The Shadow falls over Wesley Clark.

The March of the Skeletons.
From get go, I noticed that aura about Clark. It was nothing I could put my finger on mind you just that something about a man who was running, who wasn't "technically" running. Who seemed just a little too chummy with the DNC.

Never the less, he had an impressive following. Many a person who's opinion I deeply respect James spoke glowingly of "The General" as some have come to call him. His military credentials were something to behold, as I was told, and held the respect and admiration of foreign leaders all over the world. Or so my American peers said. He was even "anti-war" as even the "liberal biased media" stated, which he commanded with "impressive media relationships skills."

Still, their was just something about him that I just couldn't put my finger on.

Then FAIR put their finger on it, by digging into the CNN archives to see what "military expert Clark" said up to and during the happenings of the Iraq war. And his comments vary quickly shot down his anti-war banner. And the back peddling started. Being "anti-war" quickly became being "critical of the war". But even this criticism was never dished out without first heaping the obligatory praise and admiration for Bush and his military command. And then would always be followed by a profound statement of his loyalty and how ready he was to go the distance, mistakes and all.

And what was the Clark supporter's response? Wrath, just indigent, unrestrained flaming. How dare some of us try to smear a Democrat. Not just that, but the only Democrat who can beat Bush. We were doing "Karl Rove's work for him!" Well, such charges might hold more credibility if they didn't equate FAIR as being a secret undercover CIA misinformation core. After all, look at Rush Limbaugh attacking Clark.

But the notion that Clark was some how being vilified by the media was smashed the day he announced. Instantly, he was anointed "presumed front runner" by the media, and started turning leads in the polls. The same polls that once showed Bush as being a popular president I might add. Even as an anti-war candidate, he got lots of air time in the network news. Programs that would barely even mention either Dean or Dennis K, despite their anti-war positions.

His anti-war credentials quickly came to an end. Even him being critical of the war was exposed when he said he would have voted for the Iraq resolution, even with the benefit of hindsight. The vary next day, he changed his mind and suddenly, he would have voted against it. But the damage was already done. His true opinion had been reviled, and his sudden "change of heart" showed he had absolutely no convictions about even his own opinions.

And this proved to be only the beginning. Over the past two weeks, a virtual army of skeletons has started pouring out of Clark's closet like some kind of D-Day invasion.

Red Flag here! Clark was "let go" of his position as Allied Command in Kosivo by Clinton when he tried to over step his authority, and almost attacked a Rush contingent planing on moving into an air field to support their authorized involvement in the reign.

Red Flag here! He was invited too, and accepted an opportunity to speak at a Republican dinner, where Clark spoke glowingly of the current Bush administration. Even said that he looked foreword to working with them in the future.

Red Flag here! He did fund raising for a Republican candidate.

Red Flag here! He tried to step into Chenny's shoes to run as Bush's vice president for the Republican ticket.

Red Flag here! Clark is a board member to an air-line company that sold personnel information about their passengers to the US military, in order to help them build their "total information awareness" system. A program called CAPSII.

Red Flag here! Clark is also a board member to the National Endowment for Democracy. A right wing organization that bankrolled the destabilization in Venezuela.

These red flags on not signs that some one is a "republican light" but that of some one who is a full blown, 100%, mama raised, neo-con. But this doesn't show from his past exploits. Shortly after he announced his running for president, he was asked about the Iraq War resolution. And he said he would have voted for it if he would have been in congress at the time. And then a day later, he said he didn't. Huh?

And then we have something that is just bizarre. From Clark's "100 year vision" plan he says, and I quote. "We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act." What? The homestead act? What is he thinking? No, seriously, I want to know what he is thinking? We have Enron's falling down around our ears and he is thinking about moving? His vision of the 21st century involves something from the 19th? What is he planning on doing? Turning over park land to logging companies? Encouraging the building of theme parks on Super Fund Sights? (Don't laugh. They tried to build one on top of an abandoned ammo dump outside Lawrence, Kansas.) Perhaps we will be encouraged to settle Afghanistan and Iraq? Will the native their, come to the same fate as the natives of America under a Clark administration? Don't laugh at that either. Remember a little thing called PNAC? It talks about "remaking the middle east in our image." You don't think PNACers think that image includes colored people, do you?

