I have several objections to Clark's candidacy....

[mike_c]

As others are beginning to note, Clark is a career militarist whose strongest political connections are to the Pentagon, the DoD, and the military industrial complex. He has no real experience in civil governance outside the context of military occupation-- in that respect Paul Bremmer is as good a candidate as Clark (not a serious suggestion, of course).

Clark is promoting himself as a "centrist southern Democrat," a political position that is not very appealing to my admittedly left-coast liberalism.

Most disturbing of all, however, is his apparently easy embrace of the Bush* administration's "war on terrorism" rhetoric. Clark seems to want to position himself as being better qualified to prosecute that war than Bush*, and as the candidate whose military background makes him a better bulwark of "homeland security." I want a candidate with the vision to recognize that the best way to fight the "war on terrorism" is not militarily, but by working toward a just foreign policy that will make the U.S. a respected partner in international affairs rather than a hated unilateralist global bully. Clark has said that his preferred role is to prevent wars, rather than to fight them, but his means for preventing them have so far not included much discussion of whether the U.S. should undo the damage that it's post-WWII foreign policy has caused, rather than simply continuing to compound it.

So far, Clark hasn't said much about the issues that mean the most to me:

1) reversing a destructive foreign policy (including repudiation of the PNAC and ending U.S. unilateral war-mongering in the Middle East)-- I want the U.S. to show the world its best face rather than its most avaricious, arrogant, or violent face,

2) rolling back republican efforts to further concentrate wealth into the hands of the already wealthy, and restoring fiscal responsibility in Washington (and restoring civil responsibility in corporate boardrooms),

3) protecting the environment instead of favoring business interests that view it as either an unregulated dumping ground or as a source of free raw materials,

4) restoring, and enhancing, social services destroyed by republican raiding of the U.S. economy,

5) restoring balance to U.S. diplomatic relationships with the Palestinians and the Israelis, and ending blanket and unquestioning support for Israeli apartheid and military occupation of Palestinian lands,

6) seeking a trade policy based on fair trade rather than simplistic "free trade" that empowers corporations while further eroding the rights of workers;

7) national investment in an energy policy based upon sustainable, renewable sources as quickly as possible, and

8) repairing the U.S. health-care and insurance industry.

I need to know what Clark's positions on these issues are before I can even begin to consider supporting him, and before I can override my fundamental distaste for electing a career militarist without experience in civil governance.

[CentristDemocrat]

1. Kucinich, Dean or GREEN. Right?

:eyes:

[CMT]

2. that is your response to a well thought out

and well written opinion? How about a real response?

[CentristDemocrat]

12. Tired of responding to this crap, actually.

It's obvious these people aren't going to vote for Clark, so why bother?

[mike_c]

6. perhaps so, but your distain for my concerns does little to lend your...

...position any real credibility.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[diplomats]

11. Yawn - another insulting, elitist generalization from RichM

Why am I not surprised? :rollseyes:
There are plenty of Clark supporters on this site who know how to discuss his candidacy passionately and intelligently. Believe it or not, some of them might actually be smarter than you!

[mike_c]

19. despite RichM's lack of diplomacy, he has something of a point....

That's actually what prompted my original post, in a way. I've noticed that Clark supporters on this board seem awefully heavyhanded at times-- my original questions about Clark were at least partially inspired by a couple of similarly impolite responses in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=361391

Many of those responses by Clark supporters appear to have been deleted by the mods, but there does seem to be a tendency among at least some Clark supporters on DU to SHOUT first and discuss, well, hopefully later. I find that kind of zeal a bit disconcerting, and all too reflective of the militarism that Clark himself represents.

[starscape]

26. mike, slow down here...

With all due respect, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, drawing some psychological study as if Clark supporters are closet military fans, ready to march in lockstep with our candidate. Or at least that's what Rich said. I think that's kind of ignorant and unfair. I, for one, am about as "unmilitary" as one can get, I loathe it and have never been one to fall in line like that. But I'm completely intrigued by Clark and the fact that he does seem to be so liberal on many issues. I want to know more, at least. He seems the antithesis of the traditional, right-wing military type.

I suspect that some of the frustration in Clark supporters is that they've tried very hard to link people to Clark's web sight or at least lay out his position on many issues. There's no shame in visiting someone's web site, even if you're not behind them at all. I've checked out Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Kucinich.. Still want to go back to Gephardt's.. I really want to know as much as I can.

