what has Wesley Clark ever done for the Democratic party?

[pruner]

as far as I've seen, the answer is nothing.

in fact, it seems that he's actually done more for the Republican party.

I'm not suggesting that Clark is a Republican shill, PNACer, or anything of the like.

All I'm saying is that it surprises me someone who's seemingly never served the party is being considered a serious contender for the presidential nomination.

flame away.

[disgruntella]

1. flame away? why bother? n/t

[CWebster]

9. Another illuminating reply!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. A Legitimate Point, But I'd Venture That Clark Has Done Plenty

For this COUNTRY, certainly enough to have paid his public service dues.

You're right, it's not necessarily just about us Dems; it's about America, as hokey as that may sound.

DTH

[pruner]

5. I agree he's done plenty for the country

but the country isn't who'd be giving him the nomination… the Democratic party is.

IMO, loyalty & service to the party & it's ideals should be an important factor in determining who gets the nomination, and Clark's resume is lacking in this area.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. I Have to Disagree

I think that the most important thing a party can do is decide if a potential nominee embodies its values.

I'd embrace Jim Jeffords in a second, even though he's an Independent. I'd embrace the Vermont Representative, too, even though he's a Socialist. I'd even embrace Ralph Nader, if he decided to become a Democrat.

I would also contend that making party doctrine a prerequisite to running fosters a sense of elitism and cronyism that is not necessarily consistent with a democratic ideal. We, the people, can decide for ourselves whether an individual represents our party.

This is not to say that distrust of a newcomer, particularly a newcomer running for the party's highest office, is in any way unreasonable. It is a rational concern. I would only suggest that rather than allowing that distrust to dictate one's response, rather it should be weighed along with all of the other factors. At the end of the day, after one has had a chance to familiarize oneself with the person, if one is still feeling unsure, if the person hasn't been able to convince you based on all of the evidence that he or she is going to represent the ideals of the Democratic party, then the appropriate response would be not to vote for him or her. (God, that last sentence of mine is one of the most ungainly things I've written in recent memory.)

Again, I think your concern is eminently reasonable. I hope you will give Clark a chance to convince you, and keep an open mind. Because in my opinion, based on reading just about everything I could find about him...he really is the real deal.

Peace.

DTH

[CWebster]

13. So your point is

The parties don't matter? And the values that the respective parties represent--militarism and big business on the Right, social issues and concerns on the Left--are interchangeable? Or is it that the values of the Left are eclipsed by the perceived superior selling points of the Right? I have to wonder why Democrats would embrace Republican projections in order to promote a Democratic agenda.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. Please See Post #10

Plus, Clark is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-rollback of Bush tax cuts, pro-internationalization, pro-revisitation of NAFTA, and a raftload of other traditionally Democratic positions.

Your attempt to paint him as a conservative simply does not approach reality, IMO.

DTH

[CWebster]

17. of course

It isn't as if he is running as a Republican. but then you said:

"I would also contend that making party doctrine a prerequisite to running fosters a sense of elitism and cronyism that is not necessarily consistent with a democratic ideal. We, the people, can decide for ourselves whether an individual represents our party."

So it doesn't really matter? Being on the left is NOT an arbitrary position, as you just indicated in your list of Clark's claimed stands on the issues.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Umm...Huh?

I'm honestly not sure I understand your point here. I agree that being on the left is not some arbitrary position, it's something that can be discerned based on an individual's aggregate sum of positions. My judgment is that Clark is quite progressive, more so than quite a few current contenders for the Democratic nomination. You apparently disagree.

Not sure what else you're trying to say. Please feel free to clarify.

DTH

[CWebster]

23. All of the candidates

including Lieberman have a solid history and background in Democratic issues, policy-making and activism. Clark has a history of militarism and Republican political support. What you tout as his major selling point is a background in militarism which is in conflict with Democratic social and philosophical priorities.

It is not difficult to rip apart the Republican's claim that they are best suited for defense and national security. They made a mess--a catastrophe by peddling fear and lies. This is becoming more obvious by the hour, so I question the necessity of promoting Republican images of strength when they have failed, and run counter to the Democrats preferred approach.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. But That's Not True

Clark's biggest supporter, both in the military and recently, has been Bill Clinton, not Republicans.

I agree with you that it will be easy for us to slam the Thugs on foreign policy, but the problem is that they will slam us right back, using Shrub's ungodly blood money warchest. And their slams will resonate because of the Thugs and the whore media telling everyone for years that the Democrats are weak on defense.

Clark will make it much, much harder for those charges to resonate.

As for militarism, Clark supports humanitarian interventions such as Rwanda and Kosovo, and he opposed the rush to war in Iraq. He supports internationalism and cooperation much more so than just about any other candidate in the field.

I would also point out: "The highest calling of the armed forces is not to wage war, but to prevent war." -- General Wesley K. Clark

That does not sound like a militarist to me. YMMV, of course.

DTH

[DoNotRefill]

25. yup....

didn't he try to start WWIII over an airport?

[WillyBrandt]

3. no flames from here

nothing worth flaming.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. Clark who?

Never heard of him.
I used to know a Mark Clark in grade school. He was a smary bully. Oh and I know a Clark Luis who sings baritone. He did an absolutely wonderful job with and aria the other day at a concert.

[StephNW4Clark]

6. Congressional Democrats Say Clark Improves Party Image on Defense

Well, there's that for a start.

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0903/103082.html

[loyalsister]

34. Has he ever paid dues?

It is a very valid question to ask what he's done for the party, because he's going to be asking the party to help finance his run.

[KoKo]

36. This is the only Democrat named in that article. If you read it!

The title is typically misleading. Only one Democrat admits this.....so how do we know if there are others? Just because the reporter and Marion Berry says so? And, if the 30 were named wouldn't they be the same ones who gave Bush "The Blank Check" to Invade Iraq in the first place. That's like asking Lieberman if he supports a strong military, fgs!


Congressional Democrats Say Clark Improves Party
Image on Defense
Thursday September 18, 2003 9:55am


Washington, DC (AP) - Democrats in
Congress say Wesley Clark's entry into
the party's presidential primary is already
proving advantageous, they say the retired
four-star general's bid negates the
Democrats' image as soft on defense.

Several lawmakers interviewed say regardless of whether Clark
wins the nomination, having him among the party's candidates
increases their credibility on the military and foreign affairs.

Representative Marion Berry, a fellow Arkansas Democrat, is
lining up support for Clark on Capitol Hill. Berry says more than
30 members of Congress have told him they will back the former
general.

[Julien Sorel]

7. He served both parties when he was in the military.

You, me, everyone.

Elections are about the future anyway, not the past. Or will it be about entitlements? Let's get Teddy out there to run. Let's run Robert Byrd. Either one of them has done as much for the Democratic Party as all the current candidates combined. How about Charlie Rangel -- 34 years of serving this party and representing one of its most important constituencies. I can remember, probably unlike you, Rangel slugging it out with the Reagan administration over entitlements and Social Security, 20 years ago. Let's get him up there now -- he's earned it.

At the very least, if that's your standard, you should support Graham or Kerry -- they've done the most of the ones in the contest.

[Starpass]

8. Probably putting it into the White House for starters and breathing

some fresh air into the stuffy roadshow that's been trapsing around the country and boring people lately. Hey, if 2/3 still don't know who the hell we are, maybe #10 will be the one that gets through.

[DemExpat]

11. lol Starpass......

you really know how to put things!

Really, he is the only one who might have a chance to get the message out to most of America IMO.....
I'm backing him, or any Democratic nominee, 100%.

DemEx

[Frances]

12. I have been leaning toward Dean, but I think it's good

for Dean that Clark is in the race. Suppose that Dean wins the nomination and then taps Clark to be his vice-president. Clark will have built up a following and he will have had experience on the campaign trail.

I remember when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend chose an admiral to be on her ticket when she ran for governor of Maryland. The admiral was a very nice man but he had no base and I don't think he added any votes. In fact, he turned off some of the base for the same reason Clark is turning off some DUers.

Better to find out how Clark will fare now than find out later.

[Syrinx]

15. I think I will wait and hear what General Clark has to say on the issues

Before I make up my mind about him. I know it's a radical concept.

[Pastiche423]

16. Hmmm

:shrug:

Nada, as far as I have seen. But then, he is only a two week old Democrat.

Ya know, I want more for my party, the Democratic Party. I want someone that has lived the Democratic ideology. I want someone that will fight for the Democratic Party.

