Clark on with Wolf rignt now. CNN

What were they talking about?

Saudis haven't turned the corner on dealing w/ terrorism.

Clinton made very good foreign policy decisions...rest of world thought we were nuts re Monica.

Doesn't want to be VP--but did say he was very interested in doing whatever to help Kerry win...JK will be great president.

*Of course, you have to add a lot of insight and wisdom to my pathetic recounting. :)

Used the same line he always does, "I'm not interested in that, but what I AM interested in getting John Kerry elected." (owtte)

No new information on the VP selection at all. Confidential process, not interested, yada yada. He didn't mention any private business endeavors this time, but went on to describing why Kerry will be a great president.

It was a great interview. Clark was about as strong and forceful as I've seen him in a while. Especially in discussing use of torture, and in defending the Big Dog.

Thanks for posting re the interview--would have missed it! :)

Both of these men have the last name of Clark.
I wonder if they are related?

No relation.

But both are great...Welcome to DU :hi:

:hi: You will like it here.

Wolf was good for a change...very fair and asked a lot of good questions. Clark gave a lot of great coherent well spoken answers. I hope someone can post a copy of that conversation for us. It's a must see.

So glad I didn't miss it and my heart is still a flutter! :loveya

Again I ask...How can Kerry not want this man for his Veep?

for Kerry NOT to pick Clark. Why would he not want a VP who could help him get us out of the mess in Iraq, help us regain some respect around the world and help to fix Homeland Security? He would be a very FOOLISH, FOOLISH man to pass up the GIFT of Wesley Kanne Clark!

You didn't see him pushing his way into the middle of the Unity line-up, did you? Or interupting the other candidates during the debates, talking over their remarks, or bleeding into their time.

The guy's got too much class.

Not mention 38 years spent working for others. He wasn't the commanding officer in every assignment, not even most of 'em. And whether commanding or not, he was always a team-player first. A lot of people don't realize that about successful military commanders--that they build functioning teams, not lord their authority over a bunch of subordinate automtons who jump whenever they're told to.

In any case, Clark has no problem recognizing who the captain of the team is this time, and making sure everybody around him knows too.

Anybody who has any doubts about that should watch Clark's endorsement of Kerry in Wisconsin.
http://www.videosforclark.com/vidclips/CSPAN_WI_021304_seg1.WMV
http://www.videosforclark.com/vidclips/CSPAN_WI_021304_seg2.WMV
The introduction Clark got from the VFW guy was about as complimentary as any Clarkie could have hoped for--you'd almost think the guy was stumping for Clark. Maybe in a way he was. And Clark could have easily turned into some sort of self-promotion, but that's not his style. In fact, it was Kerry who had to pull Clark out from the background. I can't quite picture that scenario with about any professional politician. I sure don't recall seeing it in any of the other endorsements, or in the photo ops after their meetings.

Man. I should never switch the TV and always keep my computer on GD Campaign 2004! :spank:

When Wolf asked Clark about torture: When is it okay.

Clark: Its against the law...period. And its wrong. Then cited various accords and treaties we've signed.

It is a wonderful thing when someone speaks up for the values we should be living. He gave an example of when US soldiers were taken by Serbians and roughed up pointing out how we said it was wrong then. He also said that he had read in detail the memos put out by the regime putting the resident above the law. No one is agains the law.

Spirited defense of Clinton by Clark. Apparently Clinton has praise for Clark in his book. Good.

He gave the same "not interested" answer he always gives to the vp question. Talked about working to get funding for small businesses etc in his private work. He said the only thing he is interested in is the mission: getting Kerry elected--said K would be a great president.

until our forces are out of there. We can probably prevent a
civil war while we are there...but once we leave..who knows what will happen.

The man is so smart! He can answer any question on any subject. What an asset to our party.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6185043&rnd=1087847555812&has-player=false

great piece with Clark, Zinni, Biden, Beers, ect..

Dammit. :(

Repeated it too. Well, I'm bummed.

he can't say "I want it" he said he wasn't interested (which to me says I'll do what I'm asked, but I'm not campaigning for myself).

...that is how the game is played. NO ONE who actually wants to be considered will say they want it, unless they are shameless self-promoting whores (I can think of one...)

I couldn't help notice the very slight flicker across his face, a fleeting "smile" when asked about VP..as he said "I've always said I wasn't interested................but....and then went into the helping Kerry bit.....

So, Clark back in DC today....as was Kerry, having canceled ABQ. At about the same time, Kerry is having a "very brief", spur of the moment meeting with Edwards. Wonder if he's touching base with Clark in person?

Or, if they're going into "avoidance" mode to deflect speculation.....

Note: This interview series that Wolf has set up is specially to interview possible vp nominees. Soooooo if you're not interested I would think that one would refuse the interview.

One aspect of interviews with Clark, and I've noticed this with Russert and all of the wingnuts, is that no matter how hard they try, the interviewers get sucked in. They want to know what Clark has to say because it is important.

