Here's what I don't like about Clark

[AP]

Regardless of what this guy stands for in his mind, what he stands for in most peoples' minds (and the reason some Democrats want to run him) is the notion that the iron-fist is the way to deal with the world.

He's an embodiment of a concession that the Republican party's view of the world is the right one...that what a president does is put on a uniforom and run around the world putting American soldiers here or there.

The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Presidnet shouldn't be the embodiment of ideas that are on the cups of fascism. Yeah, I want the president to know what it's like to be a soldier. But it's not the fighting part that matters to me, it's more of a compassionat understaind of who a soldier is, which is more often than not and American with few opportunities and living on the cusp of poverty trying to better himslef and contribute to society.

JFK, Eugene McCarthy, and Jimmy Carter all served in the army. Not a single one of those three men ran on the image of the iron fist. The ran on the image of the helping hand. (OK, Kennedy campaigned as an anti-communist to outflank Nixon and remove nat'l security from the debate, but he didn't put on his uniform and medals when he made those arguments).

I'm deeply troubled by whomever in the Democratic party thinks that out-fascism'ing the Republicans is the road to victory. Hopefully, they have some other plan in mind (which involves the media and a late withdrawal). But if the Dem party thinks the iron fist is the best thing the party has to offer, we're fucked.

[CentristDemocrat]

1. *yawn*

Btw, the closest Edwards will ever get to the WH is if Clark is the nominee.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. another reason to dislike Clark

his obnoxious supporters

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

56. Wanna bet?

[Fixated]

2. ...

Just because he's a General doesn't mean he supports a war-first mentality. His diplomatic potential is enormous.

[Skittles]

10. THANK YOU

HELLO - the military is NECESSARY. What we DO with the military is the test of a TRUE LEADER.

[CentristDemocrat]

13. Sadly, many on this board hate the military.

And wish we all lived in their bizarre, diluted fantasy land.

[edward]

46. Never saw someone say they hate the military...whoever "many" is.

Difference between respecting someone who was in the military(Clark)
and wanting them to be president.

[AP]

55. I love the military. I love that it fought for democracy and

saved us from fascism 60 years ago. I love that it gives a lot of people without hope and opportunity. I love that it's a love for freedom and democracy that motivates many who joing.

I also love democratic government, which fights for opportunity and social justice.

I each has a role to play in society, and I get worried when one blurs into the other. And I get especially worried when I get the sense that Democrats are conceding to Republicans the argument that it's the iron fist that matters most in leadership, and that Americas role in the world has most to do with where we move troops next.

[KoKo]

63. No one here "Hates" the military. That sounds like a Repug line, that Dem

's hate the military. I grew up around military.....in the South it supported the economy before we had any industry.....But, we know the limitations of the Military and that it needs to be guided by a firm hand or we would be in perpetual wars... It's a fact of life and if you read any history of wars you will understand that the term "strong military" has been misused over and over.

But, it would take too long and it's not something you would want to hear....considering your post. Peace!

[bicentennial_baby]

16. I agree with you

"What we DO with the military is the test of a TRUE LEADER"

Could'nt have put it better myself.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Hmmm

Did Clark announce his candidacy in front of a battle ship?

[Code_Name_D]

4. Vary well said.

The iorn fist mentality. I have been trying to but that into words for some time now.

[kstewart33]

7. A Clark/Kerry ticket would be a knockout

Two honored servicemen with great resumes and great character. And some very good ideas. What a ticket that would be.

[Bombtrack]

24. no, that would not work at all. you need BALANCE

you don't need both people on the ticket to be war-hero's. It's dumb

Kerry would be reluctant to be a runningmate, and would probably only do it with someone where it made sense, such as Edwards. (Bush/Cheney, fresh face/gravitas model)

[AP]

30. You don't even need balance. You need two people who affirm the

central message the democrats are running on.

Running on the iron fist and and affirming the iron fist is a losing proposition.

[AP]

31. You don't even need balance. You need two people who affirm the

central message the democrats are running on.

Running on the iron fist and and affirming the iron fist is a losing proposition.

