good article on Wes Clark at www.salon.com

[roguevalley]

Here's a piece of it:


Clark stirs something even in people who usually don't fall for mawkish campaign rhetoric. On Oct. 14, Harold Bloom, the venerable Yale humanities professor, cultural conservative and defender of the Western canon, published a remarkable encomium to Clark in the Wall Street Journal's ordinarily right-wing editorial page with the portentous title "Cometh the Hour." In it, he references Edmund Gibbons "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and writes, "It is not at all clear whether we are already in decline: bread is still available for most and circuses for all. Still, there are troubling omens, economic and diplomatic, and a hint or two from Gibbon may be of considerable use ... We need, at just this time, a military personage as president, one who is more in the mode of Dwight Eisenhower than of Ulysses Grant. In Wesley Clark, we have a four-star general and former NATO commander who is a diplomatic unifier, an authentic hero, wise and compassionate. That Gen. Clark saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo is irrefutable, despite current deprecations by worried supporters of the president. They are accurate only in their anxieties."

I remember this guy. Very conservative. I am amazed at his comments.

RV

[annxburns]

1. Big Dog checks in ....

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031022-104645-8779r.htm

[roguevalley]

3. Interesting.

<regarding the paper's article>

I dislike the writer's speculation about
Hillary being a candidate. She couldn't win in this
climate, with the stakes this high. IMHO. And that
assumes that Dean will fail. Dean, I feel will be
one of noms. Dean said Hillary told him she wasn't
going to run. I believe him. I like that he talks so
congenially with others. That is what we all need.
Conversations, such as with Hillary and Clark and
good relationships.

Clark, I believe, is playing to win, just like Dean
and Kerry. The others wish they could but they seem
more ideological runners in the best way. They are
bringing to the table important issues that will be
worked over when the convention builds the party
platform.

Dean, Kerry and Clark. I don't see a weinie in the
bunch. Also, I don't see anything farther right
than a progressive centrist. Anyone of them I can
live with. Very well, thank you. :)

[hedda_foil]

2. Bloom's not just very conservative.

He's a disciple of Strauss. Leo Strauss.

[QC]

17. You're thinking of Alan Bloom, not Harold Bloom.

Two entirely different people. Alan Bloom was a classics scholar who has been dead for a number of years. Harold Bloom is a literary critic who is a cultural conservative, but not a political one. He is, in fact, a Democrat.

[RandomUser]

19. Thanks for clearing that up

Mistaken identities can definitely lead to confusion.

[roughsatori]

4. Bloom's "encomium" lends weight to those who post that Clark is a tool

of the Straussians. Bloom's endorsement would cause me to have serious doubts about anyone who was running as a Presidential nominee.

[roguevalley]

6. this implies somehow that one is not able or allowed to change their

mind. if I can change my mind, so can he. I find
it interesting that if you are conservative, you
cannot change. Sort of mirror images the idea
most conservatives have about liberals and
progressives. IMHO. :)

[DrBB]

22. Please read above, if you haven't: WRONG BLOOM

Not meaning to lecture you, but if others read this they'll be confused. This is Harold Bloom, the highly respected and accomplished literary scholar, not Alan Bloom, the Chicago-school conservative.

[Julien Sorel]

5. I'm familiar with some of his criticism, and he isn't conservative

to my mind. He won his spurs by rejecting the so-called 'New Criticism' of the likes of T.S. Eliot and John Crowe Ransom, which was dominant in his day, preferring instead a return to Romanticism. He later made another lurch, rebelling against the Deconstructionist school, which was becoming dominant, and made a push for his own style of criticism, which if it has a name, the name escapes me right now. From a literary standpoint, he's a maverick. I'd like to see something showing him as a conservative -- I know about some of the people he ran with at Yale, and they were anything but conservative.

[QC]

18. He's not a conservative.

That was a case of mistaken identity--someone confused him with Alan Bloom. (Of course, that Bloom is not really a conservative either, at least not in the William Bennett sense.)

Here's what Harold Bloom has to say on the subject, from an online conference:

Harald Zils from Hamilton, NY: Would you consider yourself a conservative (as many others do)?