But some people keep posting threads like "where does he REALLY stand on the issues" or "he is really a republican.." It's only been a couple of days, and that is already getting old.

Your concerns were very valid and worthy of discussion. I hope some of your questions get answered - I think I would like some of them answered for myself. But try not to lend any legitimacy to attitudes like Rich (or Rick?) which was really just offensive, and well, dumb.

[mike_c]

31. good point-- my bad....

And I really didn't mean to excuse offensive replies.

[starscape]

34. no problem.

I think we're gonna see things calm down a little bit here in a while. Right now, Clark has just entered the race, admittedly to a lot of media hype, and it's causing a little bit of a rollercoaster ride in this primary buildup.

I'm not sure if you are a Dean fan; I am and I think, from what I've read, that Dean and Clark have a lot of respect for each other. I bet you'll see that they won't attack each other very directly, and that might come down some of the supporters on both sides. I could be completely wrong, but that's the sense I get.

If I were a hardcore Dean supporter, or Kerry or anybody, I guess, I would be confused and I guess resentful to see a sudden influx of Clark supporters. But I hope people realize, the more they up the rhetoric, people are just gonna get more and more nasty. Clark supporters will start "counterattacking" (how's that for military talk!) and Dean will face even more negative arguments on this board and elsewhere. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

I'm just thinking aloud now. This has nothing to do with your concerns with Clark and desire for more information. I have the same desire and I hope he will get into the "meat" of the issues as soon as possible, so I can really make a decision on who I trust most to lead the Dems against the worst president that I can remember (oh wait, does that mean worse than Reagan? Maybe it's a tossup!).

[RichM]

35. Hey, wait a minute! "Lack of diplomacy?" MOI? Heaven forfend!

I thought we were :pals: Now you've gone & made me :cry:

:-)

[starscape]

13. Oh, please..

RichM  wrote:
"Clark supporters are mostly dimwitted brutes, as this post illustrates. They can't discuss ideas. It's precisely what you'd expect from fans of the military -- everything is seen in terms of kicking someone's ass and winning."

What an outrageous, "dimwitted" post. So do you compartmentalize and stereotype every group of people you disagree with?

I can't begin to say how many posts today have hit my gag reflex. I don't necessarily object to the critical threads about Clark. But the repetive ones, and the silly attacks like the one are above would be funny if they weren't becoming so common. Is it ignorance or actual malice? Who knows, who cares..

[Forkboy]

16. repetitive much?

[Cheswick2.0]

18. Kucinich Dean or Green? What sense does that make?

Dean is a centrist

[Forkboy]

20. It doesn't make any sense

CD thinks it's actually clever though apparently :crazy:

[CentristDemocrat]

24. You are a Kucinich, Dean or GREEN person probably.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[CentristDemocrat]

29. ?

I never posted in that thread.

[Forkboy]

30. sorry

meant your stupidity in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=362244#362528

[CentristDemocrat]

32. I don't agree with the move (if it's true)

[Forkboy]

33. Open mouth insert foot CD

You were shown to be totally wrong and hypocritical to boot


CentristDemocrat (222 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #24

30. Let's see. He's a governor from VERMONT.

More people live in Little Rock, AR than the entire state of Vermont. He also signed a controversial civil unions bill that will get him SLAUGHTERED in the South. Dean WILL NOT win if he is the nominee.

unfrigginreal (901 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #30

34. So, when Clark CONFIRMS that he supports civil unions...


then I guess you'll go candidate hunting, right?

CentristDemocrat (222 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #34

39. You're predicting the future?

unfrigginreal (901 posts) Thu Sep-18-03 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #39

43. Yes! n/t

charlie (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-18-03 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #39

52. Howard Fineman reports that he does



"Which is where Clark comes in. He is as antiwar as Dean—and as liberal on social issues. He supports gay civil unions and abortion rights, and op-poses unspecified portions of Bush’s tax cuts..."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/959441.asp


So brace yourself, the General may well wind up favoring gay civil unions.


Vermont Population: 613,090 (2001 Estimate)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

Little Rock, AR Population: 183,133 (2000 Census)
http://littlerock.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

[Dookus]

3. But....

why would you object to his candidacy? If he can't answer those questions to most dem's satisfaction, he won't get the nomination.

What's wrong with him running?

[mike_c]

7. actually, I meant his candidacy for president...

...not the dem primary. I should have made that clearer.

[Brian Sweat]

8. He doesn't pass their idealogical test, so he has no right to run.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. sure he has a right to run

he doesn't have a right to a free pass.

[Brian Sweat]

25. No one is suggesting that he get a free pass,

but the original post suggest that he doesn't have the right to run.

[meegbear]

4. Wait 'til the afterglow dies down ...

then, he'll be required to answer your (and my) questions.

[StephNW4Clark]

5. Response to your concerns

I think your best place to start in terms of understanding Clark's positions on all these issues is at his website americansforclark.com

He has done several interviews in which he spoken about the need to restore America's prominence as a world leader through the export of its ideals by means other than force.

He stands for fiscal conservatism - he has repeatedly said that the deficit is untenable and needs to be paid down.

If you look up his Vision for America the first sentence is: "Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies."

As for FAIR trade instead of Free trade he has said in an interview that it is vitally important to distinguish between those two. He also mentions that it the legal obligation of the federal government to maintain a low unemployment act according to the Employment Act of 1946. (The interview can be found at www.digitalclark.com as well - I believe it is an NPR interview).

If you really want to learn more about him to understand there is so much to him than the 4 stars, I'd start at the website and then look at many of the other informational resources listed there.

[mike_c]

14. thanks for the info....

eom

[diplomats]

10. I'm sure his positions on a host of issues will become clear

in the coming weeks. They may not be the answers you want to hear but at least you'll have something concrete to judge him on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Just A Couple Of Small Points

Wes Clark said that we need to fight terrorism by working through multilateral instutions; the polar opposite of our current policy....

Also militarist is a loaded word....

To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, if men were angels there would be no needs for a military....

There also would be no need for locks, gates, police, and handguns....

[kang]

17. Some things to consider about Clark

I understand your concerns about Clark, especially given the fact that many liberals are uncomfortable with the military and the concept of using force to resolve any situation. Many of my friends feel the same way.

However, you should know that Clark has strongly advocated military action in cases where few in the Pentagon wanted to do anything. Clark advocated US intervention to stop the Serb slaughter of Bosnian muslims, he advocated intervention in Rwanda to stop Hutu genocide committed against Tutsis, and he advocated the stopping of Serb forces in Kosovo.

He also lobbied (with limited success) for aggressively catching indicted Bosnian war criminals so they could be brought to trial. These are not the usual issues that normal realist-trained rank-in-file senior brass care about. In fact, in almost all these situations, the world and Western powers were waiting for US leadership (or were discouraged from acting by the US). Wouldn't it have been nice if Clark were president then?

As far as fixing damaged international relations, Clark's service in NATO makes him a familiar face to the governments of Europe. He's considered somebody who respected the views of his allies. He could go a long way in bridging the growing Atlantic divide. I don't think it's a coincidence that Europe's giving the Bush admin. a hard time about helping in Iraq. They would love to see his administration gone just as much as us Democrats.

As for domestic agenda and inexperience, we'll just have to wait and see what he rolls out. But I don't think it won't be anything that we couldn't support (perhaps it won't go as far on some issues for your self-admitted tastes).

[Katie]

22. Mike, here u go..some info

Mike, Wesley Clark has 2 websites, he also will be giving a speech next week further detailing his positions. In the meantime, think you might be interested in a letter Michael Moore wrote to Clark,urging him to run:

A Citizen's Appeal to a General in a Time of War
(at Home)

September 12, 2003

Dear General Wesley Clark,

I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.

And that person was you.

Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.

Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: "If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them."

In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that...

1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.

2. You are firmly pro-choice.

3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.

4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.

5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.

6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.

General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.

This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into have a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.

But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:

Bush Must Go.

This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.

The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.

The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.

That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.

Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.

I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is: [e-mail]). None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize.

Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."

Yours,

Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant
[e-mail]

www.draftwesleyclark.com

www.americansforclark.com

[Katie]

23. kick

[hedda_foil]

27. Sorry, if Michael Moore wants to support Clark that's fine with me but ...

Moore's saying it sure as hell doesn't make it so for me. Not enough by a long shot. Not good enough at all. Moore makes great movies that often say what needs to be said. That doesn't mean I'll follow him anywhere. Frankly, I'm put off by his jumping on the Clark bandwagon and wouldn't be at all surprised if he jumped right off again in the very near future.