[KoKo]

75. Kick!

:kick:

[AuntyFascist]

15. This Might be a Bit of a Problem

In 1999, the U.S. national security state -- which has been involved throughout the world in subversion, sabotage, terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, and death squads -- launched round-the-clock aerial attacks against Yugoslavia for 78 days, dropping 20,000 tons of bombs and killing thousands of women, children, and men. All this was done out of humanitarian concern for Albanians in Kosovo. Or so we were asked to believe.. . .

With words that might make us question his humanity, the NATO commander, U.S. General Wesley Clark boasted that the aim of the air war was to "demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure" of Yugoslavia. Even if Serbian atrocities had been committed, and I have no doubt that some were, where is the sense of proportionality? Paramilitary killings in Kosovo (which occurred mostly after the aerial war began) are no justification for bombing fifteen cities in hundreds of around-the-clock raids for over two months, spewing hundreds of thousands of tons of highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the water, air, and soil, killing thousands of Serbs, Albanians, Roma, Turks, and others, and destroying bridges, residential areas, and over two hundred hospitals, clinics, schools, and churches, along with the productive capital of an entire nation.



http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

[Qutzupalotl]

23. Clark lobbied hard to send ground troops

but was overruled by the Clinton administration.

[meegbear]

5. As a counter ...

the unfortunate thing is that * f%^ked us up so bad that it's gonna take an iron fist to get things back together.

[Code_Name_D]

77. How can that be?

It was the iorn fist that made thigns a mess in the first place.

[soleft]

6. I haven't seen anything from Clark so far that projects an iron fist

[CentristDemocrat]

9. He's the most soft-spoken of all the candidates probably.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. He Doesn't Look Like The Iron Fist Type of Guy....

These ad hominem attacks are sad...


I have accumulated 1000+ posts without attacking any candidate....

[AP]

38. You don't know what ad hominem means

if you're calling this ad hominem attack.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Ad Hominem=An Attack On A Person Not His Ideas....

Wes Clark is not a fascist....

[AP]

79. Fascism is an idea. Electing a generalisimo just because we're

afraid of Bush, is just conceding that Bush is right about what's important. It brings us closer to an American which can't fight fascism.

Why so much confusion about ad hom. here today?

[AP]

35. Then you haven't been reading DU.

Just look at all the DU threads on Clark. All people talk about is Kosovo, war, service, military leadership.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

8. I'm sorry

I've yet to see any evidence of iron-fistedness in Clark.
The more I read some posts here, the happier I am I've decided not to support anyone yet. People, remember that flawed as they may be, our candidates are ten million times better than the real enemy, AWOL. Let's not hand the rethugs a wounded nominee, please.

[GOPisEvil]

12. JFK and Carter were in the Army huh?

News to me; I always thought they were in the Navy. Heck, Carter even went to Annapolis. It'll be shocking to him that he's been cheering for the wrong side in the Army-Navy game all these years.

[Hamlette]

14. as bad as racial stereotypes

as an air force brat I can tell you there are anti-war liberals in the armed services. My Dad was an anti-Vietnam liberal Lt Col.

[slappypan]

17. that's not how I see him

To me, Clark represents working within the context of international law and the UN, coalition-building and respect for our allies rather than Bush's my-way-or-the-highway policies. As his campaign unfolds, I may see something to change my opinion, but that is how I see things based on his record.

[returnable]

18. Iron fist?

One of the things that I find appealing about Clark is his advocacy, and history, of diplomacy in foreign relations.

Maybe some people see him as an "ass kicker", but that's not the impression I have. And it's not evident from the statements he's made.

I think you might be projecting a little bit.

[Maple]

19. Americans have a love affair

with the military.

Even Democrats who claim to want peace.

[AP]

40. They why has not a single winning or nominated democrat in the 20th c.

used their military service as the operational symbol of their campaign?

You're kidding yourself if you think Clark isn't running on his military experience. He hasn't done anything significant other than serve in the military. JFK was a journalist and a senator. Carter was a farmer and a governor. All Clark has as his identity is military service, and he could a radical hippy freak in real life, but to 95 out of 100 voters they'll see him as a general and an iron fist.