Am I loony? Perhaps I am. But the question remains, just what douse he mean by mentioning the Home Stead Act. In my researching this post, I can find no expansion on this idea, no explanation of why Clark felt it necessary to mention the Home Stead Act.

In Clarks Defense?
These particular skeletons are rather frightening. Just one is needed to scare away many of his would be supporters. But what has truly been raising the eye-brows on the DU isn't the bad news about Clark, as much as it is the quality, and quantity of Clark Defenders

To my knowledge, not one of the stories above has been successfully refuted. Despite consistently repeating the claims that they have. There have been very few attempts to even address these claims. For one thing, a lot of this stuff can not be refuted, because they are confirmed facts, even conceded by Clark himself. Clark's past community is a mater of public record, and Clark doses sit on the board of some ridiculously right wing organizations.

So how do Clark supporters respond? By defending the indefensible. CAPTSII for example, suddenly morphs from evil-big-brother, to a positive initiative on the war on terror. Clark's past dealings with the Republican GOP are now held up as examples of his by-partisan nature and his personal integrity. The comments Clark made about Bush and other PNACers becomes "damnation through fait praise" as one DUre puts it.

But most of the time, they respond through Ad hominem attacks and arguments. One approach is attacking Dean, claming that Dean is far worse, or trying to hang Dean with the same rope. by charging the author as "working for Karl Rove," or of working for the Dean campaign. I have even seen come threatened libel law suites against DUers who discover new dirt. The flaming has gotten so bad as to force the moderators to bring out new rules to try and restore some kind of functional civility. But the flame wars will continue, so long as Clark remains candidate.

The Straw man back-up.
Ah, but help is on the way for our beleaguered Clark supporters. For one example of Clark-dirt has been addressed, and done so quite well. A fact that Clark supporters now beat the rest of us over the head with as an example of our intentions to "get Clark."

It's just too bad that the DU didn't come up with it. This particular example was spun out by Rush Limbaugh. It seems that Clark has ties to the Wako disaster/massacre. The tie? Apparently he was in the requisition officer that signed off on the use of the flammable-tear gas. So Rush claims that Clark now some how ordered the death of the Branch Dividians. But so far, I have seen no subsistence to support this aligation.

The only folks I see this bring this up, ironically, are the Clark supporters. But none of the Clark critics on the DU defend or press the allegation, because it HAS been refuted. Clarks position at the time was not involved in the command structure of the Wako incident. He wasn't even a part of the operation. He had zero authority. And thus, zero liability.

But this is a common conservative debating strategy, commonly used by creationists. Prove one allegation wrong, and the rest automatically become wrong.

When such dishonest debating tactics are used, they intend to enforce, not dismiss the allegations.

A mater of Character.
Both Clark's past, the quality of those who defend him, and the qualities of people, whom Clark would endorse and work with, are all reflections of his Character. Even more so in the absence of a voting record. But the supporters claim that "Clark has no political background" from which to judge the quality of his political positions has already been proven false. But even if this was true, upon what to the Clark supporters base their support on Clark? What ever his current rhetoric, his past demands that we be skeptical.

Clark: The Carpet Baggier of retail politics.
And old Indian saying, "He speaks much, but says little." Even as the Clark supporters are quick to dismiss the meanings of his own words when it comes to his many past praises for the current administration. They practically swoon over every thing else he has said. Here is an example of "Clark's positions on the issues."

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. Clark, from a recent speech.
Found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=470739&mesg_id=470739&listing_type=

The Clark supporters, and I suspect Clark himself, are laboring under the impression that being a Democrat only involves passing a check list. I'm pro-choice, check; I am pro-affirmative action, check. The entire speech can be summed up as thus. "I am pro A, and I am pro B, and I am pro C....." Thus far, every thing I have read from him, is little more than a summery of platitudes and politically expedient speech, with the creativity of a market driven poll. Clark's campaign is starting to sound like a broken record. A records that isn't even his.

