Some thoughts on General Clark & his "Politics of Apple Pie"...

[RichM]

I watched the C-Span2 Town Hall in Iowa a few nights ago, & have a few observations.

On the plus side, Clark is very possibly smooth, confident & knowledgeable enough to be nominated & then elected. He is very intelligent, adequately charming, reasonably impressive, somewhat witty, & fairly likeable. He is running on what might be called the "Apple Pie" program. This is a pitch that seeks to convince Americans of the reassuring proposition that although things have gone decidedly awry under GW Bush, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with America. Thus - in this view - all we have to do is get back to where we were 3 years ago, and Presto! Everything is swell again, & we can all resume aspiring towards the American Dream.

The problem with this reassuring proposition is that it is not true. And the things Clark did NOT mention are more telling than what he did mention.

In foreign policy, he said we were led into the Iraq war under false pretenses. He said his policy would be to embrace multilateralism & work together with our allies, using force ONLY as a last resort. On domestic policy, he said he'd rescind the Bush tax cut for those who earn $200K or more a year. He also had very acceptable liberal positions on abortion, the environment, gay rights, the PATRIOT Act, & preserving Social Security.

These things are all fine as far as they go. The problem is that they don't go very far. Clark didn't say a single word about reining in corporate power. He didn't say a word about media reform. He didn't say anything that hinted at any curtailment whatever of the near-total domination of US society by big business. He didn't mention that the US has become a full-fledged plutocracy. He spoke the usual politician's jargon of "Jobs, jobs, jobs," and "keeping America strong." This means: no serious attempts to cut the defense budget. No reining in the military-industrial complex. No action to curtail the power of big lobbies in Washington. No recognition of the extent to which the Congress has literally been purchased by these lobbies. IOW, a cheery unspoken assumption that the basic structural integrity of American political institutions is sound. (But... it's not sound.)

Though he called the Iraq war a mistake (even saying the Busheviks had been planning it since before the 2000 election), he did NOT portray the war as a criminal outrage. He talked about "investigating" the pre-war intelligence, to "make sure" it wasn't slanted. This reduces a historic crime from the level of treason & impeachable offense to the small change of "flawed policy." He took a one-line rhetorical slap at Halliburton. But he didn't even attempt to sketch the magnitude of venality & corruption that has brought GOP subsidiaries like Halliburton multi-billion dollar "reconstruction" contracts.

When he spoke of Israel, he explicitly said Israel had the right to PRE-EMPTIVELY ATTACK its enemies. (WTF is this? If Israel has that right, presumably, we do too. This is a major blunder that has gone largely unremarked upon -- a tacit endorsement of the "Bush Doctrine.") He also said not a word about what Israel should give up to achieve peace (ie, the settlements in the territories). He tried to slide by with the rather empty idea that "getting serious negotiations going again" would suffice. To call for negotiations after you've said Israel can attack whomever it wants, & you've NOT said that Israel has to give up anything at all - this is not a serious position. It is a status quo position, lightly criticizing the style & details of the Bush approach, without even touching any of the basics.

Clark had a weak moment when challenged by a questioner about his lavish praise for Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al at the May 2001 Republican fundraiser. He tried to wiggle past this with his line about "We thought we'd elected a compassionate conservative..." Note that by May 2001, Bush had already stolen a presidential election and passed the first tax cut. Anyone with a flattering assessment of Bush in May 2001 must not have minded a stolen election too much. Nor could they really have much minded the first (biggest) tax cut. And if they did mind tax cuts for the rich, why had they once voted for Reagan & Daddy Bush? These inconsistencies don't pass the smell test.

On balance, Clark wants the US to behave as a better global citizen, but he is not in favor of ANY fundamental changes in the structure of society. In fact, he's tacitly suggesting that the fundamental structure doesn't even need to be looked at. If you thought the country was just great until Bush was selected, you can be happy voting for Clark. But if you understood that the country was plenty sick just beneath the surface even before 12/12/00, you will realize that Clark offers cosmetic changes only. This is not because he's a bad guy. He's not a bad guy. But the "Apple Pie" theory of American society is wrong. This weakness can be denied, ignored, & temporarily papered over, but it can't really be fixed.

IOW, if you want America to recognize its fundamental weaknesses -- that it's a militarized plutocracy; that its political process is deeply degenerate; that its media have sunk to levels that would make Joseph Goebbels green with envy -- Clark is not your guy. He's a DLC'er in a slick marketable package. There's nothing about him that the rightwing would regard as threatening; indeed, they may even welcome his candidacy, if they decide Bush's recklessness has begun to outweigh his usefulness. Clark's approach will consist of superficial tweaks of the status quo, without so much as acknowledging any of the deeper problems that lie rotting the core of US society.

[Larkspur]

1. The Clark Campaign strategy is to ignore the angry Dem base

that is fueling and funding Dean's Campaign. After his faux pas on voting for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, Clark lost the only chance he had to dent Dean's support base. So much for generals being good at political strategy.

The Clark Campaign strategy is the same strategy as Kerry's, Edwards, Lieberman's and to an extent Gephardt's but with a different face. The angry Dem base and our allies the moderate Republicans and Independents know that our country is being swindled my modern day corrupt aristocrats and corporate pirates and that our party's leaders have blessed that corruption or at best, turned a blind eye to it. The reason the angry Dem base & Allies are funding Dean is because it gives us leverage with Dean and it gives Dean leverage over corporate lobbiests, which Clark was once a short time ago.

Clark's strategy is the same as that of Dems, like Gov. Davis and the losers of the 2002 election -- offer empty platitudes to try to salve the angry base or just assume the base will support you because the alternative is worse.

The angry Dem base & Allies want real change, not faux change, which is what Clark and the other Establishment Dems offer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Could You Please List For Me All The Issues Howard Dean Is To The Left

of Wes Clark...

At least Wes Clark said he would cut the defense budget.... Howard Dean wants to maintain it.....

Howard Dean is on record as supporting every American military adventure since Viet Nam with the exception of Gulf War 2....

What makes him so different?

Howard Dean is on record as favoring a balanced budget even if it means cutting vital social programs.

What makes him so different?

Maybe the wet behind the ears college freshman buy his "reinventing politics" crap or whatever they call that tired shtick in 2003 but not us adults.

Why don't you enlighten us as to the fundamental change Dean will bring if elected?





P.S. Rich M's critique of Clark is mostly correct.....


As I said I agree with my friend Rich's diagnosis of the problem but disagree with some of his cures...

[TLM]

62. Can't defend Clark... so attack Dean...

"Could You Please List For Me All The Issues Howard Dean Is To The Left of Wes Clark"


Nope, because given how often Wes changes his story about what he supports and what side he is on, there's no way to make any comparison, which is exactly what he wanted, I'm sure.

Clark has no record to put against any other... so the only thing we have for a comparison is his current script.



"At least Wes Clark said he would cut the defense budget.... Howard Dean wants to maintain it....."