[tjdee]

20. I don't think Clark is running on the image of the iron fist.

Considering he's been running a whole day now...

I've not seen anything, *anything* to indicate that. And I'm not a Clarkster.

[AP]

42. What else does he have? Regardless of what he thinks he is,

this is what he is and will be to voters. He has done nothing else significant in his life.

[Bombtrack]

21. as a fellow Edwards supporter, I heartilly disagree

Clark has never shown an authoritarian or corrupt streak to my knowledge.

If anything he or his campaign should apoligize for what they did to Edwards, but other than that, he's always shown that he a pleasant peaceful FORMER officer

Right now in this campaign the most important thing is stopping Dean from giving us another landslide defeat, if it has to be Clark instead of Edwards or Kerry, so be it.

[Skwmom]

28. I like your pragmatic approach

I'm supporting Clark but I like Edwards alot to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Like John Edwards Alot

He wears well...


With a little seasoning as VP under Clark he can get the Clinton mojo ...

[Bombtrack]

51. No, he really doesn't

he doesn't need more experience to be elected over bush

he doesn't need more to govern

and right now he has 10 times the numbers in early primary states and 10 times the cash on hand

Clark would be just as good as vp for Edwards, although I'm not sure how keen John would be to that after the way they fucked Edwards over

[RichM]

22. I agree. It's an affirmation of US militarism. It sends the message "When

times get tough, look to autocrats strutting around in bemedaled uniforms, for solutions!"

It also sends the message that these are indeed times to be very, very afraid.

For these reasons, it affirms the rightwing view of the world.

It ALSO directs the public AWAY from any intelligent QUESTIONING of the role the Pentagon plays in American life.

These are all very serious problems -- EVEN BEFORE you start to consider what Clark himself might have in mind.

[Bombtrack]

25. that is really rediculous

basically I think you should trust Clark as much as you do Clinton, or maybe as much as you would Clinton if Clinton had never lied under oath

how is he an autocrat? He's a bussinessman

Look at the congressmen who endorsed him. Are they militarists? Whatever that is

[no name no slogan]

37. Ooops...

how is he an autocrat? He's a bussinessman

Ever worked for a large (or even not-so-large) business? They're not democracies by any stretch of the imagination. The chief executives have all the power, us working stiffs have none.

Is this day and age, businesses are the biggest autocracies in the world, and are more powerful than most national governments.

I have mixed feelings on Clark: he's still too conservative for my tastes, but he does bring a lot of credibility to the table, and he scares the hell out of the GOP hawks-- chicken- or otherwise.

Also, ex-Generals typically don't make good Presidents (Eisenhower, Grant, etc). It might be because they are used to giving orders and having them obeyed, which is not how our government works. Thier administrations tend to be fairly lackluster and don't really do much to improve the country or the world.

However, one more choice can't be that bad in the long run. As long as his supporters are LaRouchees, it's all well and good.

[Bombtrack]

52. what?

so just being a bussinessnessman is a bad thing?

also, Eisenhower is considered one of best presidents and presidencies ever. He was a popular 2-term peacetime moderate.

and what conservative stances has Clark even taken?

[RichM]

44. I DO trust Clark just as much as I trust Clinton -- namely, NOT AT ALL.

Clinton is demonstrably a lying sack of sh*t. I don't care for Clark at all -- but comparing him to Clinton at this point is unfair to Clark.

[slappypan]

27. "bemedaled"??

Forsooth, a quaint turn of phrase.

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Is't not mete withal?

[AP]

43. EXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLYEXACTLY. EXACTLY.

[Skwmom]

26. I love Jimmy Carter

but I didn't agree with all of his policies. Paying of brutal butchers to leave a country does little to deter the rise of future brutal dictators.

Like it or not the world is a brutal place and sometimes force is required to protect innocent people.

[moondust]

29. Wrong.

It's not about iron fisting the world at all. It's about finding a way out of the iron fist mentality that Bushco has imposed, intelligently combating terrorism and providing security without the use of heavy artillery. The guy is no hawk.

