean2004/1608.html

On the SOA issue, I have debated this before and I hesitate to get into it because people are so intractable on it. I will just say that IMHO it is a non-issue because of reforms.

I believe the world you want can be achieved but maybe not in our lifetimes. It will take the spread of democracy and the education of the world to achieve. But here is to your dream. :toast:

Can you still address the matter at hand (regarding your candidate) in an honest fashion and explain how you, as a liberal, reconcile their unapologetic activity and contribution to the military during certain unjust wars (vietnam), and also their emphasize of the military in their campaigns? I do not beleive it is sufficient to just say the candidate that this person supports also shares Clark/Kerry's views and ignore the concern, as that doesn't solve the problem or explain any reasoning. It most certainly wont work against all candidates also (if such is even true). Thanks.

I think everyone as they grow are affected by their experiences. I was born in '63 and really missed the Vietnam situation. But Clark was inspired by Kennedy. He was inspired by the image of America as a great democracy. This much I have picked from some of the interviews of him. I don't think it is fair to make judgments about him without putting the question to him. I cannot speak for him on what he thinks about Vietnam now. I know that he fought against congress and the pentagon to stop the atrocities in Kosovo. He has talked about what he saw there and it is pretty moving.

I am not a pacifist. I personally do not hold it against our service men and women when they are called to duty even if our political leadership is misguided. They are making sacrifices for their country. They believe it is an honorable thing. And so do I.

It is the political leadership that decides where and how they are used. I was against the Iraq war. The questions I think you have to ask are, can a problem be dealt with effectively by diplomacy or some other means other than use of the military, what is the cost of not acting, what is the cost of acting militarily in both lives and treasure. What are the possible outcomes, what about the chances of collateral damage and killed civilians. Is it a just war?

I believe that Clark knows the horrors of war and will do everything he can to not take us into situations unless it becomes clear that the only way to deal with a problem is the terrible forces of military action. Wes Clark has made a pledge to all Americans about this, please take a moment to read them, he is better than I at expressing it:

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

for the most part free of rancor. I appreciate the opinions expressed here, especially yours Don, on SOA and zulchzulu's points on Kerry's qualifications.

I am strongly in favor of Dean for many reasons, but as others have said, I will vote for the Democratic nominee with pride and hope. I have reservations about every candidate, but nothing would make me stay home from the polls in November. I will donate and do whatever I can to elect our nominee.

The Democratic party is so diverse, and we are passionate. I get frustrated often and wonder if we can ever come together to defeat Bush and start solving the disastrous mess he has caused. This thoughtful thread gives me hope.

nt

We should all have that mantra. It's okay to have doubts about all our candidates right now. It's still the pre-primary season (950 hours and counting). Ultimately your reservations will only matter about one of these people, the eventual nominee.

I am fully confident that whoever is nominated, we will all get over our reservations and vote to lose the current administration. When the times comes, we'll all do the right thing. When the nomination happens, incredible focus will be brought onto whoever walks out of Boston as our leader for the next 4 years. I'm confident that Clark, Kerry, Dean, or even Lieberman will be able to withstand the closest scrutiny and come out smelling better than Bush.

Damn, that is sad news. I was not aware of this and need to check it out. Close friends of mine have gone to prison for protesting that place. Projects I have supported in Central America were blown up by graduates from SOA. Clark has been my number 2 choice. If true, this is very disturbing news.

Regardless, any of the candidates would be better than Bush*. I will work for anyone of them who gets the nomination.