Dean wants to redirect those funds to first responders, ports, and other domestic defense needs. And at least Dean never worked as a lobbyist for war profiteers. Are you actually going to trust a lobbyist for Kissinger with defense funds?


"Howard Dean is on record as favoring a balanced budget even if it means cutting vital social programs."

Would that be the decade old answer to a hypothetical question... or the misrepresentation of Dean position on cutting the administration of Medicare to expand coverage?



Seems all you can do when Clark is questioned, is attack Dean and Dean supporters who point out that Dean is changing the way campaigns are run.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Another Vanity Piece From The Narcissists Of Small Differences

but at least the battle is engaged....

In my best Al Pacino voice HooHaa

"Nope because given how often Wes changes his story of what he supports, and what side he is on, there's no way to make any comparison, which is exactly what he wanted I'm sure.."

Show me one policy position Clark has flip flopped on and I'll buy you a new pair of Birkenstocks or a vanity plate for your Audi...

"And at least Dean never worked as a lobbyist for war profiteers"

Ouch... This coming from an acolyte of the man who said Wes Clark was a "good man" who "knows alot about defense"

Who's wrong... You or the Doctor....

Also, Dean is on record as supporting every American military (mis)adventure since Nam with the exeception of Gulf War 2...

It seems Dean is supporting the merchants of war without putting his ass on the line...


"or the the misreprensentation of Dean(s) position on cutting the administration of Medicare to expand coverage"

That's an interesting post hoc spin.... Perhaps they should put you on the payroll.....

"...... Dean is changing the ways campigns are run"

McCain in 00 utilized the net as a fundraising tool.... Dean has merely taken it to another level....

Don't look down....

Your defensiveness is showing

Warmly,

Brian

[TLM]

72. WHy is it that CLark supporters hate the left so much...

that they use attacks like "I'll buy you a new pair of Birkenstocks or a vanity plate for your Audi..."

Looks to me as if the Clark Cons are lettign their true feelings of hate for the left, liberals, and liberalism in general slip through as they attack people who question Clark.

"Show me one policy position Clark has flip flopped on"


Sure...


“At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question,” The New York Times quoted Clark as saying Thursday.
He then added, the Times said, “I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position. On balance, I probably would have voted for it.”



Oh but wait... then he says in another interview.


“Let’s make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war, never,” Clark said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’ve gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein.”



"Ouch... This coming from an acolyte of the man who said Wes Clark was a "good man" who "knows alot about defense"

Who's wrong... You or the Doctor...."


Did Dean say that Clark wasn't a lobbyist for Kissinger?



"Also, Dean is on record as supporting every American military (mis)adventure since Nam with the exeception of Gulf War 2...

It seems Dean is supporting the merchants of war without putting his ass on the line..."

Huh? Please cite the record of Dean supporting everything the military has done since nam?

And what's your point, exactly, that only somebody who himself has been in the military can support the military?

OR are you typicaly stupidly assuming that anybody who questions Clark's actions in kosovo is anti-war across the board?



"That's an interesting post hoc spin.... Perhaps they should put you on the payroll....."

Care to refute it, say with the entire orginal quote on which the orginal attack was based? Oh no wait you can't do that because the original statment supports exactly what I just said. Next?


"McCain in 00 utilized the net as a fundraising tool.... Dean has merely taken it to another level...."


Yeah much like Alexander Fleming took cheese mold to another level.



"Don't look down....

Your defensiveness is showing"


LOL! I love it, when Clark corps can't refute the arguments, simply claim the arguments that they can't refute are "proof' that the opposition is afraid and defensive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. " Why is That Clark Supporters Hate The Left So Much"

When you point a finger at someone you have four fingers pointing back at yourself....

I have been praised on this board for staking out a center left position for myself without engaging in left bashing...

Ask the creator of this thread...

Birkenstocks and Audi are new emblems of the left.... God help us.....

Clark's position on the war is the same as Dean's .... They supported it if it was under a U N flag but intellectual honesty demands that we say we'll never know because neither one of them had to vote on it....

"Or are you stupidly assuming that anybody who questions Clark's actions in Kosovo is anti-war across the board."

You can read my mind.... Hey , can you see what I'm wearing through the monitor


"Can't refute it...."

Howard Dean -1995

"I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from ten percent to seven percent or less if possible."

Calm down pepper... Your arguments are getting worse and worse... I guess your reply will be Nananana....


P.S. Do you drive an Audi?

ROTFLMAO

[roughsatori]

2. You crystallized my thoughts exactly

There is a fundamental divide even on this board:

1) Those of us who don't think the USA was so healthy even pre-Bush*

2) Those who say: "We had 8 wonderful years of peace and prosperity under Clinton." (I assume they've forgot about Clinton's sanctions and military actions as well as those who were thrown off welfare and wound up in the streets etc.)

I'm in the former camp: The USA desperately needs some fundamental changes and Clark is not the candidate who will make them. Not because he is incompetent, but because he thinks our system as a whole is fine if we defeat Bush* (I have no such illusions.) I think that the ABB idea may be instrumental in us performing the kind of compromises that have led to this mess. It is a way to perpetuate, not change, a fundamentally flawed system.

Thanks for the post.

[revcarol]

3. You are so much more eloquent than I at expressing my deep-seated doubts

about his candidacy. Living in a corporatocracy, with defense contractors taking tremendous $$ for cold war weapons and war is not my idea of the American Dream.

And playing on the "we need a miltary leader because we are viewed as being "weak" on defense" is just to Hitleresque and Kafkaesque to stomach.

Can you guess that I am a Kucinich supporter?

[RichM]

13. "Kafkaesque" - exactly the right word.

A great pun could be made here on the word "defense." The Clark candidacy is really the ultimate in defensiveness. It converts the whole 2004 campaign into a defense against the Republican charge of Democrats being "weak on defense." It implies that all the Repubs have to do is accuse the Dems of something, & the Dems will then obligingly spend the next several years doing little else but trying to prove that it isn't so.

BTW - Thanks for mentioning The Pink Adobe in Santa Fe, when you were describing a DK event a few months back. I visited it a week or two after that - wouldn't have known about it, had you not mentioned it!

[KittyWampus]

58. The ONLY Thing Kafkaesque In This Thread Is Your Intellectual Dishonesty

In mischaracterizing what Clark said in the Iowa Town Hall meeting and the fact that so many other people are buying it.

Even more like Kafka is your saying that Clark is PNAC.

Clark is on the record saying he would cut Pentagon spending to fund Education.

Dean said on National Television that he wouldn't cut Pentagon spending and the reason is because of the War on Terror.

Which is the PNAC position?

Dean is the one who is using Terrorism as a wayto justify an obscene Pentagon budget when the War on Terror needs primarily to be faught here in the States by funding first responders.

PNACers are the ones who want to bring the War on Terror 'OVER THERE' with the Pentagon.