[AP]

57. Do you really think a general is the way out of the iron fist mentality?

If it is, then what the hell was FDR thinking when he fought a battle against fascism at home and abroad which was ten times more serious than the one today? And he picked Truman to be his successor!

[moondust]

67. The ongoing issue is

terrorism/national security. It's a sticky wicket. It needs the attention of somebody who knows military capabilities as well as the economic costs of implementation. I think the right kind of general could effectively combat terrorism and provide national security without overkill and without draining the civilian economy and social programs. Clark would say it's his combination of military and economic skills that are needed to straighten this mess out.

[AP]

69. Didn't that Republican strategy paper that was found on the disk

say that the Republicans can win the election if all attention is on national security and terrorsim?

If it is, (1) nobody will be talking about the economy, and (2) it will concede to the republicans that their world view is the correct world view.

And if the only way to win is on national security, why did FDR chose Truman as his successor? Why didn't JFK, E. McCarthy and Carter run on their service in the military?

[moondust]

70. That's the point.

All they can run on is national security and terrorism. Once they are knocked off that log they are in quicksand. Clark blows them off their log right up front and the rest of the campaign is spent watching them sink on all the other issues.

[AP]

71. All they WANT to run on is national security.

Notice how the media coverage is always about Iraq? Whether it's good or bad, it helps Bush. I know it doesn't seem that way right now, when some of it's bad, but it does help him. It makes people think the Republican world view is right.

I said this in another thread. Running a general as the Democratic candidate is like if the Republicans ran a social worker. Do think a Republican social worker with good ideas about social work would beat a Democrat, like, say, Howard Dean, who is willing to cut social programs to balance budgets? Do you think a lot of Democrats who care about social work are going to be so dumb as to dump the budget balancing, program-cutting Democrat and vote for the Republican social worker who won't cut the programs?

No. It's becaue, by running a social worker, the Republicans would be conceding that the Democratic world view (which places a high priority on the social safety net) is correct way to view the world. Dean would still win.

[Brian Sweat]

34. That is what he embodies to you, not to all of us.

To me, Clark is someone who shares my political views and is not afraid to speak out against the BFEE.

[AP]

47. Anyone who says the reason they like Clark has nothing to do with

his military service and because they think it's military service that will beat Bush is a liar.

Nobody even knew what his party was until a couple weeks ago and he doesn't have much else on his c.v.

The iron fist might be in a velvet, liberal glove, but it's still that iron fist that got your attention

[Brian Sweat]

59. That is just your opinion

There was never any doubt in my mind that he was a Democrat.

[AP]

65. What about Clark first caught your attenion?

His brief tenure at Stephens, Inc.?

Why do you think he can beat Bush?

And if I may presume the answers to those questions...

Is there something deeply wrong with an America which thinks this way?

FDR was in a constant struggle domestically with fascists like Prescott Bush. The American fascists wanted to convince America that the situation was so dire it was time to turn away from the Democrat's helping hand, and shake the iron fist of the Republican party.

FDR tried desperately hard to stiffle the sentiment that generals (whether Democrats or Republicans) were the solution to Americans problem. The sentiments that make Democrats think Clark is a great candidate are the sentiments that, if they rose to the surface, FDR thought would signal the beginning of the end of democracy.

I'm not saying at all the Clark would try to be anything but a good Democrat. However, I am certain that the mood in America as the result of having a general in the WH would lead America in the wrong direction. It'll be like we're just barely holding on to democracy was we fall down the slippery slope.

If America elected a Democratic general president, who do you think would be the next Republican president? What will we be debating? What will America think the most important issues are? Remember what it felt like to have Clinton as president? What's would it feel like to have Clark as president? I think it would be bunker mentality, with people less and less interested in the sort of New Deal/Great Society/middle class opportunity programs that made America great enought that it was something worth stealing an election over.

[AP]

48. Anyone who says the reason they like Clark has nothing to do with

his military service and because they think it's military service that will beat Bush is a liar.

Nobody even knew what his party was until a couple weeks ago and he doesn't have much else on his c.v.

