Unofficial Transcript of Clark's Remarks to the DNC

[DoveTurnedHawk]

I got this off of the Clark blog. My understanding is that transcripts like these are in the public domain. All emphases are mine.

DTH

--

This is really terrific. Well, thanks. My name is Wes Clark and I'm running for President.

And before I say another word, I want to make one thing clear. I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm pro- environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare and pro-labor. If that ain't a Democrat, then I must be at the wrong meeting.

Looks like I found the right meeting. Thank you to all. I'm in this campaign because I love this country. I spent 34 years in uniform defending it. And for the last three, I've watched as everything I fought for, everything I cherish, has been unraveling before our eyes. I've watched as people have lost their jobs. I've watched as we've lost the respect of the world community. I've watched as we lost our sense of security, our faith in government. I watched as a shadow of fear descended over the United States of America. And that's why I'm here today. That's why I campaigned for Democrats, given money to Democrats and voted for Democrats, including Al Gore in 2000. I'm proud that his campaign was a winning campaign.

In the United States armed forces, we serve our country. We obey the orders of the Commander in Chief and the officers appointed over us. But when I left the Army, I looked at both parties and the differences couldn't have been more clear. I believed in fiscal discipline and job creation. They were for irresponsible tax cuts and corporate loopholes. I believed in engaging and working with our allies. They believed in putting up walls and calling names across the Atlantic.

I was for education and healthcare. They were for starving our states of cash. I was for affirmative action and especially proud of what we did in the United States armed forces. I was for a clean environment and a woman's right to choose. They were against all three. In short, I realized there was only one place for me, and I just want to tell you, it is great to be home. Thank you.

I'm proud to be with you here today and I'm proud to be a member of a party that, like America, was founded on the ideals of inclusion and equal opportunity. Not only in the way we look, but in the way we think. That's why I'm running a campaign where everyone is welcome. Not just Democrats, but Independents, Republicans, and those who have never before participated. Because if our party is exclusive, if we close our doors to a single American who wants to come in, then we're no better than the other guys. And we're going to have another four long years on the outside. But that's not who we are. And that's not why I'm running. Think about who we are. We're the party that brought this country out of the Great Depression. We brought it into the New Frontier. We brought the country out of trickle down economics and into the best economy in history. We're the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. That's a legacy I'm proud to be part of.

I've traveled back and forth across this country in the three years since I've been retired from the military. And I've seen a yearning in America for smart, strong, wise, compassionate leadership. Right now we're facing a crisis in leadership. Over the past three years, this Administration has been sacrificing the respect that generations of Americans have earned around the world. At a time when we need friends and allies more than ever, resentment of America has never been greater. That makes every American less safe at home and abroad.

Two years after September 11 we still live in the shadow of terrorism. For the first time since the cold war, many Americans no longer feel safe in their own backyards. And on top of that, we've got rising poverty, dropping incomes, exploding numbers of uninsured, the worst job losses in 70 years, the worst budget deficits in American history. Since Mr. Bush took office the American economy has lost more than 3 million private sector jobs. Under Mr. Bush we've lost 2½ million manufacturing jobs and another half million in telecommunications and hi-tech.

Unemployment jumped from 4% to 6% and 1.6 million Americans sank into poverty. More than 700,000 of them were children. What is President Bush's answer to all of this? Well, he doesn't have one. This White House has no plan. They say tax cuts for the rich will create jobs. They say drilling in the Arctic will create jobs. They say a new energy plan will create jobs. They say easing environmental regulations will create jobs. They are flailing, they are desperate. They know they have a problem and they know they don't have a solution. They came into office with one answer to everything: tax cuts for the rich. But three years later tax cuts for the rich have made all America poorer.

Quite simply, this Administration betrayed us. Three years ago, we were told we were getting a compassionate conservative. What we got instead were massive tax cuts for the rich, staggering deficits for the country, the worst job losses since the Great Depression. That's not compassionate nor conservative. It is heartless, it's reckless and it's wrong.

If you elect me President, I'll make it right. Now, the American people are moving. The polls are showing the shift. I don't put too much stock in polls. But if you believe the recent poll numbers, George W. Bush will need brothers in 49 other states to take this election.

Well, he's not going to take the election. Now, I've got a plan that is founded on the principles that we as Americans and Democrats can support and sustain. It's based on the principles that built a great nation. We're a nation of immigrants. We're an inclusive nation. We've succeeded not by building walls around this country, but by building bridges and reaching outward.

We believe in international institutions. President Harry Truman built the United Nations even though after World War II we were the only power still standing, we knew we needed friend and allies in the world to help us bear the burdens of leadership. We believe in a strong military. We have the best trained, best prepared, strongest forces in the world and that's the way they'll stay. But we know one thing also. Use force only – only – only as a last resort.

On these three principles, inclusiveness, multi_lateral institutions and the use of force as a last resort with a strong armed forces we can build a strong foreign policy. We can strengthen our ties with Europe and nations around the world and we can preserve the peace. At home, we have to preserve our environment, our air, our water, our land. We have to protect our Constitution, our civil rights and civil liberties. We must fight for education, healthcare and retirement security for all americans. Perhaps most important, we've got to get our economy back on track right now creating jobs for our future and never at the cost of rights for our workers.

It's never a happy sight to see someone lose a job. Unless one guy losing a job means millions of people can find jobs. And I know just the guy. His office is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, let's get him fired so the rest of america can get hired.

It's time for a change in this country. As I travel back and forth across, I see a new spirit in America. It's a new kind of patriotism, one that is built on love of country, one that is strengthened by service. Service in the armed forces, service in our communities, volunteer service, paid service. Full time service, part_time service. This new American patriotism is not just about waving the flag and guarding our borders. It is about guarding what makes us distinctive as Americans. Our personal liberties, our right to debate and dissent. We're not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate and stifles dissent. We're not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government or disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted.

And we can't have a government that stands for any of those things. And that's why I'm running for President. To return America to the core ideals of our democracy. Personal liberty, service to country, respect for others, the right to criticize and correct the government. time of war, especially, debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent, that's not wrong, that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country. And we need to say it.

These American ideals have made us great. They can make us greater. They can make us safer and more prosperous. They're the ideals of our party, the Democratic Party. They're the ideals of our country. That's why I'm running, that's why I'm asking for your support, that's why we're going to build a mighty wave across this country that is going to carry this party and these ideals back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Thank you very much.

[WillyBrandt]

1. Huzzah!

Does this motherfucker learn quick or what? Where are the stumbles of last week?

He learns, he learns. We've got ourselvse a winner.

[boxster]

2. Maybe this should be posted as a response every, single

time that someone says, "But, we don't know anything about him" or "He's a Repuke."

Edit: or "We don't know he's a Democrat" or "We don't know where he stands on the issues."

Notice, it's always "we"?

[WillyBrandt]

3. Huzzah, Huzzah!

You know, I'd like to know the other candidates' thoughts on foreign policy.

Clark has by FAR the most complete and nuanced views on foreign policy, as well as a clear sense of how to reclaim the US from the PNAC cabal. What, besides a bunch of slogans, do the other candidates have to offer on foreign policy?

[boxster]

7. Thanks to his service in Kosovo and elsewhere,

he also has instant credibility with the international community.

[Loyal]

77. I like Clark a lot.

I'd vote for him in the GE.

[ModerateMiddle]

98. Hey, you asked :D

I am not meaning to hijack your thread on Clark's speech. It was wonderful, and the guy makes me smile, cuz he's so excited about this running for President thing :D

But he really isn't the only one with a great foreign policy plan.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/security_plan.html

[Pepperbelly]

4. Wesley rocks ...

And yet the naysayers keep saying nay.