The Clear and Present Danger, that is Clark.
"But," the Clark supporters will respond, "Clark is the only one who can defeat Bush." They like to point to such convincing assists as the fact that he is a military General, err, retired any way. That he announced his campaign in Florida. That he is a man of integrity that can really mop the floor with Bush in the debates. And last but not least, Clark will win the south! (I pause to permit you to regain your composure.)

Of course, there is always the inverse argument. If you don't support Clark, than you are in fact supporting Bush, because of all the other candidates, such as Dean and Kerry, wouldn't stand a chance in the General election. It's actually a rehash of the old liberal vs centrist debate that in and of itself is the center of much heated discussion on the DU.

Clark's ties from to the DLC, and his position of as a centrist is not in doubt. But what IS in doubt is weather a centrist can still win? Clinton did well on the platform, but the centrists have been losing serious ground ever sense the aftermath of the 2000 Elections in Florida. The DLC tells us that they are in this to win elections, but how convicting is that when they tell us to "just get over it" when the Republicans steal the election.

Clark was actively selected because of his centrist credentials. Much in the same way as Leabermen was chosen as Gore's running mate. The problem is that the Democrats are lusting after the Republican party base, rather than trying to build their own. In fact, we now see the DLC sacrificing their base in pursuit of the "Ragan Democrats, now renamed the "NASCAR Dad." Huh? The problem is that the American public is becoming increasingly polarized, split along the right, increasingly loyal to the Republican party, and the liberals and progressives, still waiting for a second party to show itself.

Clark's chances of victory in the general election are not as good as we might be led to believe. Just the demographics of how the new districts have been drawn for example, give the Republicans a growing electoral advantage. Plus, we have Biebold a growing influence in the vote counting, which Clark has yet to register in his campaign.

But the danger as I see it, isn't the possibility of Clark losing in the general election. The danger is what he would do if he should win. Or more accurately, what he will NOT do. He will NOT clean house. Clinton did win, he won by defeating H. W. Bush. And yet here we are, as if Clinton never existed. At best, Clark will just sit on his thumbs and let the PNACers walk away, keeping their pensions, keeping the billions of tax dollars that they have looted, and remain free from prosecution or investigations of corruption and wrong doing. They will lick the political wounds, and return to the ranks of the GOP, the corporate board rooms, and AM radio stations. There, they will bide there time, until another GOP shill is elected, and they will once again return to the white house.

Clark will not challenge the Globalist Neo-con's, the true power in the world. Why should he, he is a PART of the Globalizations ruling class. He is ether on the board, or works as a high level adviser for 11 corporations. And while good times may return to America, and I stress, may, you can be assured that things will continue to deteriorate around the world as the poor nations under Americas blanket of protection continue to become poorer still, or continue to suffer the rule of US back dictators.

We sill also not see Clark make any changes to the DLC's power structure. Terry McKaffy can rest assured, knowing that Clark will protect his position of power. After all, McAuliffe had a hand in selecting Clark in the first place. If you think the Clark rhetoric is bad now, just waste as the Democrats continue, or even accelerate their purge of liberals and progressives from the party.

Clark will be more than prepared to deal with, and compromise with the GOP. Giving them more than equal time, even as the business of the people are only given lip service or new panels, designed to investigate the issues into infinity.

We know this, because this is the true party platform of the DLC centrist democrats. Here is the problem. The vaunted Democratic party has been compromised. Compromised by political expedient deal making, as well as by corporations, the Democrats, or at least the part of it run by the DLC, have the same masters as the Republicans. The same agenda, the same goals, the same world view. While certain Democrats rail against this claim, the fact is undeniable that the Democratic party is just as concerned over the "crises of Democracy" as the neo-con Republicans, as mentioned in the "Grand Chessboard."

The fact that Clark can beat Bush isn't the issue. The question is who is Clark loyal to? Its time that we refuse to be so easily distracted by the shiny objects on Clark's chest, and start reading between the lines.