The iron fist might be in a velvet, liberal glove, but it's still that iron fist that got your attention

[AP]

49. Anyone who says the reason they like Clark has nothing to do with

his military service and because they think it's military service that will beat Bush is a liar.

Nobody even knew what his party was until a couple weeks ago and he doesn't have much else on his c.v.

The iron fist might be in a velvet, liberal glove, but it's still that iron fist that got your attention

[Cheswick2.0]

39. I understand what you are saying and I agree

It is distressing to see the party get all gun ho over a guy because he has recently been wearing a uniform.
Clark may have other atributes, but lets face it, he is running as the military guy.

[goobergunch]

64. I agree

My basic read on Clark is this:

Wesley Clark. Candidate for U.S. President (D-AR). Wesley Clark has a fantastic bio. However, he has not taken stances on many divisive issues within the Democratic party. He seems to be the establishment's answer to the Dean phenomenon.

[edward]

41. "Woe to a nation without heroes." Reply:"Woe to a nation that

needs heroes." From Brecht's play, Galileo.
That we need Clark to be the hero is the most disturbing part.

[AP]

60. Yes, except that I'm starting to think of FDR and Lincoln as

the model for a kind of heroism that America needs today. A president who combines the qualities of those two should be what we're looking for. That's (a kind of?) heroism.

[edward]

74. Well it was Galileo saying he was not going to martyr himself for science.

But the idea of needing a hero to save the nation marks the course for greater damage. We don't need a hero, we need a statesman.

[realFedUp]

50. I wonder what the international community thinks

about a General running for Prez?

[AP]

53. They probably think we're closer to being banana republic than we realize

We need a Genaralissimo to protect us from the fascists within.

Is America that fucked up.

I like Chavez down in Venezueal, but that's about the only way they can get a little liberalism...a coup, and election, and a constant fight for legitimacy.

If we're that close to that kind of reality, than, man, I'm depressed.

I don't think we are. I still think that FDR is the model. WWII was the darkest period of American history. We were fighting fascists like Hitler and Hirohito abroad, and fascists like Prescott Bush. The fascists at home recruited a general to lead a coup against FDR. It failed. And FDR was elected president four times by telling America we're better than that, and that opportunity and hard work were the way forward and up.

We need an FDR, not Smedley Butler (or whomever that was...)

[Eloriel]

78. well said!

We are better than that.

And besides, what better way to defeat the "all fear all the time" lies the BFEE is feeding us than to reject running a general on the ticket?

Eloriel

[Rowdyboy]

58. I would think the international community...

would be thrilled to deal with someone supporting peace,and consultation with our allies. Frankly, I think they will happily embrace any candidate that will help us retire the cowboy gunslinger currently occupying the White House. You think they could respect us less?

[GalleryGod]

54. JAFO

:wtf: was that thread all about?
AND I Profess- it for a living.

[kang]

61. Response to AP from Clark supporter

Hi AP, sorry if this has already been said here, but I unfortunately don't have enough time to read everybody's wonderful posts.

In response to your concerns, Clark isn't interested in running American foreign policy with an "iron-fist," but the exact opposite. One of the keys to his foreign policy and nat'l security beliefs is that you must work hard to gather int'l support and allies for any military operation. That's a far cry from the Bush unilateralist approach. It also insures that the reasons for taking military action are legitimate and sound because, as the Bush administration discovered, the electorate of a large number of democracies will simply not support one without good reasons/or arguments.

Clark isn't a "fascist," nor do I think this is what the Democrats who support him are trying to promote. The role as Commander-in-chief is a large part of the President's job. Clark is somebody who's qualified for that position given his background. The fact is the GOP will try making nat'l security a huge part of their campaign (we all know it can't be the economy!) and Clark is in a good position to respond to that. Yes, civilians without military service can make good commander-in-chiefs, but that is fact and not public perception. *sidenote, JFK did play up his PT-109 heroics...just like another JFK who's running for pres!

Finally, I think your comment about a President who understands the life of the soldier is appropriate, but for the current Administration and not Clark. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and company never served, yet have advocated very aggressive and risky military action, cut pay and benefits (to veterans too), and now extended tours in Iraq for reservists and nat'l guard people. Clark was in Vietnam and would have a real concern for his soldiers.