[TLM]

67. Why do you continue this spew, when i have already told you...

"Dean is the one who is using Terrorism as a wayto justify an obscene Pentagon budget when the War on Terror needs primarily to be faught here in the States by funding first responders."


Dean has said over and over that he doesn't want to cut the defense budget because he wants to redirect that spending to domestic defense needs, like first responders.

Since Dean has said the reason he doesn't want to cut defense is to do exactly what you just said needs to be done, are you now going to stop spewing this attack?


Dean:
“I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we’re under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here’s what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don’t think the president has defended this country as much as he’s talked about.”

[KittyWampus]

79. LOOK- Dean Said He Would NOT Cut Pentagon Spending On National TV

During the debate Kucinich said he would cut Pentagon Spending and Dean got snippy and said he would NOT! It's that simple!

So what it boils down to, then, is DEAN LIED if at some other time he said he'd reallocate Pentagon funds.

Defense (Pentagon) Spending and Homeland Security Budgets are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

If you "reallocate" money from the Pentagon budget to Homeland Defense or to the States to spend on first responders...

YOU ARE CUTTING THE PENTAGON'S BUDGET.

And saying it is NOT cutting the Pentagon't budget is intellectually dishonest.

But then Dean CAN'T say outright he'd cut the Pentagon's budget because that touches on Dean's SOFT WHITE UNDERBELLY!

He skipped Viet Nam and has NO experience with Foreign Policy. He is the Left's worst nightmare in having to be afraid of being labelled "Soft On Defence".

[Mandate My Ass]

80. who is softer on defense right now than Bushco?

Despite warnings from several nations we got hit on 9/11.

We haven't found bin Laden.

We haven't found Hussein.

Usable nuclear material was looted from Iraq during Operation Iraqi Plunder.

A high-level undercover WMD operative was outed and rendered useless for spite.

Homeland Security is underfunded.

Nuclear plants throughout the country are vulnerable to attack.

Dems not only shouldn't defend themselves, they should be shouting from the rooftops how vulnerable we are due to Bush and Rumsfeld's multiple, unimaginable screw-ups. For the amount of money we pour into "defense" we should be a great deal more secure than we are.

[kentuck]

4. I thought the same thing when he talked about "preemptive " war...

and Israel...but at the same time, criticized Bush.

[KittyWampus]

54. ANY Candidate Against Pre-Emptive War Is UNFIT

In the context that Clark used the term Pre-Emptive it is not only LEGAL it would be the only SANE choice a President could make. And ANY candidate who would say otherwise is UNFIT to govern.

The context he used pre-emptive was a STRIKE that is NOT A WAR!!!

If you know someone is entering your airspace with a nuclear weapon, it is legal to shoot them down.

That is what Clark said. THAT is the example he used. THAT is the fact.

The question here is if the INTELLIGENCE that leads to a pre-emptive STRIKE is rock solid. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS JUNIOR'S PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH INTELLIGENCE IS DANGEROUS.

RichM is apparently no longer content to smear Clark in threads where he is mentioned- He now seems to need to START threads that COMPLETELY mischaracterize what CLark said at the Iowa Town Hall...

[Padraig18]

74. I must agree

Either we listened to two different General Clarks, or his characterization of what Clark said, especially as regards pre-emptive war, is completely distorted. The other example Gen. Clark used was that if troops were massing on your border and you KNEW, through intelligence, etc., that they were going to invade, you not only had the right but the *moral obligation to your citizens* to strike pre-emptively. Any other 'read' on the Genereal's statement is a deliberate distortion, and makes the remaining analysis/critique suspect.

[CWebster]

5. Sounds just like Schwartzenegger

Superficial glossing of poll-tested positions and presentation. They are both manufactured products with generic appeal.

Schwartzenegger could be a Republican just as easily as Clark could be a Democrat and still be the same.

What is wrong with this picture?

[RichM]

8. Exactly right. Another point about that glossing of parties....

Clark has that cute l'il poll-tested canned answer for why he "became a Democrat." When he tells it, he says how first he kind of talked to the Republicans; then he talked to the Democrats. This alone implies that as of 2 1/2 years ago, he didn't see much difference himself between the two parties.

This is quite hilarious because if you told a Clark supporter that there really isn't much difference between the parties, they'd probably get all indignant. Yet here, their own hero practically concedes as much!

[TLM]

75. DING DING DING! Give the man a cigar...

"Schwartzenegger could be a Republican just as easily as Clark could be a Democrat and still be the same."


Exactly, it is the EXACT same formula... the neocon assholes to want to push their agenda, but can't win an election, so they get a conservative strong man icon, who mouths all the liberal answers for the social issues, has no real record to be held against, and then when he cons his way into office, he does nothing but push the agenda of his conservative backers.


Clark and Arnold might as well have been sent out by the same casting agency.

[Justice]

6. Your Post Is Not Accurate or Complete

I get that you don't support Clark. I get that Larkspur (and a handful of other serial anti-Clark voters) don't support Clark. But I don't get why you think you are convincing others of your viewpoint by posting messages that mislead and are incomplete.

Wes Clark has said alot of things, really great things, including what he said in Iowa. The Iowa piece was as I recall and hour and a half - so guess what, not everything could be said.

One example you said "This means: no serious attempts to cut the defense budget" In fact, Clark has expressly said in other speeches he would cut the defense budget.

If I listened to one Dean or Kerry or Edwards speech or talk, I bet I could post an equally misleading or incomplete post as well that focuses on what they didn't say (and incorrectly assumes they are against my position). But you know, that is not really helpful to deciding who to support.

Yes, I support Wes Clark. You know why, because I take the time to listen and read what the candidates say in total - not in tidbits.

[RichM]

10. LOL! You say, "The Iowa piece was only 90 min, so not everything

could be said." Well, my post was only a few paragraphs, so "guess what, not everything could be said."

AS to your remark that "Wes Clark has said alot of ...really great things" -- Yes, that's exactly the point. He says things that sound good on the surface, but 1) they don't square with other positions he's taken, and 2) they don't imply a damn thing about real change.

[Larkspur]

21. Thanks for the compliment.

I love being a serial anti-Clark voter

[roughsatori]

57. You are my hero for the day--you just earned an Honor badge

:)

[cprise]

7. This is the impression I am getting

" This means: no serious attempts to cut the defense budget. No reining in the military-industrial complex. No action to curtail the power of big lobbies in Washington. No recognition of the extent to which the Congress has literally been purchased by these lobbies. IOW, a cheery unspoken assumption that the basic structural integrity of American political institutions is sound. (But... it's not sound.)"


Let the pigs gorge themselves in a weak regulatory environment; the politicians and the corporations will keep the money to themselves.

[hippiechick]

9. Bravo and Thank you

I couldn't put my finger on specifically what about a Clark Candidacy bothers me ... but you clarified it for me.