:shrug:

Wesley could well be everything they want yet they are too unable to back off their earlier hasty judgements. Kinda demonstrates why Soloman insisted that pride was indeed a sin in Proverbs, doesn't it?

[juajen]

Hi, PB

Yup, he's doing great. Howsomeever (old Alabama word), the question is, can we trust that what he says, he means? So many people were tricked by *, that we've become hypercritical. He will have to overcome this. He is just beginning the journey. I, frankly, hope he is everything I think he is, and that we have a viable candidate that everyone can support, dems and pugs alike; though, I will continue touting the very real wonderful qualities of the brave, DENNIS KUCINICH.

[MIMStigator]

5. kick. AWESOME

.

[boxster]

6. It's like he's just daring people to question him on recent events:

"including Al Gore in 2000. I'm proud that his campaign was a winning campaign."

Winning campaign - hehe!

"then I must be at the wrong meeting"

Too funny.

"We're the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton."

Ah, we're evoking names where others fear to tread.

"They're the ideals of our party, the Democratic Party."

Anyone who can't see that he stands for liberal values isn't paying attention. Obviously, people can choose to assume that he's lying about absolutely everything, and many do, but I think it's pretty obvious that he believes in what he's saying.

[Code_Name_D]

8. Yawn.

More emptey retoric. For some one who talks so much, he dosn't seem to have any thing to say.

[wyldwolf]

39. That is SO funny!

Someone posted this morning about how anti-Clark people can only post "Yawn" when they can't think of anything else to say.

And here it is! LOL!

[Code_Name_D]

53. You haven't been paying attention.

Please. Are you going to tell me that you have not read the pages of matial presented by Tinoire, Stickdog, and Will Pitt?

[wyldwolf]

59. Of course I've read them... yawn....

..and I've seen much of it debunked. Some by Will Pitt himself.

But those who believe it still rationalize it away.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. Interesting...

Clark says "I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm pro- environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare and pro-labor".

So why did he vote for Reagan and Bush Snr? The closest thing we get to an explanation is:

"In the United States armed forces, we serve our country. We obey the orders of the Commander in Chief and the officers appointed over us. But when I left the Army, I looked at both parties and the differences couldn't have been more clear."

So what is he trying to tell us? He was ORDERED to vote for Reagan and Bush Snr? He couldn't tell the difference when he was in uniform, but once he got out he could?

But he was still in uniform when he voted for Clinton, so what is he trying to say? Or is he dodging the whole Reagan Bush Snr issue all together?

All I want to know is why did he think Reagan and Bush Snr were pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare and pro-labor?

But read that last quote again, and we see that he is saying that only AFTER he left the Army did he decide that the Democratic party fit in with his beliefs. And how long has that been? Three years.

So this guy has only been a Dem as long as Bush has been in office. Now can people see why I say he ONLY decided to become a Dem because that was his best, in fact his only chance at becoming President in the next 8 years. If Gore had not been cheated, would he be running as Republican right now? I have no doubt at all that he would.

[Pepperbelly]

12. i wonder how long you will flail this dead horse?

After Clark's second term, will you still be flogging it?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. I Think He's Afraid Wes Will Nuke New Zealand

:evilgrin:

DTH

[Pepperbelly]

15. I used to have a girlfriend in NZ ...

Hmmmm ....

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. No...

I'm afraid that 'Wes' will carry on the PNAC plan and get the ENTIRE world nuked...

[Pepperbelly]

27. wrong...

won't happen. You are being paranoid.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. He's the Only One To Speak Against PNAC

He's done it loud and clear, and he's done it in such a way that I honestly fear for his safety.

So speaking only for myself, I'm not really all that interested in paranoid fantasies about him being a PNAC mole.

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

33. Bollocks...

he spoke out against the way Bush was carrying out the PNAC plan, not the PNAC plan itself. Hell, all he did was change the target list a little...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Devils Advocate NZ]

41. Thanks for proving that you can't win an argument

without resorting to ad hominem attacks :-)

[Pepperbelly]

47. please ...

we have been through this crap so many times and basically, yes, I think that those who repost this crud do so out of mendacity rather than conern.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

58. Did you or did you not resort to an ad hominem attack?

Why? You seemed more than willing to argue politely until I pointed out that Clark DID NOT speak out against PNAC, but merely spoke out against the way Bush was carrying out the PNAC plan.

Have you got any evidence that my claim is not true?

Here is part of what he said:

And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together?

What about our NATO allies, whose cities were being used as staging bases and planning headquarters? Why weren’t we putting greater effort into broader preventive measures?

The way to beat terrorists was to take away their popular support. Target their leaders individually, demonstrate their powerlessness, roll up the organizations from the bottom. I thought it would be better to drive them back into one or two states that had given them support, and then focus our efforts there.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969671.asp?0bl=-0&cp1=1

That sure sounds like he agrees with the PNAC world view to me...

[SWPAdem]

85. Then, you have a limited understanding of PNAC

They are talking about world domination and imperialism, not dealing with terrorist leaders. Sheeeez..........

[Devils Advocate NZ]

107. So is Clark.

Of course it is easy to take his words at face value, but if you think more deeply about the issue you will come to the understanding that ANY war on terror involves DOMINATING the world. Terrorism is a tactic, and thus KILLING terrorists does not STOP terrorism.

It has NEVER worked before and it will never work in the future. Ask Israel. How many terrorists have they killed? Has that worked?

I'll believe Clark is NOT thinking world domination when I see him address the CAUSES of terrorism rather than the symptoms.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

44. You're Entitled To Your Opinion

And I'm entitled to my vote and my contributions supporting Clark.

Clark is the only one to call PNAC out on the carpet:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100203302pm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

An excerpt from that latter:

TPM: As we mentioned before, in different capacities you worked for a number of different administrations. Whether it was Ford, working directly in the White House, or for the last 15, 20 years in various capacities at a fairly senior level. You've seen these different presidents conduct foreign policy. What are your opinions of the different ones?

CLARK: Well, you know, nobody gets to be president of the United States without conspicuous strengths. But the ability to conduct foreign policy draws not only on the president himself but on the leadership of the administration. If you were to start here and work backwards, you'd say this administration was doctrinaire. You'd say that it didn't have a real vision in foreign policy. It was reactive. Hobbled by its right-wing constituency from using the full tools that are available -- the full kit-bag of tools that's available to help Americans be in there and protect their interests in the world.

Clinton administration: broad minded, visionary, lots of engagement. Did a lot of work. Had difficulty with two houses in congress that didn't control. And in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy -- promoted by the Project for a New American Century -- much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.

Another excerpt from an article about his book:

The neocon concept of a “New American Empire,” Clark goes on, is not only impractical, given the size and training of the U.S. military, but also contrary to “the principles of national self-determination.” The idea also ignores the fact that American power and prosperity since World War II have been “sustained not by classical empire but rather by an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements that protected and promoted American interests and shared the benefits, costs, and risks with others.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/974509.asp?0cv=OB10

DTH

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. Clark's own book written AFTER the war is a good source...

on whether or not he believes in the PNAC world view (ie the US should dominate the rest of the world for the good of US interests)?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

He dedicates chapter to it but seemingly fails to recognise the true history of US global power (ie the bullying, the unilateralism, the outright support of dictators and terrorists) and claims that the US was “sustained not by classical empire but rather by an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements that protected and promoted American interests and shared the benefits, costs, and risks with others.”

Bollocks.

Even he contradicts this by saying that the end of the Cold War created an opportunity for the United States to resolve some nasty contradictions in its foreign policy, to strengthen alliances without having to prop up dictators for anti-communism’s sake.

In other words after 1989 and before 2001 the US was “sustained not by classical empire but rather by an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements that protected and promoted American interests and shared the benefits, costs, and risks with others.” Well, not quite. In fact, it was the complete opposite.

Once the cold war was "won" the rest of the world was put in the position of play ball or else. We all know the truth of the first Gulf War, we all know the truth of the sanctions on Iraq. Some of us even know the truth of the war in Yugoslavia, and the truth does not jibe with this propgandistic view of how America supposedly acted like a "good neighbour".

The fact is, PNAC represents how the US has ALWAYS operated, NOT something new. It's only becuase PNAC now feels that US dominance is so complete that they have no problem spelling it out.

Clark was a part of this plan for 30 years. He voted for Reagan and Bush Snr, in fact he admits to only having become a Democrat three years ago, when it became clear he couldn't be President any time soon by running as a Republican.

And I am supposed to take his word for it? Not likely.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

87. I Never Expected That YOU Would

And I am supposed to take his word for it? Not likely.

The simple fact of the matter is, however, that most Americans who will actually vote in the elections will take a candidate's passionate and consistent words as sufficient evidence of sincerity.

I'm not really interested in the type of paranoia that feeds certain people here.

I'm glad you have such a direct line into Clark's mind and secret motivations, though. Let me know when you break through all the way up to God.

DTH, Proud Supporter of a Great Man Who, Incidentally, Also Voted for Clinton, Clinton and Gore

[Devils Advocate NZ]

109. Yeah, and a lot of those same people voted for Bush!

Passionate and sincere words indeed!

[WillyBrandt]

45. Did you actually read the interview

He spoke out against the Iraq war, both in terms of its objective (de)merits, and in terms of how it was carried out (unilaterially, without proper regard for international institutions).

He spoke out in favor of the Afghanistan war, but was strongly critical of not making it more multilateral, for not going for more international involvement, for more more humanitarian aid, for not including NATO yet more.

He is the only candidate who has explicitly referenced and explained and attacked the PNACers.

Did you actually read what he said in the interview about them? Jeez!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

61. I also read what he thinks about Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I read how he believes that terrorists should be forced back into one or two nations that support them and deal with them there...

And as for his talking about multilateralism, I see the same talk at PNAC. Except they talk about multilateralism as meaning 'try and get support, but be prepared to act alone if necessary'.

Has Clark denounced that version of multilateralism? It doesn't seem so.

However, I wouldn't expect a crypto-rightist to be OBVIOUS. Such a person would attempt to say all the right things but do the opposite given the opportunity.

[WillyBrandt]

63. He HAS Denounced that version of "multilateralism"

A million times. And much of the problem DOES come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan: and he is NOT for a military attack on those countries.

Damnit! Where the hell does this conspiratorial tripe come rom?

[WillyBrandt]

64. Moreover

He has already WORKED in such a multilateral context during the NATO campaign in Kosovo, doing complicated political dances to keep the Alliance together, where a more naive military man would have said fuck the allies, we're going alone.

Look: we Americans have to go more on what he says regarding domestic policy, since he's a new politician. But--and here's a promise--as a (I assume) friendly foreigner, you'll think this guy is a godsend when he's President. A foreign policy explicitly based upon multilaterialism and international institutions, where force is a last option and where we always do our best (not just "try") to employ it within a real multilateral framework.

Lieberman has some PNAC sympathies. But the uniformed officer corps, as especially its most liberal, shining star, Wes Clark, do not. Don't be blinded by his medals. Read his essays and see what he's actually done.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

79. Kosovo?

Oh, you mean the war where the US supported Muslim fundamentalist terrorists against a democratically elected government and committed numerous war crimes to overthrow a powerful leftist state with abundant resuorces?

The war where outright lies were used to promote the false idea of a genocidal campaign against the Muslim people? The war where there was supposed to be dozens if not hundreds of mass graves filled with the bodies of innocents slaughtered by the next Hitler? The war where when it was completed, none of these mass graves were ever found?

Yep, multilateralism at work! Is it any wonder that these same nations doubted the US intelligence on Iraq?

Why is the Milosevic trial not being spoken about any more? Could it be because the NATO funded, NATO controlled prosecutor has failed to prove the case? Could it be because Milosevic has been denied a fair trial, with the Judges showing OBVIOUS bias against him by cutting off lines of questioning that are weakening the witnesses against him?

Have you read the transcripts of the trial? You can find them here:

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm

If you have the patience to go through them all, you will see many cases of the witnesses being protected from questioning that is exposing their lies. Take for example this brief excerpt:

Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse me? Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Do you know that in 1998 -- sorry. 1988, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted by consensus a declaration against torture, and that such treatment that you were subjected to is explicitly forbidden by this declaration, as well as forcing --

MR. NICE: Your Honour --

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. -- statements from detainees, extortion and such things?

JUDGE MAY: This doesn't appear to have any relevance to the evidence the witness has given here, none at all. He's been agreeing with you, he's been agreeing to the matters you've put to him, and we're not certainly going to litigate here what happened in Yugoslavia when he was arrested. What we're concerned with, as you know, is events in Kosovo.

THE ACCUSED: Mr. May, the conduct of a puppet regime in Belgrade is completely identical to the false indictment --

JUDGE MAY: Precisely the sort of point which we're not going to consider. Now, have you got any more relevant questions for this witness? Or we'll move on.
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020726IT.htm

Yep, you read that right! A prosecution witness admitted he had been forced to falsely accuse Milosevic of war crimes and the judge said it was not relevant nor would it be considered.

And this is the war that is supposed to show how good a President Clark would be? Sorry, I don't buy it.

[WillyBrandt]

94. Then we can't agree

This is apologetics for genocide. There is no common ground for agreement between us.

Calling the murdered "muslim fanatics"... goddamn that's sick.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

108. You have bought into right-wing corporate media propaganda.

The fact is, there have been NO mass graves found in Kosovo. Even the idea of ethnic cleansing is false because although there were a small amount of refuges during the anti-terror war in Kosovo, the vast majority of refugees left Kosovo after NATO began bombing there, and could be argued to have been the result of fear of becoming "collateral damage".

The Muslim fanatics I refer to called themselves the Kosovo Liberation Army, and were a terrorist group operating in Kosovo that were responsible for murders of Serbs and Kosovo Muslims who worked with the Serbs. It was the actions of these terrorists that resulted in the Serbian anti-terror operations in Kosovo.

There was NO GENOCIDE. It is that simple. Read the court transcripts for yourself. I gave you the link.

Or would you rather take the word of the same people that said Gore was a liar and Bush was a worthy President? The same people that said Iraq was a threat and had WMD? Why do you call them propagandists when they say something you don't like, but consider it the truth when they say something you DO like?

By the way, the Muslim attacks on Serbs in Kosovo continue under the watchful eye of the NATO peacekeeping force. Remember the sex slave stories coming out of DynaCorp in Kosovo? Yep, what happened in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing all right, only NATO was HELPING the guilty party...

[arwalden]

111. What's A "Crypto-Rightist"?

I haven't heard that term before.

-- Allen

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. Should the worst happen and Calrk wins the nomination...

I wonder how long in to his first term it will be before even YOU are anti-Clark? Or will you stick with him even if he doesn't stand up for liberal ideals? What if he nominates a conservative to the supreme court? Will you stick by him then?

He made sure to tell us he is non-partisan, and that he welcomes Republicans to join his campaign, what if he puts a few Republicans into his administration? Will you still stick by him, right or wrong?

What would you do if those "crazies" make another appearance under his admin? Wolfowitz at the Pentagon for instance. Would that be just dandy as long as Clark is President?

Can you be sure he won't do any of these things? How? Blind faith?

[Pepperbelly]

31. can you vote i the primary?

Just curious.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

37. No.

I'm not a US citizen, I'm a duel Australian/New Zealand citizen.

Thanks to PNAC, one of the two countries I am a citizen of has become a war criminal and terrorist target. The other - the one I currently reside in - managed to stay out of the picture. Well, mostly.

But when it comes to American elections, I have a great interest, as does every other person on the planet. What the US does affects us all.

[Pepperbelly]

40. no need to

convince you then. :D

[Devils Advocate NZ]

49. No chance you would be able to...

I can think for myself.

I can only hope to influence others to not make the same mistake you are making. The fact that you can't answer my arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks (see post #34) speaks volumes about the quality of pro-Clark arguments.

The truth is, they are based on blind faith - Clark has no record of being a liberal, we are supposed to take his word for it. But we are supposed to overlook the fact that until three years ago - by his own admission - he was not a Dem, and just over a decade ago he was a solid Republican.

I am not saying that someone can't change their beliefs. However when it comes to the most important job on Earth, I believe NOBODY'S word is good enough. They must be able to PROVE they are worthy of the job.

If Clark was to spend the next 4 or 8 years building a record of liberalism, I would be more than happy to support him, but right now he is an enigma, and after Bush, surprises are the LAST thing we need.

[Pepperbelly]

52. please ...

when you make things up out of whole-cloth, whawt do you expect?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

80. Exactly what did I "make up"?

If, as you say, I made something up, perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out, and perhaps make an argument as to why it is false?

Preferably backed with evidence that DOESN'T include recently written books from a man who admitted only becoming a Democrat in the last three years.

[SWPAdem]

86. What makes you think that NONE of us can think for ourselves

I hate PNAC, I just don't buy the "Clark is a PNAC plant" story....and labels don't mean much, either.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

110. I never said you couldn't. In fact I am relying on it!

Pepperbelly said there was "no need to convince" me, and I said he couldn't if he tried, because I can think for myself.

I am relying on others thinking for themselves too, and that is why I am putting out the evidence that I have found so that those people who do think for themselves may be able to decide based on more than just Clark's word.

By the way, I never said Clark was a PNAC plant. I said he appears to be a crypto-right winger who agrees with the PNAC world view. The people behind PNAC are not smart enough to pull off a stunt like this. The evidence is the fact that even after being exposed they still have the documents that show that everything Bush has done, including Sept 11, has been in planning for years and is NOT a reaction to unfolding events.

PNAC is stupid.

My fear is that someone just as dangerous but infinitely smarter may be next, and that Clark has all the hallmarks of being that person.

[WillyBrandt]

43. Clark is the only candidate who has named PNAC

And exposed them, and connected the dots between them and the right-wing's machinations going back to at least the Carter administration.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm

If you dislike what US foreign policy is doing, Clark is the only one who knows how to beat it, because he understands just what the PNAC kooks are doing, and he isn't afraid to take them on.

Many either don't care to take them on (Lieberman) or simply lack the depth (Dean) to know how to.

No other candidate has talked about and WORKED on multilaterialism and issues of international law than Clark.

[knowledgeispower]

93. Clark will be socially liberal

Because I don't think he really gives much of a damn about abortion and all that. The question is one of economics (though everybody is fiscally conservative these days...so I guess it is sort of moot) and especially foreign policy. Yeah it would be nice to get some liberal judges on the Supreme Court and have a guy that nominally supports women's rights, but not if that means we've got some whacked out bloodthirsty general running amok over the world.

(Please note: this is not to say that Clark is indeed a "whacked out bloodthirsty general"---I don't know if he is or not. But that is the point.)

[maha]

101. If Clark really were a "whacked out bloodthirsty general"

I wouldn't support him. I do not believe he is. Historically, generals who become presidents have not been as quick to get us into wars as civilians have been.

[Styles]

18. I'm curious

do you have any news source that supports that Clark voted Reagan and Bush Sr?

I'd really like to see it for myself

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Clark Admitted It Freely and Honestly

Even though he was under no obligation to do so, and even though he could have demurred and no one would have been the wiser.

DTH

[WillyBrandt]

20. I don't know about Bush Sr

But he's clearly a Clinton/Clinton/Gore voter. It's not clear re Reagan, whether it was one or two votes.

As a Clark supporter, Clark needs to clarify this. More explanation of his positions would help him, not hurt him.

He's a new guy, but the long knives are out.

[TLM]

70. Clark Made it very clear what he thinks of Reagan and Bush I

When he spoke 2 years ago at a republican fundraiser...


"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

"That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."


"President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."



What I don't understand is how Clark expects anyone to buy his statements to democrats, when he was saying the exact opposite only a few years ago, when his audience was republican.

How does one go from feeling Reagan and Bush were great leaders, to being a democratic candidate two years later? Shouldn't one who is running as a democrat feel Reagan was a bad leader and Bush I was a bad leader... are those the men he will be modeling his leadership after?

Clark is saying all the right things... he is saying exactly what we want to hear. However not Clark nor his supporters have been able to answer the questions about him being a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger and a director of the NED with the head of the Carlyle Group.

Don't you worry, or even question, the fact we have this General who at the very best has a murky political past, that is suddenly saying all the right things about all the big liberal populist issues, yet was working for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist up until the day he declared, and has ties to the exact same groups that are behind Bush?

I don't trust Clark, and I think he may be a trojan horse. I want to see some serious answers to these questions about Clark's partners and coworkers, why he has been working for these people, what work he did, and is he still working for these people.


Clark worked for people like Kissinger and Carlucci who overthrow democratic governments for profit... they've done it over and over. Now Clark, who worked for Kissinger and with Carlucci is a candidate for president for the democrats and is reading off the perfect liberal script.

Bush will be out in 2004, now the question is will his replacement be working for and beholden to the same groups that are behind Bush, like the Carlyle group?

I would like to believe that Clark is who he says he is this year, but the problem is that who Clark says he is seems to change depending whether his audience is democrats or republicans.

[mot78]

66. Why Did Reagan Vote for FDR?

Reagan was one of us until about three years before he became Governor of California.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

84. Three years before he became GOVERNOR....

How long was it before he became PRESIDENT?

As I said before, I don't know for sure that Clark is a fake, but I do know that IF he is, then he can do a whole lot more damage to the Democratic party, the US and the world in general, than ANY Republican President.

He should prove himself BEFORE his is given the most important job in the world.

[gully]

91. Damn right...

I loved his speech at the DNC convention, but I want proof in my pudding.

[gully]

90. Wow, interesting thought.

I do know he was courted by both parties, you could be on to something.

[maha]

95. Let's see ...

I'm supposed to distrust Clark because he voted for Reagan in the 1980s, even though his stands on issues today match mine pretty much down the line. But as recently as 2001, Dennis Kucinich voted against funding International Planned Parenthood, against federal funding of prison abortions, and against stem cell research, and we're not supposed to notice. OK.

Move along; nothin' to see here.

[cprise]

10. The world will not play at our Free-Trade kool-aid stand anymore

...because they keep getting mugged. They have an economy and an environment to protect, too. The failure at Cancun last month was a huge blow to world economic prospects, and they most certainly see the Iraq oil-grab as an extension of the economic pillage they've suffered. So this speech tells us that the DLC and their candidates are still in denial about the results of their cooperation with neocons.

" I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm pro- environment, pro-education, pro-healthcare and pro-labor."

Where is the concern for overbearing corporate power? For giving small business a fair shake?

What does "pro-environment" mean? That's not a political term the way pro-choice is. Everyone is "pro-environment"-- it's a matter of what kind of environment you want and whether you consider state intervention necessary. Not a word about the Kyoto Protocol?

What does "pro-education" mean? Vouchers for everyone?

"Pro-labor"? What's that, the more labor the better? People working overtime at temp jobs?

[Pepperbelly]

14. do you often just make up positions for people?

It is mendacious to somehow pretend that your asking of questions somehow equals a person holding a particular position.

[cprise]

38. No it isn't

I know what the economic positons of the DLC are, and those questions fit them to a T.

I want to know if Clark can address the problem of corporate pillage and abdication of responsibility in an intelligent way. He needs to talk about NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and Kyoto. Not just the UN.

If Clark is a NAFTA-believer, then no amount of his military multilateralism will help us in the long run. Third-world desperation more than anything else creates conflict. Leaving them powerless to even run their own water supplies is a DLC economic outcome, and Clark must DENOUNCE the DLC economic position.

Social liberalism at home is not enough! That would just be a PR campaign to sweeten gross economic inequities.

[Pepperbelly]

48. maybe that's why you

are you and I am I. What is important to you is not ringing my bell. But don't just make shit up.

[cprise]

83. You couldn't possibly make-up a fantasy resembling Clark's candidacy

NAFTA doesn't ring your bell but you like it that Clark wants to increase jobs. I just pointed out that the US is getting dumped in international trade, and you don't care?

If you think I'm just making this issue up, think again. Then look around you and try to imagine what your material existence would be like after a breakdown in commerce with the '3rd' world.

[WillyBrandt]

17. 'What does "pro-education" mean? Vouchers for everyone?'

Thank you for your careful response. I'm glad you assume is against education. Here's what he thinks:

(Actually, don't read below. Please repeat what you said above over and over. I promise you, even though what you say is fully false, it's repetition will make it true.)

"Schools aren't businesses. Schools are institutions of public service. Their job--their product--is not measured in terms of revenues gained. It's measured in terms of young lives whose potential can be realized. And you don't measure that either in terms of popularity of the school, or in terms of the standardized test scores in the school. You measure it child-by-child, in the interaction of the child with the teacher, the parent with the teacher, and the child in a larger environment later on in life.

"So when people say that competition is-this is sort of sloganeering, "Hey, you know, schools need this competition." No. I've challenged people: Tell me why it is that competition would improve a school. Most of them can't explain it. It's just like, "Well, competition improves everything so therefore it must improve schools."

"If you want to improve schools, you've got to go inside the processes that make a school great. You've got to look at the teachers, their qualifications, their motivation, what it is that gives a teacher satisfaction, what it is a teacher wants to do in a classroom. We've got to empower teachers. Give them an opportunity to lead in the classroom. Teachers are the most important leaders in America. All that is lost in the sloganeering of this party. And the American people know it's lost. So you asked me to give you one thing about this party that's in power -- it's the sort of doctrinaire ideology that doesn't really understand the country that we're living in."

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm)

[Code_Name_D]

28. Their is nothing here to look at. Just emptey retoric.

"If you want to improve schools, you've got to go inside the processes that make a school great. You've got to look at the teachers, their qualifications, their motivation, what it is that gives a teacher satisfaction, what it is a teacher wants to do in a classroom. We've got to empower teachers. Give them an opportunity to lead in the classroom. Teachers are the most important leaders in America. All that is lost in the sloganeering of this party. And the American people know it's lost. So you asked me to give you one thing about this party that's in power -- it's the sort of doctrinaire ideology that doesn't really understand the country that we're living in."

Oh come on. This reads like a Bush speach to me. If you want to imprve schools you have to make schools grate? Such retorical nonsense has no meaning. It sayes nothing. He didn't even mention school vouchers, for or in opposition. At best, he only "implied" it by echoing a common point used against vouchers. But that is still an asumption that he opposes vouchers.

He is asking us to abandone "doctrein of anligy" for retorical nonsence. Wake me up when Clark actualy says something.

[WillyBrandt]

36. He explicitly came against the idea of school as business...

... which, if you haven't noticed, Bush's brother Jeb explicitly endorses. He has explicitly favored schools as a public enterprise meant to serve the public good.

Empty rhetoric? What country do you live in? The right has been waging an attack on the very notion of a public good for decades, and has tossed up crackpot attacks on public education--like privatization and competition--for years. This is dangerous. And Clark is the only candidate who says more than "we must strengthen our schools!"

Clark is the ONLY candidate who explicitly understand and explains and attacks the right-wing ideology undergirding the right-wing shift this country has taken.

Besides empty populism ("Let's take our country back!") and mealy-mouthed compromise, other candidates offer nothing at this level.

Why do you think the right hates Clark. Not only because he can and will win. But because he has their number.

[Code_Name_D]

51. Oh looky, an army of straw men.

He explicitly came against the idea of school as business...... which, if you haven't noticed, Bush's brother Jeb explicitly endorses. He has explicitly favored schools as a public enterprise meant to serve the public good.

Jeb Bush? Where did he come from? You not trying to give me a message from your sponsor, are you? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

So, if Clark is against schools as a business, is he against vocational education? Is he against collages and universities? He is against the privet school system? Is he against student loans?

Obviously, he isn't. What he is doing, is hoping you are two narrow minded to think past the grade school level. He is trying to exploit your pre-conceived notions about the problems with education. It's rhetorical. It means nothing.

Empty rhetoric? What country do you live in?

I live in a place called Earth. What color is the sky in your world?

The right has been waging an attack on the very notion of a public good for decades, and has tossed up crackpot attacks on public education--like privatization and competition--for years. This is dangerous.

Um, I already know the right wing's position on education. What I want to know is CLARKS position on education. All I have so far are a lot of code words, talking points, and rhetoric.

And Clark is the only candidate who says more than "we must strengthen our schools!"

Oh please. The local dog catcher runs on a pro-education platform.

Clark is the ONLY candidate who explicitly understand and explains and attacks the right-wing ideology undergirding the right-wing shift this country has taken.

He doses? Well then when is he going to get around talking about it in his speeches? But it still doesn't answer my question of what is Clark's position on education.

Besides empty populism ("Let's take our country back!") and mealy-mouthed compromise, other candidates offer nothing at this level.

Neither doses Clark, apparently.

Why do you think the right hates Clark.

Why do you think I even care what the right thinks?

Not only because he can and will win. But because he has their number.

Apparently, "their number" must be programmed into his cell phone.

[janekat]

55. This is "TQM" from the Deming Theory of Mgmt. - anybody who

has an MBA could tell you that. It is NOT empty rhetoric. It's an excellent philosophy in which a company "empowers" their employees to make the decisions - rather than have management make all of the decisions.

[Code_Name_D]

56. MBA's do not impress me.

Especualy when I have yet to see any credenchals for this MBA. Where did he study? When did he study? Under which subjects did he study? Can you answer these questions for me?

And freind, retoric is the use of many words to say nothing. I don't care if he has a stack of Doctorates. He still says nothing. And for a scolar not to go into detail, is in and of itself very suspicus. It tells me that his credenchals are fake, and that he dosn't know any thing about his subject.

[juajen]

11. Great speech!

N/T

[1monster]

16. Yup, that's the speech I heard last night.

There is no way this guy is a Republican. Any Republican would have choked to death before uttering sentiments like those.

I still like Graham, but I'm looking hard at Clark and Kucinich...

[loudsue]

21. Ok. I really like this speech.

As you Clark's-Sharks well know, I've been a major nay-sayer on the Clark love-fest threads. And it's no secret that most of you...and I..are on opposite ends of the liberal/conservative scale.

However, I was one of the first people here to show support of Dennis Kucinich on his change of position when he was brought around to his pro-choice stance, after the female members of the liberal caucus brought him to his senses about the principles behind pro-choice.

And if Clark truly HAS had a revelation about what is REALLY going on with our government, I will likewise show him support for his awakening, REGARDLESS of how much I doubt the motives of the poll-takers who threw him (a new-comer, and 'relatively' unknown) to the top in the polls. Sorry....I just CAN'T trust pollsters.

I've just left 2 different threads where I've given you guys a generous portion of grief, before I came to this thread. If this speech is truly representative of Clark's commitment, I'll try to keep a more open mind, as I follow his candidacy.

I'm not saying I'll necessarily support him in the primaries; but I AM saying that I admit he's not -- necessarily -- one of the "bad guys". Anyone who can so clearly and articulately call this spade 'a spade' is a great voice to have in the campaign. And...I now truly welcome his voice.

And I further agree that this will appeal to a great cross-section of American voters.

Come. We sake hands and share the Peace Pipe.


:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. THANK YOU

I apologize to you for any comments I have made claiming you lacked an open mind. Even if you don't end up supporting him in the primary, I greatly appreciate your willingness to give him a look.

:toast:

DTH

[loudsue]

42. Thank you...

And I, apologize, too, for being, at times, a little too dogmatic. We've all been swindled by the sleeze-balls running things for so long, that I tend to be ....well, more than a little paranoid of people with too many powerful friends.

:loveya:

Sue

[Pepperbelly]

24. You are making some pretty unfounded ...

assumptions regarding where Clark supporters stand on the liberal-conservative continuum.

I think Wesley may well be the most liberal candidate in the race.

on edit: what shall we put in the pipe?

[bicentennial_baby]

25. Truce

"I've just left 2 different threads where I've given you guys a generous portion of grief, before I came to this thread. If this speech is truly representative of Clark's commitment, I'll try to keep a more open mind, as I follow his candidacy.

I'm not saying I'll necessarily support him in the primaries; but I AM saying that I admit he's not -- necessarily -- one of the "bad guys". Anyone who can so clearly and articulately call this spade 'a spade' is a great voice to have in the campaign. And...I now truly welcome his voice."

I,for one, am ecstatic to hear this from you. I truly appreciate your willingness to hear what he has to say and to evaluate it fairly. Seriously, thank you.

:toast:

[loudsue]

32. Thanks for the kind words, fellow DUers...

that's what makes this forum great....we all learn from one another.

:kick:

[Pepperbelly]

35. still want to know ...

what will be in the peace pipe.

:smoke:

[loudsue]

46. Well.......

:smoke: anything truce-like will do! :silly::crazy:

[WillyBrandt]

30. Thank you

Whether you vote for him or not, please keep listening to what he says, and NOT what the Republicans say about him.

I agree with the poster above, that of the leading Democrats, he would make the most progressive president.

[OKNancy]

50. Just a little note loudsue

something caught my eye about being on a scale of liberal/conservative. I think you might not be aware that there are many very liberal people backing Clark. I consider myself a died-in-the-wool liberal and I support Clark.

[janekat]

57. Some of his more "Progressive Stances"

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

Wesley Clark:

would consider cutting defense spending if elected, he said. "We are trapped in .....an endless occupation" of Iraq".

Supports University of Michigan's affirmative action plan. (Jun 15)

"I'm concerned about the lock-up policy, the 3-strikes policy, putting people in jails and the way we've treated people in prison. We've got to look seriously at the American penal system and what it does when it returns people to the streets."

Full sunshine review of PATRIOT Act. (Jun 19)

Compared Bush to Nixon in abusing his power to bully Congress and US allies. "This is an administration which has moved in a way we have not seen any administration since Nixon to abuse executive authority to scheme, manipulate, intimidate and maneuver.”

Disturbed that we suspended habeus corpus for War on Terror. (Mar 23)

"we should be very reluctant to use force. It has incredible, difficult and unintended consequences, which we are once again beginning to see as we deal with the situation in Iraq."

Supports funding for all-day kindergarten

Establish 18:1 student-teacher ratio for grade school. (Mar 1999)

Decries lack of funding for No Child Left Behind. (Apr 28)

“The way to deal with Castro is to send Cuba American tourists, American goods and American farm products. There could be no better way to deal with this last vestigial form of Communism than to turn American business and American agriculture loose on them.”

Work with the International Criminal Court. (Jul 2002)

Invest 3% of GDP on development assistance abroad. (Nov 2001)

Supports ban on assault weapons

Supports universal health coverage

Immigration is vital to prosperity. (Jun 17)

I am very pro-immigration. (Jun 27)

The military needs to reconsider the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay service members.

$5T tax cuts for the rich are legalized theft. (Jun 20)

Supports redistribution by progressive taxation. (Jun 19)

Supports a "freeze" on Bush's tax cuts that have yet to take effect for people earning $150,000 or more.

Need Marshall Plan for Middle East and Afghanistan. (Jun 17)

We went into Iraq under false pretenses. (Aug 17)

Israel: bring in Syria and Iran into peace talks. (Jun 17)

NATO was the reason for our victory in Kosovo. (Sep 2002)

Palestinians decided to return to terrorism after 2000. (Mar 2002)

Solution to terrorism is not bullets but world community. (Oct 2001)

[TLM]

73. How do you feel about him being a lobbyist for Kissinger?

[Bertrand]

113. Laughable

You have no character.

[SWPAdem]

88. Me, too!

Whole family of Roosevelt Dems, activists since the days of Adlai Stevenson...and we all support Clark. But, ABB is the major meme in our household

Thank you for having an open mind.

[union_maid]

54. Yes, this is the real Clark

At least as real as any other politician, because those who were interested in him got to know him a bit before the DraftClark movement was conceived. I don't ask anyone to support him. Just not trash him. I don't trash the others because I don't want to add to the negativity when one of them becomes the candidate. Actually, I find at least something to like very much about the others but to me, Clark is in a league of his own, and the best candidate this whole country has to offer, especially for this particular moment in history.

[Paxdora]

60. Words are cheap, as we've found out

when the Chimp reneged on most of his 'promises' as soon as he swiped power. I still don't know enough about Clark even though his words are impressive. And his obvious charisma isn't enough, either. He could still be a carefully contrived "trojan horse". I want to hear his views about NAFTA and big business monopolies and the RIAA and the FCC and the Supreme Court and blackbox voting and private control of natural resources and...everything that is important to true democrats and humanitarians. Kucinich supports everything that is important to me, but I also know he won't be nominated by the Democratic party.

So, really, why should any of us trust a man we know so little about, with no political record to speak of, just on the basis of a few swell-sounding platitudes? He may still be a Republican at heart, but hates the Bush gang so much he would stoop to switch sides in order to sabotage the neocons and still remain loyal to moderate right-wing values (very similar, in other words, to big business Democrat Centrists). I need to know a helluva lot more about this guy even though I know he could beat Bush in 2004. We don't want to just settle for the lesser of two devils, do we?

Or will we????

[WillyBrandt]

62. Aliens hover, way up above

Everyone, pay attention to this object lession in self-refutation:

'He could still be a carefully contrived "trojan horse".'

'He may still be a Republican at heart, but hates the Bush gang so much he would stoop to switch sides in order to sabotage the neocons and still remain loyal to moderate right-wing values (very similar, in other words, to big business Democrat Centrists).'

Good God! THIS is why we pro-Clark people seem so rabid: it's like wading through a nonsense swamp everytime someone mentions Clark's name.

Here are some more to keep you up at night:

'I hear he MAY have killed Kennedy. WHY HAS HE NOT SPOKEN TO THIS? Oh, he has. Well, WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG?'

'You know, I never saw Clark and Alan Keyes in the same room at the same time. Maybe he IS Alan Keyes.'

'Clark is from Arkansas. The Right-Wing funded the "Arkansas Project," therfore Clark is a tool of the Right.'

[Paxdora]

65. Why such a venomous attack, WB?

"Methinks he doth protest too much..."

:bounce:

[WillyBrandt]

67. "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"

Because it's just nonsense!

I'm sure you're a good person and we agree on 99% of everything. But this is just conspiracy mongering. . .

[Paxdora]

72. "But this is just conspiracy mongering. . ."

You know, that's exactly the kind of response a freeper would make to someone who questions what's being shoved down our throats. Why are you getting all het up about wanting to know more information? What is your big rush to demean a person's point of view?

I'm new to this forum, and if this is the kind of exchange that's common here, I don't think I'll be hanging around for long. I thought this sort of abuse only happened at the free republic site, where the morons dwell...

[RandomUser]

82. Welcome

I'm afraid it's been a bit tense around here lately. The reason some of these exchanges have devolved into flamefests has to do with the recurrent nature of discussions. And I'm sorry that you've seem to become embroiled in an ongoing argument. I hope you won't think too ill of us.

Please try to understand that for many of us, these arguments have been hashed and rehashed. It's no reflection on you, but rather on the state of affairs here currently. Since you're new, you may not know the background. Please allow me to explain.

Obviously there are proponents and detractors of every candidate present at this forum. But there is a special tension between the supporters of Clark and Dean (and to a lesser extent Kucinich). The opposers of Clark have brought out arguments, and the supporters of Clark have answered these arguments (rationally and satisfactorily to my mind, but I'm biased :)). But the Clark Bashers have chosen a strategy of reposting debunked arguments, flooding the forum with a gazillion threads all with the same debunked argument, drowning the answers. I'm not sure if this was entirely a deliberate strategy or if it was partly because not everyone reads all the threads and the topics are pushed down so fast because of the volume of posting.

But regardless, we Clark supporters found ourselves answering the same arguments that have been raised over and over again, with the answers being drowned. It seemed pointless, because no one got to read our answers because of the volume of duplicate threads. And the same debunked issues were raised over and over again. And there are some Clark bashers who would not accept opposite points of view or acknowledge answers. Thus the tenor of this forum has devolved into flamefests and many of us have chosen to stop responding to objections (or answer with humor or snide remarks) since our civil and detailed answers weren't even being read or understood.

Recently this forum had a vote to change the rules, and we're still waiting to see the results of those rules (enacted yesterday). So if the Clark supporters seem short of patience, please understand where we're coming from.

As to your questions, if you truly are new, I'll attempt to address them. You have a valid point about politicians saying one thing and doing another. But I would conjecture that Clark is not that type of person. Please allow me to lay out my case.

1) Although he was never elected to civil office, and thus has no voting record, we can judge his progressive credentials by actual actions (not empty words) that he has enacted in other ways. For example, while in the military, he became involved with and pushed for daycare and education for military families. He has diplomatic experience working for a peace negotiator in the Dayton accords, and he favors a multi-lateral approach (in contrast to Bush). He had experience working with many nations and holding them together. He has worked with urban youths in the distant past. Thus, we see that he has commmitted progressive actions and advanced a liberal agenda over the years, despite not having been in office. (There was actually a thread listing each instance, and every progressive action he has taken, but it's buried in the piles and archives -- now you understand how we feel about our answers getting buried and debunked arguments being repeated, as if we never answered in the first place)

2) We can tell that he's not just changing his tune to the convenience of the moment to get elected by examining the things he has written and the logical positions he has held. He's written a book, an amicus brief to the supreme court in favor of affirmative action, given policy speeches, etc -- much in advance of even the idea of running for president. These positions stretch back years, so shows that he's been intellectually consistent in his positions.

3) As for him being a republican, this too has been debunked. Mostly this stems from quotes taken out of context. Here's an illustration: in his TPM interview, he praises several republicans, several times. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#1001031244pm
But if you'll read the interview, I think you'll agree with us that it's not out of line. But you can also see how easily these quotes can be taken out of context and spun. There are other arguments and other answers that debunk other republican connections.

4) You can also tell Clark is a decent and humble man from the Esquire story. There was a burning car wreck and people who fell off a cliff. He rapelled down to save them and stayed at the burning jeep to the authorities came (this was in Kosovo). Clark glossed over this event, rather than use it to make himself look good in his book. The truth only came out when someone who was there told it. So this man is not only selfless but modest, because he didn't tell his heroic stories to make himself look good like most veterans would.

5) You can tell that Clark's answers to questions are truly his, and not those given him by issue advisers and polltesters trying to just say what people want to hear. The proof is that if you examine each of his answers in the TPM interview (an impromptu interview in the back of a car, no less), you'll find that he always addresses the underlying strategic structure of a problem. This is a mark of a tactical mind. He's using his military strategist training and applying it to domestic affairs. This signature way of examining problems runs through all his answers, and is uniquely his. For example, instead of saying he's against school privatization and ending there, which would have satisfied the teacher's union, he goes on to explain in detail why it's wrong. He addresses the underlying strategy of the privatization, why it's wrong -- using a mix of economic logic and humanistic fundamental principles. He applies this same way of analyzing problems to everything, a signature of his mind and his military strategy training. The solutions to domestic problems he crafts are brilliant because of it.

Thus, from these factors, you can tell that he's genuine, and not just saying what the polltesters tell him to say to get elected. (now imagine this thread getting buried, and a clark supporter having to rewrite all this and more each time a debunked argument is raised. I hope you begin to see why some of us are a bit short. Apologies if you've gotten the wrong impression.)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

89. It's Not Just Freepers Who Are Opposed to Paranoid Conspiracy Fantasies

Most reasonable Americans are, too.

DTH

[zeemike]

102. Yes welcome Paxdora

Do give us the benefit of the doubt, there are a lot of thoughtful posts here and they are valuable in more than one way.

But I am a Dean supporter and probably considered a disrupter by the Clark supporters.
And I to o want to bring you up to date. The new rules were started because as soon as Clark came into the picture it did create tension between the Dean and Clark people. And biggest complaint is when Dean people questioned whether Clark was a Democrat or a Repug. In fact the original rules that we were to vote on had a rule just for that purpose It said that no one could question whether any democrat was a Republican. Gladly that was dropped because it was obviously created just to satisfy the Clarkies complaint.
Now we are told repeatedly that all questions about Clark have been debunked and that we should just shut up. But we know that they have not been debunked and we have not shut up and this keeps the tension going.
Perhaps the next rule that needs to be made is that no one can post something negative in a positive thread about a candidate. And in order to post about a candidate you must take a loyalty oath to the party. Both of those rules would we widely accepted by the Clark people.

[union_maid]

78. Sorry if couldn't read between the lines with Chimp

As far as I'm concerned Chimp kept most of his promises. Except the ones about nation building. Oh, wait, he's keeping that one, too, only apparently not on purpose. Other than that, this administration is as advertised. So I really don't know what you're talking about there. What were you hearing?

Clark will do what all the Democratic candidates will do, and that's deliver on their promises to the best of their ability given the partisan fighting that will ensue. I think Clark has a much better shot to deliver more of his agenda than any of the others because I think people are just going to like him very, very much. In other words, he'll have broadbased support among the voters.

[RandomUser]

68. The most telling reaction was after he stopped talking

Did you notice that of all the candidates, they had the most trouble calming the crowd after Clark? They had to use the gavel several times :) The pounded the gavel for silence...waited....pounded again...started speaking...had to stop speaking and pound again! lol.