HB: I think that is silly. I am a lifelong Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican, nor would I ever. I am, in fact, a, and this is again a way in which social politics distorts how things are going on. That is to say that if you in intrinsic values then you are a conservative -- that is absolutely absurd. If we have really reached the point the judgement that William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy is better than Toni Morrison and BELOVED makes conservative, then the struggle to uphold any standards of disinterested literature is lost. I find that question extremely offensive.

http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1998/1251.html

[RandomUser]

7. I can relate to the Richards person

That Salon.com article is really insightful, well worth viewing the sponser ad to get to the premium section.

Many of Clark's followers say that while Dean speaks to their rage, Clark, four-star general, intellectual, humanitarian and war hero, speaks to their longing for something higher. "He's obviously the best man at this time in history," says Alexandra Richards, a New Jersey stay-at-home mother with a 2-year-old child and an unemployed husband. Figuring that their economic prospects are unlikely to improve as long as Bush is in office, Richards and her husband are considering selling their house and moving to Clark's home base in Little Rock to volunteer for the campaign full-time. "Dean makes me angry about the present," Richards writes in an e-mail. "Clark, on the other hand, gives me HOPE for the future. Hope feels better than anger."

Richards, like several other Clark supporters, was a Deanie until the general entered the race. There's no statistical evidence showing that Dean's supporters are peeling off in favor of Clark, but anecdotes abound. "Dean has a whole year on this guy, but I can tell you this, the Dean supporters I know, I've suggested that they watch Clark," says Christopher Dale, a 34-year-old San Diego public relations executive. "When they have checked him out, he's won all of them over."

------

Many Clark supporters are grateful for Dean's steadfast bravery in challenging the president on Iraq when few others were willing, and they appreciate his pugnacity, but they find him exhausting and can't imagine him charming those who disagree with him. "The thing about Dean, a lot of people could find him unreasonable and a bit shrill," says Moritz. "He reminds me a lot of the guys I marched with during the antiwar marches. You want to listen to what they're saying, it's invigorating, but you also know they are turning off a lot of people by their intensity."

Dean promises to fight back against the right's vicious partisanship. Clark's supporters see their man as someone who can transcend it. "Dean's rhetoric is not appealing to people who want a healing of the government, a healing of the American people from all this partisan warfare," says Richards. "I give a lot of credit to Dean for raising the alarm about Iraq, but in order to be elected president, you have to have some sort of credibility with all Americans, not just angry white liberals."


That captures my feeling about why I switched from Dean to Clark. I think Dean runs a fine campaign and I would vote for him if he got the nomination. But Clark is the one for me. IMO, Dean and all the Dem candidates will make good presidents, but Clark will make a great president. I want someone who can both attack his enemies and charm them at the same time.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I read the article and felt that it capture the difference

between Clark and Dean marvelously. Also the demographics are accurate, whether some like them or not. Wes Clark is doing well, 1 month 5 days out of the starting blocks. This is a good thing...cause after seeing the 60 minutes piece on Dean (a positive piece), I still can't imaging him as President.
Sorry, I am trying.


"IT'S YOUR ECONOMY AND YOUR WAR, STUPID!"
A REAL MILITARY HERO TELLS A GENUINE INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

[RandomUser]

10. You're right

It does capture the difference between the two admirably.

[TLM]

11. Yes buy the Clark meme.... anger is bad... fighting back is bad...

we must not be angry or fight... we need to relax and sleep, go back to sleep and vote for another dc insider elite war profiteer puppet.

Being mad is bad...organizing and fighting back against the corrupt system is bad... stop fighting, just vote for this guy who used to drop bombs on civilians and journalist because he has some bright shiny stars... oh see how they shine.

Go back to being apathetic... stop all this activism and grass roots support to undermine the established power status quo in DC.

[RandomUser]

13. I do believe you are missing the point

I am not saying anger is bad -- I'm saying only having anger, or having anger as the dominant emotion is bad. There is a world of difference between not being angry and being apathetic. I want someone who will fight and attack Bush, but at the same time I also want someone who can charm the people away from Bush.

Edited to add:
Being a raving angry lunatic (not saying that Dean is) or rolling over and playing dead are not the only two possibilities.

[VolcanoJen]

14. TLM, you should really read the article.

Nothing of the sort is said in the piece. It's more about the fact that many voters who are angry at Bush have channeled that energy into the Clark campaign, and are energized by a hope that they feel. That's not a bad thing, and I think you've mischaracterized what you believe to be the Clark "meme."