The things that most of us here scream about cannot just be fixed by installing a new Prez at 1600. There are some things about the system and US policies as a whole that are tragically misguided, and have been for a couple generations now. A shiny, happy, status quo dude won't make the hard changes.

You have very keen insight to identify and explain as you have.

Thanks again !


:hippie:

[zeemike]

11. Just a look at the news is telling

CNN reporter this morning covered two stories, the first was the Demo debate and it was all about Clark with lots of pictures of him. The next story was about bush speaking to the military with them in the background.
We are being herded into the military man must win camp shamelessly.

[RandomUser]

12. You're confusing "pre-emptive war" with "preventive war"

Clark says any nation has the right to a pre-emptive war, i.e., when there's as immediate danger, like a 24hr warning and knowledge of a terrorist attack or a toxin spraying helicopter about to attack Iowa.

A preventative war on the other hand has no such 24hr immediacy. There may be a danger, and the danger is real, but it's not going to manifest in the immediate next 24hrs.

He makes the distinction that the Iraq war was a preventative war, and NOT a pre-emptive war. The Bush administration fooled people by conflating the two issues. And it appears that you've bought into the Bush tactic and have allowed yourself to confuse pre-emptive war with preventive war.

[Larkspur]

20. Bush's preventive war is still illegal under international law

and Clark should not have supported it.

Preventive War is not morally defensible. All tyrants and dicators use that logic to expand or entrench their power. Pre-emptive strike can be legitamate if the situation is such that one or more nations are ganging up on another, a la the Arabs and Israel in 1967. When Clinton ordered missile strikes against Osama bin Lade in Afghanistan, that could be defended as a pre-emptive strike because Osama's group had attacked US citizens and property and had declared war on the US.

In 2002 and 2003, Iraq pose NO imminent or near threat to anyone, let alone the United States, and Saddam didn't declare war on the US or it's neighbors. However, North Korea is posing a real threat by aggressively building nuclear weapons and Bush is ignoring it as best it can.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. He Didn't Support It....

If you are going to elevate a misstatement into his policy on the Iraq invasion it betrays a profound intellectual dishonesty which is ok for party hacks but not legitimate debators....


It's positively Liebermanish....

[Zuni]

29. Clark's support was ambivalent at best

his commentary during and before the war was very nuanced and i got the impression he felt Bush was taking a dangerous turn.

Using someone's statements on April 9 (when the statues came down) is not a good gauge of their attitude in general. Even I was cheering when the Saddam statue came down that morning.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. His Position Was The Same As Dean

Both would have supported the invasion if it was done under a U N flag.....

I don't know how if you opposed the war that's a substantial difference...

If any of his supporters can disprove my statement I'll eat my computer....

This is the politics of vanity.... The narcissism of small differences....

[RandomUser]

49. That was exactly Clark's point

He said every nation has a right to pre-emptive war. But NOT preventive war. And Iraq was a preventive war.

[RichM]

24. He used the word "pre-emptive" when speaking about Israel. That's

the same word Bush uses when speaking about his "Doctrine." If you support the notion of pre-emptive war, this means you approve of first strikes -- in other words, naked aggression -- where the "justification" is supplied by the given govt claim that there was "immediate danger."

It's of course another question whether the claim proves to be well-founded, as it did NOT, with the US in Iraq. But by saying Israel has the right to make pre-emptive strikes, he's endorsing the PRINCIPLE of aggression.

[RandomUser]

51. He also used the word "pre-emptive" when talking about Iowa

He was not talking about any particular instance of Israel. But that Israel has the right to "pre-emptive" war just like if Iowa was about to be attacked. But that no nation has the right to "preventive" war, like in the case of Iraq.

And you're damn right I'm in support of pre-emptive war. So is 99% of Americans. He's endorsing the PRINCIPLE of self-defense when there's a 24hr warning of an attack. And I would vote against any president who says we need to allow the attack to take place first in before we can respond. If we have 24hrs advance notice and knowledge that the a toxin-spraying plane from canadian town is about to attack Iowa, any president who doesn't act in a pre-emptive manner should be impeached.

Once again, you're confusing pre-emptive war with preventive war. Just because Bush says Iraq was pre-emptive war, doesn't mean he's right. If you'll watch the replay, you'll see Clark clearly explains the difference. When Clark says "pre-emptive" war, he's not using the Bush definition. Bush's deliberate fudging of the definition was an attempt to fool Americans. And if you buy into Bush's terminology, you've accepted his definition of the terms and his memes.

[RandomUser]

53. And that goes double for Israel

Just because Sharon say's it's a "pre-emptive" attack doesn't mean it's not really a preventive attack covered up with the "pre-emptive" label. Just because he says it's pre-emptive, doesn't mean it is.

I support pre-emptive attacks, but not preventive attacks. And the difference is that in a pre-emptive attack, you have 24hrs notice and knowledge that the enemy will strike. If you know the enemy will strike in the future, but you don't know for certain that it will be in the next 24hrs and the exact nature of the threat, then it's not a pre-emptive attack no matter how you call it so. It's preventive, and Clark is against that. Don't be fooled by Bush and Sharon, don't let them confuse definitions and mislead the masses like they're doing.

[IrateCitizen]

14. May I ask you a question, Rich?

You said, Clark's approach will consist of superficial tweaks of the status quo, without so much as acknowledging any of the deeper problems that lie rotting the core of US society.

Let me analyze that a bit further. Do you think that the average American, those outside of our bubble here at DU, really WANTS to acknowledge the possiblity that US society is "rotting at the core"? What do you think that the reaction of most people would be upon hearing this? Would they welcome such a suggestion, or would they simply dismiss it -- and him, in the process.

You're talking about truths that people aren't willing to hear, because they haven't been at all prepared for them. I would hope that our candidate, whoever it may be, would wait until AFTER being elected to bring anything like this up. Because in bringing it up prior to being elected, they would be buried.

Additionally, for these policies to actually work, they need to be formed in the language of hope, not of despair. Despair only causes rejection, while hope might actually motivate.

[Toucano]

18. I couldn't agree more!

Thanks you! People have to realize that too much negativity will turn people off; either to our candidate or the whole process.

And thanks to RichM for starting an THOUGHTFUL discussion about this. Your observations are fair and reasoned.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Well, I mostly agree with Rich that our society's core is rotting...

We're raping the earth, we're arming ourselves to the teeth, we're being told that buying more stuff will make us happy, we're becoming more and more isolated from each other. Our society is in the throes of a SERIOUS sickness, IMHO. And we'd better snap out of it QUICK!

But Rich and I just have different ideas on HOW to get there. We're in complete agreement on the extent and urgency of the situation.

[Zuni]

31. I think right now, civilization has become deeply disfunctional

In fact, i think human civilization has been disfunctional for thousands of years.
I think man might be too smart and too inventive for his own good, and all the technology is seperating us too far from the rest of the earth.

Hey, that is just my opinion though.

[IrateCitizen]

35. It's providing the ILLUSION of man's separation from the earth

And that is even more dangerous than the separation itself, IMHO.

