"This Is Not An Endorsement" by The Plaid Adder

[1971]

"This Is Not An Endorsement"
January 21, 2004
By The Plaid Adder

http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/10.html

- - - - - - -

I'd like to propose that at least part of Plaid Adder's article is indeed not an endorsement, but is an indictment of Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential candidate for 2004.

I generally find myself nodding in agreement with the Plaid Adder's commentary, but in this case, I was disappointed to see that she may have succumbed to a pernicious malaise that affects many liberals and progressives, an affliction I call the F-O-M, "Fear of the Military".

I myself am a progressive. I possess a healthy wariness when it comes to military matters. But in General Wesley Clark, I do not see a warmonger. I see a leader who represents "all that we can be" in the best sense of the phrase. Not a slogan, but the real deal. The gold standard.

I challenge DU'ers to discuss what really seems to be the obstacle in their path preventing them from making a reasoned assessment of Wes Clark's viability as President of the United States: their fear of the military.

For example:

Do you think America should have a military?

If America should have a military, then what kind of military should it be?



And I also challenge you to do your homework and see that the attacks on Clark are unfounded, once you get the whole story. No 15 second soundbites, but the whole story. He deserves that. And so do we.

[exJW]

1. The Plaid Adder said:

"In my humble opinion, what we need after the carnage of Bush and the "preventive war" years is a president who will make an attempt at solving problems using something other than the American military. I don't think Clark is going to be that president, whether or not he's electable."

Well, you may not think that for whatever reason, but the man has gone far out of his way to PROMISE that very thing.

He's looked alot of people in the eye and promised that "only, only, only, when all other resources are exhausted, would he ever take America into war", or substance thereof.

I believe it was Kris Kristoferson who urged us in regards Clark: don't listen to what the lying liars say, listen to the man himself.

[chiburb]

2. I'm inclined to agree, 1971...

As Plaidder knows, she has no bigger fan than me. But her "FOM" (as you put it) does SEEM to color her view of Clark and his otherwise very liberal (and Democratic) positions and proposals.
I wouldn't go so far as to call her words an indictment, but I would suggest to her (and everyone) that MOST of Bushco's policies could be described as "war" on the environment, people of color and poverty, GLB&T's, hell... the world! To allow FOM be your only descriptive of war is to dismiss an otherwise perfectly viable Democratic candidate.
Besides, wouldn't you pay to see a debate between a Silver Star and a Silver Spoon?

Full disclosure: I'm undecided, in no hurry to decide, but ABB!

[Plaid Adder]

3. I would say 'indictment' is too strong.

I responded to this over in a thread in the primary forum...I'm just trying to explain why I don't relish the thought of voting for him. Anyone who does want to vote for him would be crazy not to just because me and my partner are concerned about the poor nuns.

See, this is why I've been staying out of the primary thing. Bush I am happy to indict any day of the week. But I would hate to think I'm really hurting someone's candidate. Don't listen to me, people! I'm a lunatic, I said so right in the first paragraph!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder