How come whenever there is a topic about Wesley Clark...

[stpalm]

There is always a huge flame war? Always, it never fails. I don't understand it. I don't even bother to tread in those threads because of it.

Why do you think this happens all the time? The man doesn't seem very divisive...


Oh, I hope this doesn't turn into a flame war.

[Wetzelbill]

1. Or Howard Dean

People who believe in Clark -and Dean- are really passionate about their guy. They defend him with vigor. Other people who don't like Clark as much, also believe in their chosen candidate passionately, and some have deep reservations about Clark's past relationships with Republicans and so on. Most of these people, on both sides, are very smart, have outgoing personalities and don't have any problem asserting their opinions. Many even enjoy a good scrap if you ask me, haha. They like to get the blood flowing. It all adds up to a wild time. At least, that's what I believe.

This thread is going to get good.

:popcorn:

[geek tragedy]

2. I like Wes Clark, but taking a paycheck from Faux News will draw

some fire.

[tabasco]

14. I see it as takng the battle into the heathen's den.

Clark is the man to do it.

[geek tragedy]

21. Has he discussed Hume & Gibson's comments? eom

[tabasco]

22. I have no idea.

I never watch Fox News.

But I'm guessing they only have him on for military-related topics.

[shireen]

27. Clark on Fox -- brilliant move by the General

Someone has to deprogram the glassy-eyed Foxheads ....

[geek tragedy]

33. I agree--but it will draw a lot of fire too. It's a very risky move that

could pay off big time. Or it could sink him with party activists.

It is DEFINITELY smart if he gets the nomination.

[shireen]

41. Fox stint will be the deciding factor.

You're right. If he can't handle Fox, he's got a big problem.

Sigh ... what are the alternatives we have left? Except for Kucinich and Dean, I can't think of anyone in the Democratic party worthy of being POTUS. Conyers would be awesome, but he's probably too old. I really like Bernie Sanders, VT-I, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[geek tragedy]

45. Who had heard of Bill Clinton in 1989?

These things take a while to sort themselves out.

[Maddy McCall]

53. Most anybody who had a working knowledge of politics

[geek tragedy]

57. Kind of like Mark Warner and Phil Bredesen? n/t

[CarolNYC]

60. yeah, it is a risky and a brave move....

but I don't think he's thinking about how it will effect his chances if he chooses to run again. He's thinking more along the lines of building the stregnth of the Democratic party becuase, as he said to me at an event I recently met him at, whoever runs in 2008 AND 2006 is going to need a strong party behind them.

I think this is his driving motivation in taking the Faux gig, to get out to the people who watch Faux (all of whome are NOT raving luantic right wingers, believe it or not) that the Democrats are a party strong and competent enough to handle the country's domestic AND national security crises.

I think he's focused more now on getting Dems elected in 2006, building the party, and getting all Americans to trust the party to keep them safe.

It's a brave and noble thing he's doing, going into the lion's den....but he's not going in there to tear them down, so if you're expecting that you'll be disappointed. He's going in there to get his message across and from what I've seen so far, he'll not be sidetracked from that goal.

[BlondieK143]

56. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

He's a smart, smart man.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Because he's an AIPAC Republican-wannabe war criminal dirtbag.

Or so I've read around here.

;)

[stpalm]

6. who tried to start WWIII by attacking the Russians?

I read some conservative site that kept saying that...

[Mairead]

13. sort of, yes

The man who's now the top Army officer in Britain, General Sir Michael Jackson, was ordered by Clark to interdict Russian aircraft landings at Pristina airport. He refused, saying he was not going to start WW3 for Clark.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. And Jamie Rubin, a GOOD FRIEND of Gen. Jackson, asked Jackson

if that was true and Jackson said NO, it was NOT true. From the horses mouth.

[Mairead]

23. How interesting. Allegedly it comes from Clark's book, so I wonder what

his motive was for lying about it, if indeed Jackson never said it.

[CarolNYC]

61. Perhaps Jackson is embarrassed

that he made such an over the top and melodramatic response to the situation and so he's denying he ever made the comment?? I do believe the comment was made...but it wasn't called for....and there's all kinds of documentation to back up that assertion somewhere...