They know they are getting the absolute truth and the best answer to their question that can be given. I've watch Russert start out in his usual smarmy cynical mode only to be leaning in with ears opened to hear what this man has to say once Clark gets rollin'.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/22/nfcnn.01.html

It's a shame they did this with no warning, because you really lose something in just reading the words. But they're worth reading anyway.

Ungrateful whine: I thought WesPAC was gonna let us know about these things. I mean, he was in the CNN studio--I hardly think it was by chance. I know mass e-mails cost money, but all they'd have to do is post it on the blog or one of the message groups and the word would get around.

I didn't see the interview, but I just read the transcript. Two examples of that stood out. Example One:

"BLITZER: We're going to take a break, but just follow up on this. When you were on the battlefield, whether in Vietnam or elsewhere, and you're fighting the enemy and you've got a troop out there, you mean to say in all those years of experience you never saw American soldiers get tough with these guys and try to get information?

CLARK: No, I never saw that. But I'll tell you this, when we had three U.S. soldiers captured by the Serbs in a cross-border raid at the start of the Kosovo operation, the Serbs took them and roughed them up and beat them up. And we were totally outraged by that treatment.

You remember they were on television, and how angry people were about the way they were treated? And normally, when people get captured, they do get roughed up a bit because there's a lot of tension. People are afraid on both sides. But we've never condoned that treatment. I know it's happened, it's been wrong. And it's wrong today."

So how do you think the Arab world sees mistreatment of their soldiers, let alone their civilians, by us? The point practically shouts itself.

Example two (talking about Clinton as President):

"...And my European friends would come up to me and they'd say, "What is wrong with your country? You have a brilliant man as president. Why are you ruining the reputation of the United States in trying to attack him personally for this? This has nothing to do with his leadership of America."

And it was part of this gulf of misunderstanding that opened up between the United States and Europe. Because what they wanted from an American president was a world leader. And frankly, the problems he had with his family weren't relevant to them."

That's the gulf of misunderstanding that has widened further under Bush of course. Both of these jabs were woven into off the cuff remarks in an interview setting. I would love to see Clark take on Cheney one on one.

BLITZER: Put on your military uniform for a second and talk about this whole issue of torture, getting information out of detainees. How far, in a worst case scenario, in a tiny number of cases, when you suspect there's, "a ticking time bomb" that a detainee might know information about a planned terror operation that could result in a lot of innocent people getting killed, how far do you go to try to get that...

CLARK: Well, it's against the law.

BLITZER: How far do you go to get the information?

CLARK: You don't. It's against the law. I mean, it's that simple.
And there's no cut-out for the law. The president's not above the law. He's not above the Constitution. He's not above the international obligations that the United States government has undertaken.

...swinging at George all the time.

:evilgrin:

The ability to instantly view various threads of possibilities and arrive at a thesis. It is the highest level of thinking/processing.

I'm not deifying Clark, he would hate that, this information came from an article in the "New York Mag" that was written by a woman who has been studying and researching for years on thinking skills. (Perhaps it was posted here at about a month ago...don't know.)

Often times I've been mystified when posters on this forum failed to appreciate the clarity and intensity of Clark's words; while others, myself included, are rapt by his message. Reading the article I thought I had stumbled on a clue.

Moreover, Clark employs an economy of language in his impromptu speaking; it is as if he is editing while he is speaking. Sprinkle with those "down home" terms, "low hanging fruit" comes to mind, and add the punctuation to form a clear, concise and the most honest answer you will ever hear on American tv.

Portals of truth. That is my term, and there aren't many left.

I read the transcript...and it's beautiful...even if I didn't get to see the manly man say the words...the words themselves are masterful!

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/22/nfcnn.01.html

You were a Rhodes scholar before Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar.

CLARK: That's right. Yes, I'm two years older. I finished ahead of him in school.

BLITZER: I suspect not a lot of young men from Arkansas turn out to be Rhodes scholars?

CLARK: Well, a surprising number.

BLITZER: Really?

CLARK: Yes.

BLITZER: All right. So it wasn't that unusual, is that what you're saying?

CLARK: Not that unusual.

BLITZER: All right. So he -- he...

CLARK: A lot of good people in Arkansas, Wolf.

i loved it when richard holbrooke told wolf how to do his job as a reporter.

There is A LOT of prejudice against people from the South.

Guys - just because we talk a wee bit slower and take our time, doesn't mean we're dumb. The Dems are the dumbs ones for not capitalizing on how to effectively recruit Southern folks. We're not all about race differences and religion.

Take me, for instance: good work history, educated and can't find a decent job to save my life or my house.

Really depressed tonight... just ignore me.

:hug:

I know it can be tough, but it will turn around. :hug: The cream always rises to the top.

:cry: You certainly deserve a good job and a nice house.
Just wait till Kerry/Clark get in charge and everything will be better...for you me and the whole world. :bounce:
Here's to you! :toast: