Clark Supporters - Sell Me On Your Guy

[REP]

I'm a Dean supporter and unlikely to change that. That doesn't mean, however, I can't support two candidates. I don't know much about Clark, but I admit that idea of another Rhode's Scholar in the WH is appealing. I watched part of the announcement speech today, and my first impression was a positive one.

So Clark fans - tell me what you like about this guy. I've picked up enough negatives in other threads, and I'm pretty sure that's not the whole picture. As a favor, I'm asking please that no one compare Clark to any other candidate - except Assmunch*. I really just want supporters to tell me why I should be one, too.

[Dob Bole]

1. Supporter as of Yesterday

so I'm probably not the most qualified to answer your question. As of yesterday, I was on the fence, though I halfway sort-or started the students for Dean chapter at my school.

1) The Magic Resume. You can't deny the magic resume. General. Rhodes Scholar. Economics Professor at West Point. If you saw Clark sitting across Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and noted that they really had nothing to say, this is because of the magic resume. Fox news tried calling Clark "anti-war" today, and I laughed at them. The right is wing is clueless and scared.

2) Washington Outsider. Voters like this, and though he's not the only one, he is in the club.

3) Damn Smart. Another reason that he makes Hannity speechless is that he's damn smart. But you knew that.

4) Southerner. He's not the only one of these, either, but he would definitely carry his home state. We're not so sure about Graham or Edwards being able to do that at this point, though I like them too. West Virginia+Arkansas=win. In fact, States last time + home state=win by 1 electoral vote, even if he didn't carry any others. Can't say that for all the candidates running.

These are just a few of my reasons. Enjoy.

[REP]

12. Not Immune to the Golden Resume!

At this point, I'm not really thinking of electoral votes - just what the candidates' stand for and what they plan to do. You are absolutely right about the Magic Resume. Smart is very appealing in a candidate!

[VaLabor]

2. Sure, here goes...

Clark has the courage to speak the TRUTH: "As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."

Yes, two leaders who bucked world opinion and went to war despite the popular, democratic outcries demanding more evidence, more justification, and more time to find out if there really was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Sorry, Clark supporters. I just don't get it.


http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[disgruntella]

4. Isn't it fun to pretend to be a Clark supporter?

But you spoiled your disguise at the very end. :(

[VaLabor]

5. On the other hand...

Dean, during the same period in April when Clark wrote the above piece, wrote:

"The next president will need to undo the work of this band of radicals currently controlling our foreign policy – who view the Middle East as a laboratory for their experiments in democracy-building, where no such traditions exist. Their approach will drastically change the view that the world has had of the United States.

...

"The people of this country must understand that this Administration has a far different concept of the role of America in the world. This concept involves imposing our will on sovereign nations. This concept involves dismantling the multilateral institutions that we have spent decades building. And this concept involves distorting the rule of law to suit their narrow purposes. When did we become a nation of fear and anxiety when we were once known the world around as a land of hope and liberty?"

A bit of a contrast. Clark was carefully trying to position himself on the winning side after so much pre-war criticism from him while still trying to create nuanced positions different from Bush on what should happen next in Iraq, after our glorious victory.

See Dean's column: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

[REP]

11. Sorry, No Slams Please

I'm already a Dean supporter.

[StephNW4Clark]

6. And from the same article

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

It IS possible to see both sides of the issue. Just because you praise military success doesn't mean you can't question both the legitimacy of the war - as Clark points out in the second paragraph -and understand that peace is still out of grasp despite a military victory.

[w4rma]

14. My analysis of Gen. Clark's anti-Iraq war position

I think FAIR did a good job, but came to a different conclusion that I did

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
…
Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091803A.shtml

FAIR brought the facts together and really built a very good timeline on Gen. Clark's thoughts about the changing situation. I'm not as strict on using an anti-war label as the FAIR author is. From what I could tell, Gen. Clark tried to do all he could to keep us out, up until the point where he no longer thought that anything anyone did would stop Bush from following through.

Is Gen. Clark a dove? No. He's an owl. Gov. Dean is also an owl. Neither are pacificsts or doves. Neither will hesitate to use military force when they feel it's neccessary.

I do consider Gen. Clark to be anti-Iraq war. He was consistantly against invading leading up to the point that I think he felt was the point of no return. After that and up until it was obvious that the occupation was failing, I think Gen. Clark self-censored himself for whatever reason.