One part of the piece said "Many of Clark's followers say that while Dean speaks to their rage, Clark, four-star general, intellectual, humanitarian and war hero, speaks to their longing for something higher." It didn't say that having your rage spoken to, by Dean or others, is discouraged.

At no point did the article encourage Clark fans to become apathetic, or to abandon their grass-roots efforts, or to lay down their arms and refuse to fight the Bush Junta. That's frankly ridiculous.

You should really try reading the article before interpreting what it said.

[Julien Sorel]

15. He's not interested in reading or interpreting the article.

All he's interested in is Howard Dean. I really think Dean missed his calling in life. If he'd have been born in the South as a Baptist, he would have become one of the truly great televangelists; he'd put Robertson and Falwell and that whole crew to shame. It's downright frightening to see some of these people on their Dean kick. If they ever go out campaigning door to door, instead of campaign literature they should carry copies of The Watchtower.

[KittyWampus]

28. Big Difference Between "Anger" and "Righteous Indignation"

The anger that Dean feeds and which many supporters on DU exhibit is corrosive. It wears away at the fabric of Society and is Ultimately Divisive.

There are ways to harness feelings of discontent that do not belittle others or cause DisUnity.

There's a big difference between one's GOAL and STRATEGY.

Clark is not telling ANYONE to go back to sleep or be apathetic... and he most CERTAINLY NOT giving Junior and the Neo-Cons a pass.

Frankly, Clark's critique of PNAC and Junior have been more to the point than any other of the Democratic Candidates so far.

[RandomUser]

36. Exactly!

That's the difference.

[juajen]

9. WOW, how did I miss that WSJ article?

The Salon excerpt was great. I'm still supporting Dennis, but I think Clark can beat * and more power to him. He's my favorite after Dennis.

The first time I did that test to determine what candidate was closest to what you believe, Dennis came out first. I took it recently and Clark came out first, with Dennis second. The first time I took it, Clark was not in the running. Interesting! Clark is definitely more progressive than Dean.

[TLM]

12. The only thing democratic about Clark is his script....

the only thing progressive his his retoric... he record tells another story.


You know a lot of progressives who work as lobbyists for henry Kissinger? Or who openly state they feel it is OK to bomb journalists?

[eileen_d]

16. Clark was not a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger.

I encourage you to post your "proof" so I can refute it again.

[wyldwolf]

20. oh, THAT bullshit again...

...proven to be lies over and over and over...

[HFishbine]

21. But this isn't

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

<snip>

"The privacy impact of anti-terrorism initiatives is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in the District.

"The public is extremely skeptical," he said. "He owes the public an explanation as to how, if elected, he would limit the government's expanding collection of personal information about citizens."

Others believe that Clark faces skepticism about the money he took to represent Acxiom, even though many former military leaders have done the same thing.

"There's something unseemly and, yes, mercenary, about a distinguished general lobbying for a company trying to get government contracts," said Charles Lewis, executive director for the Center for Public Integrity.

Clark declined repeated requests in recent weeks to discuss the lobbying and his thoughts on information policy. After announcing his presidential ambitions, Clark quit working as a consultant for Acxiom but maintained his seat on the company's board.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7380-2003Sep26¬Found=true

[wyldwolf]

23. You assume any of this will matter... it doesn't...

When Clark is convicted of committing a crime, then we can talk.

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

This is only a problem if you don't feel the airlines need a screening program.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

You support Acxiom everytime you shop. Their biggest clients are financial services, retail, telecommunications, travel and entertainment outlets.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Completely legal.

"The privacy impact of anti-terrorism initiatives is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in the District.

That is Sobel's opinion. Show me one documented fact that states this.

"The public is extremely skeptical," he said. "He owes the public an explanation as to how, if elected, he would limit the government's expanding collection of personal information about citizens."

Again, this man's opinion. Irrelevant.

Others believe that Clark faces skepticism about the money he took to represent Acxiom, even though many former military leaders have done the same thing.

Hadn't seen much skepticism. Show me some?

"There's something unseemly and, yes, mercenary, about a distinguished general lobbying for a company trying to get government contracts," said Charles Lewis, executive director for the Center for Public Integrity.

The opinion of Charles Lewis.

Here is some of that skepticism you were talking about...