[shireen]

28. What did he do to make you say that?

[WilliamPitt]

31. Oh jeez

That was a joke.

[shireen]

40. sorry Will

it's been a bad week for us all, I wasn't thinking clearly ...

[Coexist]

37. Oh you made me laugh

I just skimming the thread - your post popped out and I had to read it. Glad it was written as a joke.

[HereSince1628]

4. Who can afford flame wars with this price of gas?

[medeak]

5. whenever I see a little flame I don't even open thread

just to make my day a happier one.

I like Clark and even my repub husband did. He sets a great example for republicans who are fed up as he was one too.

[stpalm]

7. Yeah, the symbol is supposed to denote lots of posting activity,

but it usually is quite representative of what is going on inside.

[WearyOne]

8. it means he's a powerful man..people are frightened of his image

what a great Pres he would make.

[cornermouse]

9. Everyone's fighting over the next presidential election 3 years in

advance. Its the Presidential Race Without End. It accessorizes well with our War Without End, don't you think?

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Because he use to be military and voted for Nixon.

Nevermind that he voted for Clinton, TWICE, Gore and Kerry. :eyes:

Wes Clark would be THE BEST Prsident this country has seen in YEARS.

Also, he was a GREAT candidate and threatened other candidates chances of winning the primary and their supporters knew it. You should have been here during the primaries. OMG. It was unreal. Clarkies went after Deanies and Deanies went after Clarkies. THEN, EVERYONE, for a while, went after Kerry, until we all united behind him.

Clark is a threat to anyone who doesn't trust the military which is a shame because the man is BRILLIANT.

How does General Wesley Clark compare to legendary West Point Generals? See for yourself.

1. General Robert E. Lee - Class of 1829 #2 in class of 46
(Civil War)
2. General Ulysses S. Grant - Class of 1843 #21 in class of 39
(Civil War)
3. General John J. Pershing - Class of 1886 #30 in class of 76
(World War I)
4. General Douglas MacArthur - Class of 1903 #1 in class of 94
(World War II + Korea)
5. General George S. Patton -Class of 1909 #46 in class of 153
(World War II)
6. General Dwight Eisenhower - Class of 1915 #61 in class of 164
(World War II)
7. General William Westmoreland - Class of 1936 #112 in class of 276
(Vietnam)
8. General Norman Schwarzkopf - Class of 1956 #43 in class of 480
(Dessert Storm)
9. General Wesley Clark - Class of 1966 #1 in class of 579
(NATO/Kosovo)

Definitely one of the smartest generals in U.S. history.

[Ilsa]

12. Thanks! I had forgotten he was first in his class!

I worked on some of his primaries from home, and I look forward to doing it again.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. ME TOO! Wes will ALWAYS be my candidate of choice.

:loveya: I just love that man. He'll make a GREAT president...just what this country needs right now.

[shireen]

29. He's my President. Love the guy ....

[Karmakaze]

11. I think its mostly a trust issue...

Many people believe you don't get to be a General without getting a little dirty - mainly ties to the military industrial complex - an industry that makes a whole hell of a lot of money from death and destruction.

Personally, I have no feelings either way, I simply don't know enough about him to judge. There are positive stories and negative ones, but very little actual history of his true feelings.

For example, how he acted in the military would probably be a LOT different from how he acts out of it. How can we know that his public statements are what he truly believes when we have no history to judge him by?

Most presidential candidates have long histories of involvement in politics and can be judged on that. Clark on the other hand has spent most of his life keeping out of politics on purpose. So it's very hard to judge where he truly stands.

This means people's internal biases come to the fore - don't trust the military, don't trust Clark. Trust the military, trust Clark.

This of course means there is a clear deliniation between the two camps, and that sort of black and white issue leads to flame wars, purely because there is so little wiggle room.

[CarolNYC]

62. Oooh, a much too simplistic explanation....

....if you don't mind my saying.

There are lots of Clark supporters who started out as folks who didn't trust the military and who may, to some extent, not fully trust them still....I was one of them. I had a real moment of crisis in my supporting Wes Clark when I really had to reconcile within myself that I could indeed support a lifelong military man. It was really really not easy for me to do so and I don't think anyone but Clark could have brought me around.

I think perhaps those who feel like you do need to learn a little more about him before you make judgement on him. It was through lots and lots of research about the man that I came around. It really wasn't instinctual at all for me to support someone like him...but then I looked beneath the surface and was blown away by what I found....

In case anyone is interested in learning more about the good General, see this most excellent thread of mine put into the Clark supporters forum for safekeeping. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

[BlakeB]

15. Just to get ahead of my self here I say...

Clark/Edwards 2008!

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Clark/Boxer!

:7

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. Better yet...Clark/Conyers!

:)

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. OR Clark/Jackson Lee OR Clark/Waters OR Clark/anyone from the black caucus

;)

[Swamp Rat]

36. The BEST: Conyers/Clark 2008!

:D

Conyers/Clark 2008!

:kick:

[stpalm]

26. Feingold/Clark.

They are both awesome.

[BlakeB]

48. Oh I'd love to see Feingold/Clark.

But I just don't see Feingold running for some reason. If he did it'd be hard to say who I'd support more out of the two. And if we're dreaming Conyers/Clark would be my favorite ticket.

[Vektor]

24. Or Kerry, or any Dem for that matter - I'm so over it.

I don't even get involved anymore. I used to participate and defend our Dem candidates, but after so many baseless, lame, inflammatory, childish, and mostly REPETITIVE pleas for attention by those with nothing constructive to contribute, I just got numb to it all and lost interest. I no longer even dignify the ignorance with my responses.

Why bother? Some people just live to disrupt, and will forever call outright bashing of Dem candidates and rabble rousing "constructive criticism" and howl like a banshee when called on it.

I'm sorry, but "Repuke-lite sellout whore" is hardly "constructive criticism". It's just asinine name calling. There's no sense in even participating in exchanges with individuals so unreasonable.

You are right to just avoid it.

[gulliver]

25. That hasn't been my experience at all.

Usually the Clark threads contain about 80% pro-Clark stuff, about 15% tepid dissatisfaction, and about 5% solidly anti-Clark. Clark wins every single head-to-head poll on DU too.

Clark is so good and such a fantastic presidential prospect that his threads are also going to attract disruptors, people who pretend to be Democrats but who are in fact just trying to stir up division.

[ThomWV]

30. Honerable, Intelligent, Right-Minded

But too limited in scope for a Presidential candidate.

[shireen]

32. why?

Clark's not just about foreign policy and military issues. He used to run US Army operations in Europe, and was NATO supreme allied commander -- that's like running a big city and then some. The man's well-versed in domestic policies, education, and science issues. Read his position papers at his old website, I think there's a link to it from securingamerica.com

[ThomWV]

38. Legitimate Question

Here is why I say that, it is because I have listened to him. As wide as I know his base of experience and education to be it simply doesn't come out when he opens his mouth. Every damned thing he says eventually drivels down to him being just one of the troops and it all being somehow related to the military, no matter what the subject. It, damedably unfortunately, is the framework within which every utterance by Clark is bound. If the man could shake that off he would be the best Vice Presidential candidate we could find to match up to President Gore's run in 2008.

[shireen]

39. another Clark?

We must be listening to different guys with the same name. I followed his primary campaign closely, and he made his case for domestic policies well. The dumb debate formats never allowed the real Wes Clarkto speak because complex issues cannot be reduced to sound bites.

[Emerson]

47. Many have yet to realize

that military rank has little value in the minds of the masses when it comes to elections. As it should be in a democratic and free nation.

Clarks supporters tossed the word "general" around as if a "general" is entitled to the office of the presidency. It was as if they had no idea why military officers are strictly forbidden from playing politics. Military commands and ranks should play no role in a nation that is not a military dictatorship that elects its leaders. I frankly do not care what a persons rank or command was, nor does it play any factor when I vote. A general is no more impressive to me than a private.

Indeed while the term "general" is impressive it impresses me no more than the private who no longer has an arm. In fact I would be far more impressed with the said private than the general if that general had not suffered the same loss.