[Donna Zen]

69. Rogier

The more I look at Clark's speeches and writing, the more I am convinced that he is an adherent of the philosophy of "rogier" persuasive dialogue. The book I need for reference is at school, but it is the same method I teach to students for setting up their persuasive-argument papers. First, lay out points of agreement, and then make the case for your differences.

From Clark's new book and in his own words:

"The truth is, the war with Iraq began in early January 1991 - with the congressional resolution authorizing President George HW Bush to use military force to liberate Kuwait - and the war hasn't ended yet."

With this declarative sentence, Wesley Clark frames his view of the conflict with Iraq, and takes direct aim at the neo-conservative world agenda. They, too, believe that the war against Iraq began in 1991 and has not ended, however, the conclusions they drew, and continue to draw, stand in stark contrast to Clark's. The book "Winning Modern Wars" is as much about winning the bitter struggle over the direction of American foreign policy as it is anything else.

http://www.draftclark.com/archives/004406.shtml#004406

Note: For those who have convinced themselves that Clark 1) lies about everything 2) is a blood-brother of dubya 3) will turn the world into some huge version of MIC...well, be careful not to break a leg falling over the mountain of evidence to the contrary. And since your only rebuttal has been a combination of cut and paste disjointed, tripe, and mewings "liar liar," your intellect has yet to catch up with your own dishonesty. The above link is to a Clark supporter's, who while independent from the campaign, remains positive about Clark. Therefore, I would suggest that you do not waste your time, either reading the book review, or telling me that the writer is a Clark supporter, or telling me that only you know the truth while everyone else has no right to form a differing opinion. Rather, look in the mirror and slowly say: I'm raving again.

[TLM]

74. True to form...attack the very act of asking the question...

ridicule the questioner, make personal attacks, but never actually answer any of the questions about Clark being in the NED with Carlucci, or working as a lobbyist for Kissinger... just call it raving and hope nobody keeps asking.

[Paxdora]

81. Are we together, or are we adversaries?

Thanks, TLM, for your astute commentary. I am very worried about this sort of divisive tactic that zealots (of any stripe) manage to achieve within a dedicated group - it ultimately breaks down the solidarity of the whole. I believe it's vitally important to derail the BushCo juggernaut, but certainly not at ANY price. Questions must be asked of and answered by ALL candidates. It remains to be seen how Wesley Clark will answer some of my questions, but only IF those questions are ALLOWED to be asked in the first place.

Freepers aren't much interested in questions, are they?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

92. Questions About Conspiracy Theories Don't Deserve a Response

For a candidate to answer "questions" like these would serve only to dignify the ludicrous.

DTH

[Donna Zen]

96. The NED

National Institute for Democracy. Making it into something sinister is really a load of *&^%+$ It began in the 1980's, and one of the founders was Walter Mondale. The idea was to give a Democratic and a Republican party group a relatively small amount of money to promote democratic ideas outside the US. They each get the same amount. After 89 the Institute got some special grants -- both private and public for "democratic transition" work. For instance, my former secretary of state, Joan Growe, was hired by them and by a UN organization to provide technical assistance to South Africa for their first election. She spent about six months there, training people on all aspects of elections. (Joan is a progressive Democrat)

When Paul Wellstone was first elected to the Senate, Mondale gave up his seat on the board, and Paul was elected and served a 4 year term. He worked with a group of young Federal Judges and Law School instructors to establish a kind of traveling course in E. Europe and the Former Soviet Republics to teach basics of western constitutional law. Federal Judge John Tunheim -- the guy Clinton appointed to release the last of the Kennedy Assassination Records, (and a long time friend of Paul's) now runs the program for former Yugoslavia, which means long term internships and law school scholarships for folk from Bosnia and Kosovo -- and regular specialized classes over there which Tunheim organizes.

You know these things are really the meat of conspiricy and American Imperialism. (Ha). I have no idea what the Republicans do with their part of the rather small pot of money -- but I do know what the people I respect have done with it -- and I approve of their projects.If someone nominated Wesley Clark to the Board -- so what? Clinton nominated him...not Carlucci.

That said, you do know this...because you keep posting the same question, and the answer is that the NED is not a morphed form of the Trilateral Commission. Again_what repubs do with their money is whatever they want. Now if answering your repeated question with a definition of the NED, constitutes some sort of an attack, there is little I can do about changing your mind. That said, the simple fact that you that you continue to spin Clark's appointment to fit some square fact into a round mind-hole, says quite a bit about your agenda.

[maha]

100. Thank you, Donna Zen!

I remember you from TAP Alternate. I'd been surfing for background info on NED and hadn't found much. Mondale and Wellstone, you say? Thanks!

[Donna Zen]

103. Hi Maha

I love your assessment of the candidates on your blog...we are on the same page.

NED: This keeps getting posted and reposted on these threads because it puts Clark's name in the same list with many of the "evil doers." Of course with half of the appointments being made by repubs, what else could we expect. Clinton's naming Clark to the NED should come as no surprise. Again, if the group choses to get up to rightwing tricks, the Dems have no control over those initiatives.

Making something that is essentially an honor into a version of proof positive that Clark equals PNAC is simply bizzaro. I mean who and what evidence is more meaningful to me: Chris Hedges, a hero of the left regarding the war, a PHD from Harvard divinity, and a reporter who covered Kosovo, referring to Clark specifically out of the various Pentagon personalities, as "an honorable man," Or the trash brought to me by the fine art of cut and paste?

The words of Joe Conason haunt me as I read these threads: "what will America do to one of its best and brightest?"

[maha]

105. Probably what they did with John Glenn.

Re: "what will America do to one of its best and brightest?"

The other day I was thinking about how John Glenn was vilified for his association with the Keating Five, even though all he did was attend a couple of meetings (and according to some sources, he walked out of the second meeting when he realized he was being asked to exchange favors for campaign money). Even now you can find rants on the web calling Glenn "scum" for the Keating incident.

I don't know what it is in some people that compels them to tear other people down to their level.

[Code_Name_D]

106. Trying to change the subject. AGAIN!

For some one trying to defend Clark, you seem to do an aufule lot of attacking. Am I to understand that you are going to emply that the late Paul Wellstone also has ties to the NED?

But even so. You again refuse to address Clarks invalvment of the NED, and the NED's invalvment in the Venusala cues.

Your defense of Clark, is to try and change the subject.

[Bertrand]

112. You're oversimplifying

The onus is on you to provide evidence of Clark being involved in the Venezuela Coup, and not some generalization about a politically compartmentalized NGO like the NED.

[zeemike]

99. You might as well give up

The will never answer the questions. No more so than Bush will answer where he was when he went AWOL or whether he is a member of Scull and Bones.
They will just keep posting his speech or snips form his web site and try to bully you into not bringing up the unpleasant.
And the press will do the same; just ignore any questions by making some comment about the Grassy Knoll Society to make the questioner look silly. They have decided who will run against bush, and truth will not get in the way.

[RandomUser]

104. Interestingly enough

If you look just above your post, I believe you'll find a few people answering.

[catforclark2004]

75. Clark = anti-Bush

I believe in this man, I am what some would call a French radical!

He is the anti-Bush....

that will put our 21st century back on line.........going in the right direction.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030801_mfe_clark_1.html

[Loyal]

76. Good speech

n/t

[laruemtt]

97. thing is

he IS brilliant, his critical thinking IS flawless. Thus, he IS a democrat! he could not fake where that flawless reasoning leads him, and it ain't nowhere near where *'s minibrain is.