But most of all, I do not want someone that voted for Richard Milhous Nixon!

[KG]

18. seems kinda opportunistic, babe.

never did much for the party, no fund raising or stumping for candidates, but suddenly expects support when he decides to run for the highest office?

o well.

smooches! :*

[Pastiche423]

20. I get that entitlement vibe too

That is not the kind of vibration that makes me happy.

backatcha, babe!

[KG]

22. hey, i think i know what kind of vibration makes you happy!

:evilgrin:

[Brian Sweat]

21. If Clark wins the nomination,

you can go vote for Nader again.

[DoNotRefill]

26. It would've been nice...

if we KNEW he was a Democrat prior to his statement that he was a Democrat just TWO WEEKS prior to announcing that he was seeking the Democratic Nomination...

It kind of reminds me of Buchanan running on the Reform Party ticket...

[quam]

27. Has Clark Contributed to a Campaign?

Democratic or Republican campaign(s)? If so, when?

[quam]

38. If someone feels Clark has done nothing for the Democractic Party..

I would be interested in seeing your response to this question.

[carpetbagger]

39. I looked on opensecrets: He gave 1K to Bowles in '02

Bowles lost to Dole in the NC Senate race last year.

I couldn't find anything else, although I only searched through Clark from AR back to 1996.

[quam]

41. And Clark Campaigned for Bowles?

According to this ABCNews article Clark went to North Carolina and campaigned for Bowles.

Interesting. I wonder if a donation and spending time to campaign for a Democrat who served as Clinton's chief of staff and opposed a prominent Republican could be seen as doing 'something' for Democrats. I wonder.

[pfitz59]

28. Military members cannot legally engage in partisan poltics!

Until they resign or retire. Clark has had little time to be overtly political since retiring! Eisenhower was courted by both parties. Powell was courted by both parties. I think its great that Clark has come out as a Democratic candidate. Provides a beacon of hope to silent progressives on active duty! I wish you candidate bashers would do your damn homework! F----ing amateurs!

[Pastiche423]

29. clark has not been in the military

for over two years. It certainly takes him a looooooong ass time to make a decision.

[truthisfreedom]

30. in so many words, Clark called bush* a LIAR on thursday.

although his words have been misconstrued, i think that's helpful.
"When the president... makes the linkages"? he's saying that he would have been fooled by bush's lies just like anyone else in congress.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/

<snip>
"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

<snip>

[Clark Can WIN]

31. served the party?

You mean like an obedient lap dog bringing the masters slippers so the master won't get angry? Like that? In that case no.

I'll tell you what he's doing for us now, he's dragging the democratic contest for the nomination away from the polarized positions of sheer anger vs. Bush lite vs. sheer fantasy. He's dragging it back into the real world of the more plural reality of America. He's is helping the party by showing that the Democratic party is not a party of the fringe but a big tent party with room for everyone. He is helping the party by showing that Democrats ARE your neighbor next door and they do care about everyday AMERICA.

You asked

[Pastiche423]

32. EXACTLY how is he doing that?

Especially since he's only been a Democrat for two weeks?

[jonnyblitz]

40. so the 'fringe" arent part of your big tent??

yes..what a big tent that is. I am beginning to see a consistent mindset amongst the Clark supporters with their DLC talking points.

[MrPrax]

33. GOP shill...sounds right

A team fumbled and B team picks up the ball...

most of this stuff is done in smoky backrooms...so I don't understand why anyone would want to defend the obvious...

The corps need a new spokesman...
Watch the Media pick up the Clark-o-mania

[slappypan]

35. He has been campaigning for Democrats.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20029892.html

"Though he claimed to be politically "right down the middle," he campaigned for only Democrats this year, including U.S. House candidate Katrina Swett in New Hampshire, where he also attended a private dinner with party activists. He campaigned in Georgia for Sen. Max Cleland, a Democratic Vietnam Veteran who lost, and in California for Rep. Tom Lantos.

A search of the Federal Elections Commission Web site also shows Clark made a $1,000 contribution to U.S. Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, a North Carolina Democrat and former chief of staff to President Clinton."

While he has not done nearly as much as others, it's not as though he has done nothing.

[jumptheshadow]

37. Clark threw his weight behind affirmative action

He was one of several military men who wrote a brief supporting the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.