Kerrys service is no less admirable than Clarks. (I would argue Kerrys service to be more impressive due to his command of something other than a desk) Yet Kerry was still slandered for his service. Clark would have been no different.

Further, Clark is a political novice. His running for president is akin to the greens running for president prior to actually winning a seat in congress. Going for the top first rarely succeeds in politics.

[roguevalley]

50. This is insteresting:

Kerrys service is no less admirable than Clarks. (I would argue Kerrys service to be more impressive due to his command of something other than a desk) Yet Kerry was still slandered for his service. Clark would have been no different.

Clark commanded people in the field in Viet Nam and he was wounded badly but kept going to keep his men safe. His record in battle is extensive and he was my nephew's co in Bosnia. His record and Kerry's -which is honorable and more than decent- are not a match. There are many bullet holes in our general if that is some deciding factor for people.

He's led huge armies, their families and all that demands. He's been a diplomat with numerous nationalities and he's an educated education devoted individual. He's the most complex and completely diverse candidate for me among all I've seen in the forty years I have been voting.

I am a person who watched Viet Nam on the news at the dinner table. The military was anathema then. I have let that go for this man because he is the most gifted and well rounded man I have seen for the Presidency in my life. In my opinion, that is the quality along with his humanity and his genuine goodness that draws so much support.

[anitar1]

52. Rouge Valley, Your view of Clark echoes mine.

I think he could be a winner.

[Garbo 2004]

34. I've wondered that too, but I usually stay out of those threads.

And also...

Ah, oops! Sorry, never mind. ;)

:hide:

[Blue_In_AK]

35. I think John Kerry provokes even more flames

something I personally don't understand.

[AuntPatsy]

42. Many posts that I have seen on conservative sites brag about

being long term members on this site and just add enough that incites others but ultimately does not give cause for them to be kicked off...

Or it could be that many people just have different opinions concering certain Dem leaders in our community in that they blame them for these past two losses, many of them I have seen swear this election was stolen, so if such is true, how can one blame any one dem for losing these past two elections when logicaly with such thinking, the Dems won?

[Renew Deal]

43. So all the Clark supporters are trolls?

Well, I can't say I haven't heard that one before.

[AuntPatsy]

44. .') I offered two explanations in an attempt to answer the question...

frankly, I am up and down on quite a few of the Dems in leadership positions except for a very few, Conyers, Dean, Clark, and a few others but I would never go off so hatefully towards them, I don't see where that helps us in the long run...

Don't tell anyone, I happen to still like Hillary, though I don't post much since I would be skinned alive for voicing such outloud by quite a few...

[Emerson]

46. IMO

Flame wars likely result because anyone who is not a political novice is fully aware of Clarks accomplishment.

Clark entered the primary late and was highly unlikely to win when factoring in the other candidates support.

His sole accomplishment was to derail dean by entering the primary and splitting the dean vote, thus handing the endorsement to kerry. Poll after poll prior to his entering the race clearly showed Dean taking the endorsement.

Had dean won the primary I have no doubt in my mind he would be sitting in the WH today. He was almost another Clinton. The masses would have gone for him in much the same way.

I will never forgive Clark for his irresponsibility, and essential handing the election over to bush. He now enjoys a FOX news pay check and a comfortable life while a group of criminals destroys this country. That says it all.

[BlakeB]

49. Oh come on.

Are you really saying that the man has no right to run if he wants to? So what if it split the Dean vote, what is done is done. Clark did not hand the election over to Bush, and I think the fact that he works for Fox is great. He's educating the conservative masses a little bit, or at the very least giving an articulate and well rounded liberal opinion/commentary to the right's talking heads on Fox. If that shows just one conservative that Democrats aren't crazy Latte sipping, BMW driving, cabernet loving, outsider big city weirdos then I think he's doing a good job.

[roguevalley]

51. I don't think it says anything. Clark didn't derail Dean, who I love.

The media did that. Clark has taken the battle to the enemy. He wasn't irresponsible.