Here is an editorial written by General Wesley Clark, April 10, 2003:
What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory
…
As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

For contrast, Dean wrote this editorial on April 17, 2003:
Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong by Howard Dean
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0417-07.htm

And posted this blog entry on April 10, 2003:
DEAN PRESENTS SEVEN POINT PLAN FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000359.html

[robbedvoter]

18. He said exactly what you did - without the "sarcasm" smilie

read your quote again, slowly:

And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."

"irationally resolute"? Concerns with Europe?'
Does the fact that the POINT of the article is: "So what you gonna do now with your shiny victory, big boys?" No? Nuances? Black&white?

[Bertrand]

22. Is it really hard to discern between politics and ideology?

i mean, its pretty obvious that hes complimenting them on their political victory instead of praising their ideology. As a General, he has a strong sense of looking at a situation objectively, and guess what: Bush and Blair were terrific in leading their cause to victory (ie. war). Hell, 70% of people still believe Saddam was tied to 9/11. To get such a blatant falsehood to become truth is a political genius.


Its as if trying to be objective about evaluating a situation is a negative among the anti-clark crowd. This is getting absurd.

[StephNW4Clark]

3. Why I support Clark

Back in April, while I was watching the nonstop shock-and-awe campaign waged by Bush in Iraq, the only voice of reason and rational thought I heard came from General Clark. He spoke cogently about the success of the military portion of the campaign (no surprise in his view) but ALWAYS stressed that the success of the mission depended on how well we kept the peace. While everyone was enraptured with the smart bombs and the embeds, he provided a respite of intelligence.

I thought - wow, he's really smart. And the contrast to Bush could not have been more marked. He looked beyond the short term and correctly anticipated the quagmire that has unfolded while everyone else couldn't see past the end of the day.

That said, I have heard him discuss the demise of legitimate political dialogue in this country and how civil liberties have to be protected from the Patriot Act and other far-reaching and short-sighted laws passed when everyone was still reeling in fear and anger afetr 9/11.

Then he spoke out about affirmative action, and how to deny it was to deny the existence of slavery as part of our history. And he spoke out about the deficits, and discussed that he was a fiscal conservatism. And he asked how anyone could ignore the fiasco of global warming.

And a whole host of issues were further addressed as people became more and more curious.

But overall - why do I support Clark?

Because he is the first person I have heard who speaks about a vision for America - 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, 100 years from now. He believes our greatest legacy will be our consitutional legitimacy and our environmental policies for protecting our natural resources. He is brilliant and ambitious and fair, and I would rather have a general who plans and listens to all sides of an issue, and especially asks the difficult questions which others want to ignore.

I don't think (regardless of who you end up supporting) that it should be because one candidate will cut 5% instead of 7% of a particular tax - it should be about the guiding principles and beliefs that permeate the vision of the candidate.

General Clark believes in internationalism, and revisiting the Kyoto Protocol. He believes in reviewing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military. But most of all he believes in the Consitution and meaningful political dialogue.

[sasquatch]

7. Support Kucinich not Clark

If you're a Dean supporter then you want to save our party from the DLC. That's what Dean is trying to do along with Kucinich. You don't want to support a DLC sellout like Clark trust me on this.

[REP]

10. Pass, Thanks

Kucinich is not on my dance card, for a variety reasons I won't go into because I don't want to provoke a flamefest.

[iangb]

8. Clark is the only candidate......

....with a positive profile outside of the US. The others don't have a negative profile......they just don't have one.

For us out here a Clark Presidency means we'd be dealing with a 'sane' America. We'd be able to engage you as equals again, and know we'd be listened to.

Under Clark I'd expect the US to reinvigorate its multilateral relations.......maybe you'd even sign up to Kyoto.

[Dookus]

9. On the shallowest level....

but I'm using this as a metaphor:

Clark is the closest we have to a Jeb Bartlett (West Wing).

He's a highly-educated, intelligent economist with impeccable patriotic credentials, a real talent for seeing nuance and subtlety and EXPLAINING IT, and will be kick-ass take-no-prisoners type of campaigner. He has a classic liberal vision of America and has the authority and credentials to sell it.

He'll be one of the great US presidents.

[REP]

13. Why I'm Too Lazy To Do My Own Research

(In case anyone wondered) I have multiple hand/arm injuries that make keyboarding painful, and I reinjured a damaged nerve over the weekend, so my hand is more worthless than ever. I really do want to hear what Clark supporters have to say about him without wading through a flamewar.