To call him a fascist because he's a former general is not fair or accurate. Please reconsider.

[AP]

68. My concern is primarily thid: mood and symbol

(1) I'm worried about the mood in America which makes people think this guy is our rescuer. Hopefully, this sentiment is confined to a narrow groupd of people, but I have to wonder what the hell is wrong in America where we think that the soultion to America's problems is to bring in a general to out-iron fist Bush.

(2) I'm worried about the symbolism of having a general run America at a time like this. Are we a banana republica? Would it be winning the battle but losing the war of defending FDR's legacy? Electing Clark would be, in my mind, conceding to the Republicans that they are 99% right about what America should be focused on. It's like saying, yeah, Clinton, JFK and FDR are no longer the models for what a president should be and care about. It's like saying, yes, moving around troops on the global chess board is the primary role of the American president, so we shall elect the liberal version of that kind of president in response to your fascist version. That whole game is a concession to fascism.

I feel that it's vitally important at this point in American history to elect a president who says FDR and Lincoln are the models of what an American president should be focused upon. We HAVE to affirm that kind of symbol in 2004, or we're going to slide down that hill pretty fast.

[KoKo]

62. Well said, AP, you've hit the nail on the head about why some of us just

can't support a General at this time.....for President. Although, I would look at him for VP......depending on how he does in debates and how he handles himself now that he's declared.

What has worried me is that so many DU'ers think that having a "General" will just blow Chimp out of the White House.....That seems to be the only issue that's important. Blind loyalty to a General who said he was against the "Invasion" before one even knowns how he can handle himself as a Candidate is frightening to some of us. It sounds like the people who support Bush because they think he's a "Strong Military Supporter who will bring back America's Power." Isn't that attitude what got us into Iraq twice?

AP I know you will be flamed.......but I'm glad you said it. I know it won't sink in why some of us are mistrustful of Clar or any Genera at this particular time....but maybe eventually it will sink in that many of us consider that a strong enough reason to have questions about Clark and we hope those questions will be answered as he goes forward in the campaign.

[AP]

66. BTW, this is ALL just my opinion.

Just an opinon. That's all.

You can believe it. You can reject. I don't know you, so I really don't care what you do with it.

But I think it's an opinion that's worth considering and, perhaps, even worth discussing.

[Rowdyboy]

72. And not only is there value to your opinion,

but many people share it (I'm not one). That's what a campaign is for. To take the measure of the candidates. We all start with our individual prejudices and, over the next few months, see how these guys perform.

In 1976 I started out supporting Senator Fred Harris, the most radical of the 11 Dems running that year. He withdrew after New Hampshire. Then I switched to Mo Udall (next most liberal) until the convention. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for that grinning, redneck jackass Baptist Carter (which is EXACTLY how I viewed him when I was 22).

I settled on 3rd party Eugene McCarthy. The Monday night before the election, Carter had a long television commercial (15-20 minutes I think) where he talked about economics, and unions, and progressive taxation. In general, he reminded me of what it meant to be a Democrat. The next day I somewhat reluctantly voted for Carter/Mondale. I am so proud today that I did. That was the last time Mississippi voted for a Democratic presidential candidate and at 2:30am or so, when our state was called for Carter, we put him over the top electorally!

Lets see where this campaign goes and what these guys have in them (that "guys" is generic-includes Braun). There'll be plenty of time to draw lines in the sand later on.

[KoKo]

81. RowdyBoy...your post is a great read! And your transition is interesting

in that you were flexible enough to make changes as the campaign went along.

But, I have to tell you I was ROTFL at your first description of Carter! :D.......I voted for him too, but was more enthusiastic than you were about him!

[KoKo]

73. Kick!

:kick:

[carpetbagger]

80. And they thought Bush was a "compassionate conservative".

I say good for us. I think it would be swell if "iron fistedness" gave us a free pass to return America to a nation that wages war as a last resort, and a nation that stands with its allies.

You'd be amazed at how many people honestly think Bush cares about people's basic economic needs.