According to Ruy Teixeira, co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority," Clark's followers are right to suppose that their man's appeal is demographically broader than Dean's. In a post on the Emerging Democratic Majority blog, he analyzes an October Gallup poll to discern "The Demographics of Clarkism":

"While Clark receives more support than Dean among both men and women, his margin over Dean among women is just 3 points (16 percent to 13 percent), but an impressive 12 points among men (29 percent to 17 percent)," Teixeira points out. "He also beats Dean in every region of the country, but especially in the South (25 percent to 8 percent). Also intriguing is how well he does among low income voters (less than $20,000), clobbering Dean by 26 percent to 5 percent. In fact, Clark bests Dean in every income group up to $75,000. Above $75,000, Dean edges Clark, 26 percent to 25 percent."

Furthermore, unlike Dean, Clark seems to have significant support from black voters. He's been treated gently by Al Sharpton and endorsed by Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. "When Charlie Rangel speaks up for somebody like General Clark, it speaks volumes in the black community," says Brazile.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/23/clark/index.html

[HFishbine]

24. Wow!

Wyld (or should I call you Mr. Wolf), I respect your posts because you are usually thoughtful and almost always support your opinions with facts and sources. I frequently disagree with you though and on this issue, the gulf between us couldn't be greater.

The fact that you think this won't be an issue demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its importance to this voter, and I strongly suspect, many, many others.

The issue is not about the legality of Clark's lobbying, nobody has said it was. I'm not even too awfully bothered by what some see as the unseemliness of it (if that's a word).

The issue is about the deterioration of privacy as advanced by the current administration. Clark was clearly supporting something that was correctly labled "one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government."

The notion of government working with private enterprises (however legal their actions may be, however much I may "support" them when I shop), in order to build dossiers on American citizens in order to pre-emptively "profle" them (a violation of the Fourth Amendment), is extremely troubling and unprecedented. The issue is about whether or not Clark thinks greater government survelience of its citizens is a good idea or not. Period.

There are really only two choices here:

1) The one you've chosen, which is to dismiss privacy concerns as irrelevant, out-dated, or trivial. A huge tactical mistake if Clark should pursue this route, in my opinion.

2) Acknowledge that this type of government survelience is one of the very things that is wrong with the Bush administration, and offer an explaination that acknowledges this type of activity as wrong, and repudiates it as part of Clark's offical policy agenda.

This is my opinion; lacking sources or substantiating data because you are talking now one-on-one to a voter who is giving Clark serious consideration, but finds this Acxiom business extremely troubling. I may be the only voter in America who thinks this way, but is that really a gamble you feel confident Clark should take? Do you think there are millions of voters who reject the Patriot Act but who will be just fine with the government building dossiers of their travel, banking, shopping, communications, movie-watching and reading habits?

I think you need to come up with a better answer than, "this doesn't matter." Or if you can't, Clark must.

[wyldwolf]

25. Just asking for facts, sir...

...you can theorize all you'd like, but present it as such...

The fact that you think this won't be an issue demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its importance to this voter, and I strongly suspect, many, many others.

Show me proof that this will be an issue that will matter.

The issue is about the deterioration of privacy as advanced by the current administration. Clark was clearly supporting something that was correctly labled "one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government."

Clark was supporting a system for airline screeing in the wake of 9/11.

The notion of government working with private enterprises (however legal their actions may be, however much I may "support" them when I shop), in order to build dossiers on American citizens in order to pre-emptively "profle" them (a violation of the Fourth Amendment), is extremely troubling and unpresidented. The issue is about whether or not Clark thinks greater government survelience of its citizens is a good idea or not. Period.

You can't just make a statement then declare it is gospel by stamping it with "period."

Demonstrate to me how this screening process violates the 4th Amendment?

There are really only two choices here:

Dictated by you...

1) The one you've chosen, which is to dismiss privacy concerns as irrelevant, out-dated, or trivial. A huge tactical mistake if Clark should pursue this route, in my opinion.

I didn't dismiss privacy concerns. I dimissed the notion that Clark's indirect involvement in an airport screening process is or will be an issue to the voter - a charge you still have not substantiated.

2) Acknowledge that this type of government survelience is one of the very things that is wrong with the Bush administration, and offer an explaination that acknowledges this type of activity as wrong, and repudiates it as part of Clark's offical policy agenda.