[Totally Committed]

55. This "Clark Ran to Derail Dean" meme is one I wish I could end...

because it is simply untrue. I know because I was one of the people working sincerely and very hard to draft General Clark. By the time we had convinced him to run, and he "put all his ducks in a row" it was a late entry, to be sure. But, it had absolutely nothing to do with derailing Dean. Nothing at all.

Wes is a good, decent man. If you read his issues papers, you would be struck by his understanding and compassion, and his genuinely Liberal values. If you have read anything he's written, or heard him interviewed, you know how intelligent he is on a wide range of subjects -- not just those that are military. If you've ever heard him speak, in person, you would be moved and inspired. And, if you met him, you would be struck by his kindness and warmth, and want to support him on the spot. He is a wonderful person... not at all slick like most "politicians" (his sense of humor can be hokey, but it is so refreshing and endearing to see someone who has not been "schooled" go out there and speak for us.)

He's fearless, and he thinks outside the box. When the elections were over, and our hearts were broken, Wes wrote us all, and asked us to dedicate ourselves to doing things that would get our message to "the other side". He asked us to listen to RW radio at least an hour a day, and call in and challenge them -- tell them how wrong they are -- like the Freepers do on AAR. He said that by staying on only friendly boards and calling in to only AAR, we would be "preaching to the choir", and if we were going to win next time, we had to bring some from the other side over and we couldn't do that unless they heard the truth. THAT'S WHY HE TOOK THE JOB ON FOX. Upthread there was a question about why he hasn't spoken out about the crass comments by Hume and Gibson. Now, why would he do that if it could (and probably would) get him fired from a job he feels is so important a tool for the Democratic Party?) Knowing Wes, he probably feels their idiotic statements speak for themselves, and provide the perfect backdrop for his own calm and wise words of reason to the same people who heard them say those things, and probably winced as we all did. (Wes is big on "personal responsibility. He feels the other side does not take take personal responsibility enough, and often prefers to leave a-holes like Hume and Gibson out there, twisting in the wind, looking foolish, crass, and craven all on their own. Challenging them, you see, would make the "sheeple" that watch FOX rally behind them, because a big, bad Democrat was criticizing them. Wes trusts that when people are left to "think" for themselves, they always see our side better.)

The reasons for supporting Wes are many, but NONE even touch on "derailing" Howard Dean. As a matter of fact, Wes often praises Howard for his courage and strong words for the other side. Wes knows and appreciates a "scrapper" when he sees one, and has asked us all to support Dean as Party Chairman in whatever way we can.

If Wes runs in 2008, I will support him again -- PROUDLY -- and with every ounce of energy I have, just like the last time. For those of us who have gotten to know him, we can't imagine supporting anyone else. He's the "real deal".

TC

[CarolNYC]

64. Oh, well I see I'm not wrong in saying

that there is a faction of Dean support which believes that it was Clark who caused their guy not to win...

[T Town Jake]

54. I honestly don't know...

...I supported Clark in the primary, but liked Dean, Kerry, & Edwards, too. All decent, honorable men, and worthy candidates.

It was understandable when the primaries were going, but I have never been able to figure why the flame-fests tend to erupt, particularly when the subject of Clark and/or Dean comes up, now. :shrug:

[JHBowden]

58. Many Clarkies are very "in-yo-face"

They do their preferred candidate a great disservice by being so.

[CarolNYC]

63. "many" Clarkies??? n/t

[CarolNYC]

59. "the man doesn't seem very divisive"....

That is an interesting observation....I think one of the General's greatest strengths is his ability to bring people together. It was one of the things I loved most about the draft Clark thing, working with Dems, Republicans, Independents and "ususally indifferents" for a common cause. But that may upset those who would prefer that people choose up sides rather than come together and find common ground with "the enemy".

I've not read the responses to this thread yet but I imagine you've gotten some thoughtful ones. I would think some of the division comes from carry over of the primaries. I get the impression that there are factions of Dean supporters and Edwards supporters who hold Clark responsible for their guys not winning...but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I think it also has to do with his military background and people not really knowing enough about him....

[ComerPerro]

65. Holdover from GD2004. Controversial figure, as were all candidates