[dkf]

15. Hey Rep. Seen this?

http://www.politicsus.com/campaign%20documents/091703APClark051201.htm

Ex-NATO commander Clark talks of wars at GOP dinner

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 12, 2001

Retired NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark told a Republican gathering Friday night in Little Rock that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States.

Clark, a Little Rock native, was the European Supreme Allied Commander for NATO and was commander in chief of the United States European Command. He commanded the alliance during the 78-day air war against Yugoslav forces in 1999 that forced the retreat from Kosovo.

Clark was the keynote speaker at the Pulaski County Republican Committee's annual Lincoln Day dinner.

During the war, Clark made little secret of his belief that the alliance should consider a ground invasion, and he chafed at the graduated air campaign pursued by the Clinton administration. Clark acknowledged, however, that the airstrikes were necessary. Clark noted that World War I began in the Balkans, and World War II followed from the failure to keep the peace agreement that ended the previous conflict.

[dkf]

16. This too.

http://www.politicsus.com

JUST WHEN -- AND WHY -- DID CLARK BECOME A DEMOCRAT, ANYWAY? Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who today announced his candidacy for President, joined the field of contenders competing for the Democratic nomination. But as recently as two years ago, he was addressing Republican dinners in his home state of Arkansas amid speculation about a possible future Clark run for office -- as a Republican.

Speaking on May 11, 2001, as the keynote speaker to the Pulaski County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Clark said that American involvement abroad helps prevent war and spreads the ideals of the United States, according to an AP dispatch the following day.

Two weeks later, a report in U.S. News and World Report said Arkansas Republican politicos were "pondering the future of Wesley Clark:" "Insiders say Clark, who is a consultant for Stephens Group in Little Rock, is preparing a political run as a Republican. Less clear: what office he'd campaign for. At a recent Republican fund-raiser, he heralded Ronald Reagan's Cold War actions and George Bush's foreign policy. He also talked glowingly of current President Bush's national security team. Absent from the praise list -- his former boss, ex-Commander in Chief Bill Clinton."

Clark told CNN's Judy Woodruff earlier this month that he had decided to register as a Democrat. Left unsaid and unknown at this point is exactly when and why he decided to become a Democrat.

[Section_43]

17. Not the deepest insight, but maybe it is...

First of all, Dennis Kucinich is my favorite candidate on the issues. I am far left. If I strip away personal tastes and standards, I will support Clark. I believe he is the only candidate that can beat bush. I was pretty concerned before he entered the race, my gut told me we would not take back the WH. I simply think he is the only person that can do it. My belief is based on first impression and gut feeling from all of the candidates. I saw John Edwards on the series hosted by Tom Harkin a few months ago, I was very impressed. I believe he will be a future POTUS, but not in '04.

So, my short list is:

Clark
Kucinich
Edwards
CMB
Sharpton

My wife and I have never trusted Howard Dean. Not to start a flamefest, but that was our first impression and gut feeling. I personally don't think he is electable. Just My Opinion/Not a Bash.

[robbedvoter]

19. In short: the most liberal, but without obviously looking it

It makes harder for the Rove media to peg him as a flaming liberal (although all his views that I know so far are flawless) than the others.
And I am told in Europe/the world, the news, people are extatic over the possibility.
Plus, I happen to appreciate intelligence and the ability to put complex issues in simple concepts.
And he's a Socratic thinker - but that's just me.

[robbedvoter]

20. What President Clark would have done after 9.11 (article on 9.14)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4257771-103677,00.html

Leah Faerstein wrote:

Decisive force

We must target and destroy the terrorist network. There is no room for
half measures
Special report: terrorism in the US

Wesley Clark
Saturday September 15, 2001
The Guardian

America is indeed at war. The attacks in New York and Washington have
raised the dangers posed by international terrorism to a new level. But
despite the awful familiarity of the devastation, an effective US
response is likely to be something unfamiliar.

For the US, the weapons of this war should be information, law
enforcement and, rarely, active military force. The coalition that will
form around the US and its Nato allies should agree on its intent, but
not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be
anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes
because the populations and economic structures of western nations will
be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp a new approach to warfare.
Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will
achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the
complex network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack
not buildings but people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported
and executed these and other attacks.More....

[REP]

21. Thanks for the Article

And thanks to everyone who responded without flaming anyone.

I'm beginning to understand what the supporters see in him, and why.

Now: sleep.