Again, you're not allowed to dictate the terms. Sorry, government surveliance is nothing new. The Bush administration did not invent it. They've carried it further to be sure but the only statement I will make on this issue is that airport security is a necessary evil and the screening process as I understand it isn't real troubling to me.

It's the other possible applications of such a process that can be sinister.

This is my opinion; lacking sources or substantiating data because you are talking now one-on-one to a voter who is giving Clark serious consideration, but finds this Axciom business extremely troubling.

You're suddenly giving Clark consideration? Pardon me, but I don't buy it.

I may be the only voter in America who thinks this way, but is that really a gamble you feel confident Clark should take?

In a word, yes.

Do you think there are millions of voters who reject the Patriot Act but who will be just fine with the government building dossiers of their travel, banking, shopping, communications, movie-watching and reading habits?

This is a practice that predates the patriot act by many many years.
Market studies and demographic trend studies are a tool that has been used for decades.

I think you need to come up with a better answer than, "this doesn't matter." Or if you can't, Clark must.

Again, your opinion.

Please show me proof of how this issue will lose Clark any votes other than yours.

If you are uncomfortable with marketing databases and airport screening procedures as they exist through Acxiom, then take it upon yourself to spread those concerns.

Trying to tie Wesley Clark into shows your bias.

But making such unfounded arguments that this will be a substantial voting issue isn't doing your case much good.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

27. I missed the boat... ha ha ha ha!

Okay, as I made abundantly clear, I was conveying to you MY OPINIONS. I hereby certify that they were indeed my honest opinions. That's as close to the facts as you are going to get when someone is epxressing their opinions.

Good. Now we've established you have no facts.

Instead of tackling the issues I raised head-on, you once again chose to mostly dismiss and instead disected my opinions, pretending that they could not possibly be valid by noting an absence of substantiating sources. You lose on this one. Hopefully Clark will be more direct.

Again, you don't dictate the terms. I clearly demostrated that your "issues" are not mine. I'm not going to change your mind. I won't waste time trying.

Here are the FACTS, you've failed to addres:

1) I don't like the notion of the government building dossiers on it citizens.

We already know this

2) Clark lobbied for just such an effort.

We already know this

3) Clark has yet to explain if establishing such a government survelience program will be part of his policies.

So? Again, that is an issue to YOU. It isn't to ME. And there is no indication that is is an issue to many other people.

Where you did take a more direct approach, you've shown an astoudning ignorance:

Spoken like conspiratorial pro.

How old are you, nineteen, twenty?

Well, now, THAT question really added substance to the debate!

Governement survelience on its citizens is supposed to require probably cause.

I'll skip down to the constitutional issue and ignore your obviously ignorant assessment of my constitutional knowledge...

It's pretty clear: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

You have a very liberal interpretation of this amendment, which was specifically set up to prevent illegal intrusion into one's home for the purpose of confiscating evidence or the searching of one's person without just cause.

A DB security systems involves no "unreasonable searches and seizures." In fact, they prevent such occurances. After all, if you are detained and searched based upon your profile, it isn't unreasonable. There is cause.

Acxiom had information on 11 of the 19 publicly identified hijackers. Had a system been in place on September 11 that integrated commercial data with that from the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization, Customs and other agencies, several of the airplanes certainly would have had extra security directed at them. Would that have been illegal search and seizure?


Well, there are a number of ways that we can chase the mirage of absolute safety. Why stop at airport safety (and it won't)? Wouldn't we all be safer if there were cameras on every corner? Wouldn't we all be safer if everybody's movements were tracked to the fullest extent possible? Where do we draw the line?

Again, your conspiratorial nature is showing, void of any evidence to suggest an Airline screening process would ever lead to the above mentioned "cameras on every street corner."

I say back it up to where it was before Bush took office, you say move it forward further

I say a good airline passenger screening process that takes into account people's backgrounds will do much to prevent another 9/11-type situation.

What a weak ass arguement. Do you not see any distinction between the collection of marketing data (which many of us do our best to avoid anyway) and the government compiling data on its citizens for the purpose of pre-emptive detention?

Sure I do, but, I have seen no evidence to suggest that a profiling system will lead to "pre-emptive detentions."


5) Please show me proof of how this issue will lose Clark any votes other than yours.

Well, there's my brother, my girlfriend, and my dad. How childish. How truely ignorant of the importance of this issue.