Technology gives us the illusion that we are masters of the earth, that we are no longer subject to the realities of nature for our subsistence. This has become an incredibly dangerous misconception.

Whether or not we realize it, we are not separate from the earth. We are a PART of the earth. When we ravage it, we are really ravaging ourselves.

David Suzuki, in his book The Sacred Balance, likens life on earth to a spider's web. Humankind is just one small strand on that web -- not at all separated from it, as we would like to believe. Over the past few hundred years, we have been thrashing around in this web, ripping many of the strands all around us. But our strand has remained intact -- for the time being. But increasingly it becomes likely that our thrashing will break one strand of the web too many, and bring OUR strand down with it.

We need to get back to realizing that we are a PART of the earth, and unless we care for it as we would care for ourselves, we are dooming ourselves in the end.

[CWebster]

22. Reality is a burden

But, damnit, someone has to speak it.

[IrateCitizen]

26. Not disagreeing, CWeb.

It's a burden that I often wish I could lose. But my eyes have been opened to the reality of so many things over the past few years, there is no turning back now.

I'm not saying that these are issues that should not be addressed. What I am saying is that if a candidate tried addressing them BEFORE the election, he would lose. Plain and simple.

The first part of the equation is gaining people's trust. The second part is inspiring them. Then, and only then, can you start to reveal to them the lies that they have been told for so long. And if you do it too much too fast, you'll lose them. But at least, at this point, they are willing to do some heavy lifting because they've been inspired to do so.

One of the biggest obstacles we face is the short-term, transitory nature of electoral politics. By the time a person can get to the third stage, they're facing a re-election. And then they become loathe to tell hard truths, because it could spell their defeat.

[CWebster]

33. So, IC

its all in the packaging for the dumbed-down great unwashed?

[IrateCitizen]

37. Don't put words in my mouth, CWeb.

I never said that.

In fact, I'm not even going to justify your sideswipe response with an explanation, because you're implying things I never said.

[CWebster]

40. Horrors, IC!

I was just kidding you. Guess I forget the wink. Touchy, touchy, Sheesh. Most be the Eyetalian in me what makes me so rude. ;-)

[IrateCitizen]

42. Then I apologize -- it's hard to discern sarcasm in typeface without...

the </sarcasm> or ;-)

No harm, no foul.

[Zuni]

28. Language of Hope

good point. None of the candidates say what Rich M. wants them to say, except for kucinich.

The candidate has to stay positive, and not scare the electorate too much--remember he needs grandparents and soccer moms and swing voters, who are unlikely to vote for a fire breathing left winger.

[Toucano]

46. I hate to seem patronizing to the electorate.

BUT if they see the rotting core that some of us see, they could become so depressed that they could no longer function. I know there are days I don't want to get out of bed!

Yes, reality is a burden. But I don't think everyone in our society is prepared to bear that burden. Not fully, anyway.

I don't think any of our candidates are clueless to what's going on. The debate here seems to me to be whether the "Apple pie" approach has merit. I think it does. To the extent that it completely describes Clark, I may not entirely agree, but it is by no means inaccurate.

If Clark (or Dean or Kerry) offers the electorate a pair of rose colored glasses in exchange for Bush's heavy black veil, I can live with that.

[starroute]

34. That's been the problem in presidential elections since 1980

I believe the major reason Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 was that he told people there was a malaise in this country, while Reagan was proclaiming that it was a new morning for America.

For thirty years now, the US has been faced with two overwhelming problems. One involves the economic dislocations that began in 1973 and have been steadily eating away at the US economy and the security of the middle class. The other is the great psychic divide that goes back to the Vietnam War and the demonization of dissent.

The US has been in denial about these problems for three decades now -- and the rest of the world, for its own reasons, has served as enabler. The result is that the American public has never seen any reason to change policies which appear to be successful. In election after election, "things are just fine and can only get better" has won out over "we have serious problems we need to address."

What bothers me the most about this is that I don't know of any historical examples of nations which got this messed up and were able to reform themselves without undergoing a major, demoralizing systems failure first. I don't want the American economy to collapse, any more than I want American 19-year-olds to get shot up in Iraq, but I don't know of anything else that will bring this nation to its senses.

[RichM]

38. Of course, my answer to your question is 'No,' the average American

doesn't want to hear it, for just the reasons you cite.

But going a step further, you say, "I would hope that our candidate...would wait until AFTER being elected to bring anything like this up." Now here, the question becomes strategic -- should Mr. X lay out the grim truth BEFORE or AFTER being elected? And here, one must rely on what the candidate signals about his intentions. My interpretation of Clark is that he has no intention whatever of addressing the "deeper problems" (militarism-imperialism-consumerism-distribution of wealth etc) either BEFORE or AFTER being elected. If I thought he was just being cagey & laying low until the election is past, that would be one thing. But I don't think that.

I think he wants to run on "Apple Pie" -- to continue the process of indoctrination that results (as you put it) in the population "not being at all prepared" & not being "willing" to hear difficult truths.

I readily concede that problems need to be presented & addressed in the language of hope, not despair. However, at least SOMEWHERE in there, with whatever language style one comes up with, the REAL problems have to be addressed. The worst possible approach (& I'll bet David Suzuki would agree) is to continue our deeply-entrenched cultural tradition of NEVER addressing the unpleasant truths at all.

[IrateCitizen]

44. I think I may have addressed some of this in this post, Rich

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=503221&mesg_id=503791&page=

I should also be clear that I am not writing all of this in reference to Clark specifically, but rather in general terms.

[retyred]

15. He said this, this and this.....but

he didn't say this, this, this or this and without saying "THIS", how can he possibly be good for the country. He's just not all things to all people....like my guy!

LOL, one man's opinion is just that, unless he has a parrot (or in this case, a flock of parrots) to repeat it.



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

[KoKo]

16. Thanks Rich for your excellent insight. You raise the issues that we need

to get answers to from our candidates. "Superficial tweaks of the status quo....." are not enough.

We need a major new policy to deal with life after the "Bubble." This isn't the same country it was under Clinton. and after another year of Bush it will be even more foreign to us. I don't think Clark understands that, yet.

[ozone_man]

32. Yes, life after the bubble will be different.

There will be hard choices and some of them involve balancing the budget and where to cut. If we don't, our debt service will soon become unmanagable and bankrupt us. There could be a 5 to 10 year soft depression IMO. It would take a brave candidate indeed to back this forecast, but I think it is enough to start focussing on the main problems, like the deficit, jobs, health care, corporations ruining America. It's going to be tough for whoever wins, hopefully it will not be another corporate candidate to carry on the status quo. The unfolding of the grim future will not result in a strong backlash of voters, if they see a president working aggressively on these problems.

[CWebster]

19. Increasingly our economy is generated by

the Military-Industrial complex. It fuels our stockmarket, generates economic opportunity and investment in war profiteering, and provides employment for growing legions of youth with diminishing employment prospects. Living in a fairly affluent area, I was overwhelmed by the television military recruiting advertising in some of the more rural areas I visited this past week.

At home, people are so cowed and easily manipulated by fear and contrived threats to our security that they willingly sacrifice their children and their freedoms.

The world's policemen is who we have become-more feared and reviled than admired, we are a greater threat to the world than a beacon of freedom that we once imagined ourselves. Is this all we can offer? Why promote the very symbols whose identity promotes that dispised and corrupt image of strength?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. In The Name Of Intellectual Honesty

Dennis Kucinich,Al Sharpton and Wes Clark want to cut the defense budget... All the others including Howard Dean want to maintain it......

Since there ain't a dimes worth of difference between the candidates I will choose the one who can beat *

[CWebster]

30. reallocate funds

would be more accurate.

Sorry, it is not a package that I think would be in the best interest of the entire world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Does The Candidate You Support

favor the dismantling of the American military machine?

[CWebster]

47. Well. I don't think any of them do

especially in this climate.

But they are not generals who have spent their entire lives emeshed in it. Not the image of hope that works for me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. To Me There's Not A Dimes Worth Of Substantive Policy Difference

between Mr.'s Gephardt, Dean, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, and to a superfluosly small difference, Lieberman...

They all read from the same foreign/domestic policy hymmbook with some small stylistic differences to separate themselves from the pack and to give pseudointellectual candy to their often naive supporters....

Only Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and to a smaller extent, Carol Moseley Braun will change the paradigm and they are not where the action is...

Rich M could have made the same critique of any of the "mainstream candidates"


Why do I gravitate to the man with the stars and bars?

Cuz I see no difference between him and the others and I believe he has the best chance to beat Bush...

If I thought any of the others had a better chance of beating Bush I'd hitch a ride on their bus....

It's like buying a new car.... If I can get my Accord at Smith Honda for $1,000,00 cheaper than Jones Honda I'm going to Smith's...

[doc03]

55. Clark is the only chance we have

I hope I am wrong, the GOP has labeled all NE Democrats as liberal
and unelectable. I think Clark will be the only one that will have a chance. The blue states are going to vote on the guns, gays and
God issues. If they can pin the liberal name on them they are finished. Watch Bush now he is going to pump billons into California
and will be living with Arnold over the next few months. If he can
get California we're finished.

[CWebster]

61. Look - this doesn't seem to penetrate

Am I shouting in the wind or what? No generals - no life-long representitives of the military industrial complex elevated to the leadership of the lone super-power policing the world. The general should be scrutinized rather than embraced as hero, getting off with sketchy responses to softball questions. NPR had some bubbly bimbo, gushing over Schwartzenegger addressing the press pool and being such a swell guy for the "hard time we gave him", to which another commentator responded "You never asked him the hard questions". Same stage for the general.

No, I met parents who read letters from their son stationed in Iraq. He drove the first truck in a long convoy and describes being hit constantly from Kuwait to Bagdad. How at night they sleep on the roof and the fireworks from gunfights go on all night long. My own father experienced the horror of war and had nothing but contempt for generals. No military recognition or medals, no pride or glory. It was not long ago we learned this lesson in Viet Nam, but fortunately there was a culture that opposed the mindset, rather than wrapping it all in a flag and saluting our military police state hated by the world. I have no kneejerk adulation for the general and his chest full of medals - which to me represent the worst attributes of male dominion on the evolutionary scale.

[Rowdyboy]

63. What a totally tacky response to a new poster...

Welcome, Doc03. In spite of what you may have seen recently, there are many rational, serious, non-hateful members of this board. Some tend to forget that their ideas are essentially relevent only to themselves and want them accepted as gospel. Many more do not and welcome honest debate.

Again, welcome.

[CWebster]

64. Sort of a coy putdown

under the guise of welcoming a new poster - who you might just as likely be pointing the finger of newbie freeper accusation at if he didn't echo your own sentiments.
I'll take that attack as a lack of response.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I Respectfully Suggest You Look Past The Uniform...

If folks on the left argue that only retrograde neanderthals can serve in the military that is exactly what we will get....

[Rowdyboy]

78. Not intended to be coy at all...

It was quite deliberate. I wanted to apologise to a new person I felt had been treated shabbily by an older member of this board. I was put down pretty powerfully when I was new here by one jerk with a large post count. It's really unpleasant and I still dislike the ass who did it. "Am I shouting in the wind or not..." is, in my opinion, an extremely rude way to treat someone whose sole sin is that he or she doesn't agree with you 100%.

Thus my apology.

And, again, Doc03, welcome. There's a huge amount of value in DU if you can just learn where to look. Enjoy!

:toast:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. In Any Case

Wisdom and low post count are not mutually exclusive....

[Donna Zen]

70. Dennis Kucinich,Al Sharpton and Wes Clark want to cut the defense budget

So which one actually knows where the bodies are buried? Who of all the candidates has the credibility to go to the Repub Congress and the befuddled American people and make the cuts that need to be made.

Could it be that Clark's position that we must return to the "Fairness Act" might signal he's desire to advance the truth to the American public and thus be able to govern inspite of Tom DeLay?

[sangh0]

36. All complaints, no action - another "there's no difference" screed

While you did a fine job writing about the problem, you offer no hint of a way out, not that I expected one. It's always easier to identify the problem. The Republicans have made a specialty of making up problems.

And it's funny how Clark is singled out when not one candidate is saying that our fundamental problem is that we are a militarized plutocracy (btw, are there any non-militarized plutocracies?)

IOW, this is merely a well-worded piece of propoganda that does nothing to advance the pieces supposed agenda (reducing the power of the military and the plutocrats, etc) and instead merely puts forth the Green/Repuke idea that "there's no difference"

I'll be more convinced that you actually want to do something about the growing power of the MIC and the plutocrats when you do something that might actually further that goal.

[RichM]

41. I have to diagnose AND cure the world's problem, all in one post?

That's too hard. I was hoping you'd give me until later this afternoon to come up with a solution. ;-)

[sangh0]

48. You're missing the point, again

You don't have to CURE the world's problem, but I would think that someone who presents themself as being primarily concerned about these issues would at the very least

a) NOT contribute to your opponents future successes by repeating their "there's no difference" propoganda

b) identify some sort of realistic and practical alternative. Instead of identifyig the problem, you merely simulate the identification by substituting a complaint.

Hint: You've done nothing to identify the problem because the MIC, the plutocrats, etc are not the problem, they are just a symptom. The problem is with the majority of people who don't have the skills to identify the lies they've been told. By placing the problem with individual politicians, political parties, etc, you contribute to the fallacy of learned helplessness which claims that ordinary citizens can't change the system, which is the point of the "there's no difference" propoganda.

on edit: In addition to missing the point, you are also hiding behind the straw man "Am I supposed to Cure the world's problems"
IOW, your rant serves no purpose other than the conter-productive one of discouraging people from being politically aware, involved, and active because in the end, "there's no difference". I'll believe in your sincerity when you stop acting in a counter-productive manner, and ENCOURAGE political activity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. I think the reaction to Clark

as opposed to Kerry, Gephardt, etc. stems from the fact that Clark has come out of nowhere to gain the lion's share of publicity.

I really do feel that the media establishment (not the wingnuts on Fox, but the center-right types who run the mainstream networks and CNN) has decided that Bush and his buddies are a runaway team that will land the country in a ditch.

However, the idea of real change terrifies them, since it jeopardizes their comfy positions and cozy interactions with the power elite, so they ignore proponents of real change, like Kucinich (who is caught in a self-fulfilling vicious circle of no coverage and no support) and gravitate toward Wesley Clark, who is a new face (a REALLY new face with no more government experience than Schwarzenegger and less public exposure), a general who they hope will appeal to Bubba, a proponent of the social issues that the white wine and Brie crowd cares about, and a handsome face (very important).

He's similar to the Gephardts and Liebermans in politics, but has more crowd appeal. But he's basically a status quo type of guy.

If he were ever to come out and propose something outside of conventional wisdom, like single-payer health care or an end to foreign interventions that were purely to protect business interests (a la Colombia and Venezuela), the media would drop him immediately.

[RichM]

60. That is certainly some of it. There are also other dimensions, however,

that make Clark even worse than Kerry et al.

First, there is something humiliatingly lacking in self-respect, that Democrats would welcome with open arms someone who voted for Reagan-Nixon-GHW Bush, & even after the stolen election & the tax cut of '01, was still singing the praises of Bush & all the PNAC guys.

Second, a Clark candidacy transmits the message that the right place to look for leadership in times of trouble is to the military. People worried about US militarism are not going to appreciate this not-so-subtle message (though of course Bubba will).

[welshTerrier2]

39. A Few Points on Clark

nice essay, Rich ... thoughtful as usual ...

a couple of points of contention / clarification ...

He also had very acceptable liberal positions on abortion

i'm not so sure about this ... Clark said something to the effect, and i'm paraphrasing as best i remember, that abortions must be kept safe and legal ... but then he added the very disturbing tag line: "at least for the first trimester, anyway ..." ... what the hell does this suggest? it sounded like he was leaving the door open to who knows what additional restrictions to the current law ... this requires a very specific, well-directed follow-up ...

he explicitly said Israel had the right to PRE-EMPTIVELY ATTACK its enemies and a tacit endorsement of the "Bush Doctrine."

the longterm doctrine for war has been one of "imminent threat" ... perhaps i'm mincing words (or mangling concepts) but i don't think "pre-emptive" attack is the "bush doctrine" ... the b.a.d. (bush attack doctrine) is pre-emptive attack without the presence of a bonafide imminent threat ... one could argue I.P. issues all day, but if Clark was endorsing pre-emptive attacks by Israel against a bonafide imminent threat (and i don't assume this to be either true of false), then i have no problem with his position except to say that he needs to be far more specific and careful when outlining his position on such important issues ...

you will realize that Clark offers cosmetic changes only.

i draw a distinction between failures of the DLC to tackle the critical issues you highlighted in your post and what you labeled as "cosmetic" changes ... i agree with you wholeheartedly that some of the most critical issues, issues that lie at the core of problems in this country, involve capitalistic abuses, the military-industrial complex and the catering of our elected officials to influential lobbyists ... but i think the term cosmetic goes a little over the top ... there are real and important differences between Clark and the republicans ... we are witnessing the destruction of the middle class ... we are watching the wholesale export of jobs ... we are seeing less and less funding for health, education and welfare ... our energy policies are nothing but giveaways to big oil ... all of the changes you argue for must occur ... but the skirmishes and battles under the "corrupted superstructure" of capitalism must be fought now ... even if the big changes you advocate will take years to come about ...

[leetrisck]

52. Sorry he didn't respond to all

your well-reasoned thoughts in one fell swoop. Can you name any politician who has done this in any detail - even one - most of us could come up with dozens of questions of any politician and they will never be answered.

[kang]

59. A Clark's supporters honest take on Clark

Ok, first things first. The difference btw Clark and Schwartzenegger is that the General isn't a sexual predator and served honorably in the Vietnam war rather than playing some war "hero."

Second, you are right that so far Gen. Clark's talks have been general and have quite a moderate tone. But you're wrong in believing that he doesn't see fundamental problems w/our society beyond how we interact w/the rest of the world. He's stated his belief that our nation's public school system shouldn't be any different than the school system for military children (which is more diverse and has better test averages). He's also used the Army to argue for universal health care as a goal.

On the foreign policy front, he's advocated in his new book the creation of a department for foreign aid in order to give it the real priority it deserves. This is smart on nat'l security grounds, humanitarian grounds, and helps promote development and democratic societies. That's a pretty big idea that's going relatively unnoticed by people here on DU. It's an idea that has long been needed and I believe it is a fundamental change in our foreign policy. Here's a link for those interested. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=foreign&s=greene100703

Now I do admire Gov. Dean for the most part and I don't want to get into the whole "who's liberal enough vs. who's electable" thing here, but it is my hope that people do understand that Gov. Dean is a solid moderate on the majority of issues. He's not an idealogue, but a guy who just tries to fix problems. That's what doctors do. So while I understand the Kucinich crowd's need for ideological purity ("Tear down the whole system" attitude), I'm not sure I understand where the Dean mainstream is in their thinking.

Finally (promise), somebody mentioned that it takes more than winning White House to get this country back in the right direction. Bingo. That is why I support Clark. It isn't just because I believe he would be a better commander-in-chief than anybody in the race or that I trust his leadership on the issue of genocide and humanitarian intervention, BUT also because members of Congress need a Presidential candidate that is about unifying and providing a platform that will bring in moderates, independents and disgruntled Republicans (there are more than a few due to the handling of Iraq). Saying you're against Bush lite and that you're the Democratic "wing" of the party strongly suggests that there are members of the party that aren't liberals and are dead weight. Not the kind of help a representative needs in a reelection campaign. Plus, as baffling as it is to all of us, many people don't hate Bush and they will discount any message that they believe comes from that source.

I hope those that have doubts about Clark will have some of their questions answered in tonight's debate. That is if you watch the re-broadcast after the baseball games!

*edits for grammar

[maha]

66. Your post is a very skillful smear.

I could take any one speech, even a long one, by any of the candidates and smear him or her exactly the same way -- he didn't address such and such an issue in THIS speech, so that must mean he thinks (fill in blank according to your own personal prejudices).

In other words, you ain't sayin' shit about Wesley Clark. You're just revealing your own prejudices about Wesley Clark. If I did the same thing to YOUR candidate, I'm sure you'd have a fit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Don't Be So Hard On Rich...

His beef is that Clark is a center-left* mainstream candidate....

Well so is Dean, Gep, Edwards, Lieberman, and Kerry.....


I'll bet my last dollar that one of those folks will emerge as the nominee....

If we could turn back the clock to 2000 I would be happy.... I thought we were on the right track.....

Rich wants to shake the kaleidoscope and build the world anew....

Well, not in his lifetime and not in mine....

I'm happy just to muddle through...



*Rich might think he's center right...

[RichM]

85. Thanks for trying to protect me from that mean ol' poster, Brian.

I really think (s)he wanted to hurt me!

I can take it, though. :-) I figure, if the Clark people get angry, I must be doing something right!

You're right that I see Clark as center-right, & that I see the rest of the pack (all but DK & AS) the same way. You're right about my wanting to shake the kaleidoscope, etc, too. Unfortunately, you're probably also right about "not in our lifetimes." ... :scared:

[maha]

90. See my message #88 on this thread.

Explains my position.

[RichM]

83. A "skillful smear?" Do ya really think so? Hey, Thanks!

I was figgerin' that you wouldn't be cagey enough to see through it. Darn it - I sure was wrong! :cry:

[bluefire2000]

69. Basically, you're analysis is

that he's not as left-wing as you would like him to be, if I may cut to the chase. His more moderate, yet still Democratic views, are in line with, well, more moderate voters.

True, he won't appeals as strongly to the most liberal democrats, and he could have trouble getting the nomination as a result.

[RichM]

73. Yes and No. But the 'No' is an extremely important one.

Being a status quo guy at a time when the society's underlying weaknesses are reaching truly dangerous proportions -- this itself is, well, Dangerous. I see our society as headed straight for an iceberg, & it's not that far ahead. Switching captains merely to get a new face who'll rearrange the deckchairs in a more tasteful fashion -- this is not going to help, and the clock keeps ticking.

I'm not concerned that Clark "might have trouble getting the nomination." I'm concerned that he might get elected, & do nothing to address the real problems. One can already see that the media like him -- which they wouldn't if he threatened the status quo in the slightest degree.

[bluefire2000]

77. so you're concerns is that

he simply represents the status quo. Hmmm... Well, he may represent less of a departure from the status quo, then, say, Ralph Nader. Society has an inherent incentive in protecting the status quo, so it is always difficult to change.

What are the underlying weaknesses that you feel are so dangerous, or am I mssing something in your post? I'm concerned about the insipient fascism of the current administration, and about the tentativity of our media in addressing substantive issues myself.

I think any of the current Dem candidates would be a step in the right direction.

[Dover]

82. Nice job. I have found it difficult to separate Clark from Lieberman,

Kerry or Gephardt on most issues...particularly foreign issues.
If his supporters would like to outline the differences in specific terms, I'm all ears (or eyes).

I just read that leading Democrats in Texas and some other state are supporting Clark though I wonder EXACTLY what they are basing their decisions on. Is it that Clinton has endorsed him? Is this how their electoral votes will go?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. Where Would You Put DK, HD, AS, CMB in

this scheme....


My contention is that only DK, AS, and CMB are fundamentally different...

[Dover]

86. And you are suggesting then, that Dean and Clark are not far apart?

Where are the similarities?
I'm not a Dean supporter but would place him somewhere between DK,AS, and CMB and the group of insiders (JL,JK,Gep,Clark).

Still looking for specifics that would separate Clark from the insider crowd...particularly regarding foreign affairs.

[maha]

88. You aren't looking real hard, are you?

Don't just look for a "protest" candidate. The circus if full of people who would be real outsider candidates, but there's a chance the clown could be president. Notice what California did to itself yesterday.

What you have to understand is that the office of President of the United States is constitutionally very weak. Presidents have relatively little power compared to heads of state of other nations. So every four years they promise the moon, but then they get into office and learn they can't actually do most the things they promised, because Congress has all the power.

So that gets us back to effectiveness. "Outsider" presidents (Jimmy Carter, for example) often are ineffective because they lack the political skill to work with Congress. Without some cooporation with the entrenched Powers that Be -- well, we might as well nominate a potted plant. And the Pubs will take the White House back in 2008.

Historically, the great presidents have all been master politicians first and foremost -- Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, whoever. These guys knew where the bodies were buried and could play their political opponents like violins. That's what you want to look for in a candidate; not how "different" he is. You want someone who's ideas are compatible with yours AND who would be effective at carrying out his policies.

So, like it or not, if you nominate and elect somebody who's got NO respect from the Powers That Be, and lacks the political skills to play well with others, it doesn't matter what he says he's gonna do, because the Powers That Be will never let him do it.

Al Sharpton is very entertaining, but let's face it -- nearly any vertebrate organism would make a better president.

And Dennis Kucinich is a flake. I'm real sorry if the boy is Your Boy, but that's how I see it, and that's how the whopping majority of Democrats see it. He'll be gone after New Hampshire, so there's no point arguing about him.

Of all of the remaining candidates, Clark has the most experience at foreign policy, has written copiously on foreign policy (so if you don't know nothin' about his foreign policy ideas, it's your own fault), and has a background that IMO makes him Most Likely to Extracate Us From Iraq Without Further Pissing Off the Rest of the World.

On the other hand, of the group with a chance to be nominated, I like Dean for domestic policy, and my impression is that he's the sort of politician who can work with the system but be tough with it at the same time. Highly desirable trait.

Carol Mosely Braun is lovely and she's been terrific in the debates. I don't think she has a prayer for the nomination, but I'm rootin' for her to get a cabinet position in the new Dem Administration.

As for the remaining old pols -- They all have the same Big Negative of having voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution. If it weren't for that I'd be pretty excited about Edwards, who has done very well in the debates, but the voting record worries me.

That leaves us with Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman, and those three are too married to the status quo to be trusted.

So, I will be voting for whatever the Dems nominate, but I'm rooting for either Clark or Dean for the nomination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. To Me Gep, Edwards,Dean, Lieberman,Kerry, and Clark

all operate from the same assumptions on defense and foreign policy issues...

They all have supported all or most of the post Viet Nam adventures with the exception of Gulf War 2...

[maha]

87. Different from what?

A fish? compost? the letter J? I can't see what assumptions you're carrying around in your head unless you spell them out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. You Have To Read Both Post 82 and 84

The poster was seeming to imply Dean's positions are unique... I take issue with that....

[maha]

91. Nobody's positions are unique.

There isn't a whole lot of difference among the lot of them on the issues. Kucinich supporters like to pretend their boy is unique, but he isn't.

[Dover]

92. I should have known better than to ask Clark supporters for some

specifics regarding their candidates issue differences...particularly on Iraq and foreign issues (since that is THE area Clark supporters say he is strongest on). There is nothing IMPLIED by my initial post other than to ask Clark supporters to spell out the major differences SPECIFICALLY, between Clark and the "insiders" views...like Lieberman. Is that so difficult? Do you even know? Would you rather not say?