You made the accusation. Is it childish to ask for proof? But, telling us Clark will lose the vote of your brother, girlfriend, and dad still is no proof. It's your word.

Clark was a paid lobbyis for Acxiom and now is campaigning for a position that would allow him to advance Acxiom's plans as official government policy. To suggest that tying Clark to the issue ignores the glaring fact that he has already tied himself to the issue, I didn't do it.

Yes, the presidency will allow anyone the opportunity to advance a lot of things.

But again, I have no real problem with the Acxiom plan as it stands, so this isn't an issue with me.

Show me proof that this will be an issue that will matter.

Okay, check the GD forum.

Please tell me you think the very small minority of Clark non-supporters in GD out of the 30,000 members of DU voicing concern over this is somehow is indicative of national trends.

[HFishbine]

29. Okay, got a better idea of who I'm dealing with here

On the plus side, I'm not going to consider you an authoritative source on Clark. On the down side, I'm going to pay a lot closer attention to who's supporting him, because if they are people like you, I'd vote for Bush before I voted for Clark.

I have seen no evidence to suggest that a profiling system will lead to "pre-emptive detentions."

Aside from the very fact that that a pre-emptive detention is the very purpose of a screening sytem, you admitted that such actions would be taken when you also wrote:

"if you are detained and searched based upon your profile, it isn't unreasonable. There is cause."

So, you admit that detentions occur before evidence of criminal behavior is present. What the hell is that if not a pre-emptive detention? Has one committed a crime? No, one simply fits some profile and is to be detained for questioning. That is a pre-emptive detention by any definition. Additionally, this horrid system would remove the evaluation of probable cause from judicial oversight, another egregious violation of civil liberties.

I might add, if traveling to the same destination, renting the same kind of car and buying the same books as someone deemed as simlar to a terrorits counts as probable cause, you might want to study up a little on fascism and communism. For if you think fitting a profile meets the standards of probable cause, you truely are in the wrong party. If Clark agrees with you, he's in the wrong party too.

Do yourself a favor. If you really want to help Clark along, don't speak to this issue with the arguments you've offered here. You won't help.

[wyldwolf]

30. I'll remember this...

I'd vote for Bush before I voted for Clark

You forget that right now, this very day, you can be legally pulled from lines, searched and detained at an airport.

But let's see how many people take your "survey bait" in the other thread. :)

[HFishbine]

31. Fine

Just don't be dishonest and use the complete quote.

And don't forget that right now there are people who reject the argument that the errosion of civil liberties is justification for further errosion of civil liberties.

Survey bait? You wanted proof that others agree with me. You got.

BTW, your sidestep of your self-contradictions did not go unnoticed.

[wyldwolf]

32. Whatever...

Survey bait? You wanted proof that others agree with me. You got.

I clearly asked for proof that this will be an issue that will matter. I a few people agree with you.

So far, your survey bait isn't going in your favor.

[HFishbine]

33. Evidence of a tired mind

No, actually what you asked for was:

"Please show me proof of how this issue will lose Clark any votes other than yours."

Side-stepping, tap dancing, yeah, I see where you're coming from.

[wyldwolf]

35. Post #25, sir

Post #25

Show me proof that this will be an issue that will matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=576928&mesg_id=578097&page=

How's your survey bait going?

[Julien Sorel]

34. What?

And don't forget that right now there are people who reject the argument that the errosion of civil liberties is justification for further errosion of civil liberties.

Spelling issues aside, what exactly is this supposed to mean?

[RandomUser]

37. I don't accept your premise

There are really only two choices here:

1) The one you've chosen, which is to dismiss privacy concerns as irrelevant, out-dated, or trivial. A huge tactical mistake if Clark should pursue this route, in my opinion.

2) Acknowledge that this type of government survelience is one of the very things that is wrong with the Bush administration, and offer an explaination that acknowledges this type of activity as wrong, and repudiates it as part of Clark's offical policy agenda.


I accept neither of these choices. I believe that in the post 9-11 world, we need to re-examine our civil liberties and securities. We need to safeguard our civil liberties and acknowledge where we might need to compromise some for the sake of security. I do not dismiss privacy concerns as irrelevant, out-dated, or trivial. Nor do I believe that things can remain exactly the same as pre-9/11. I certainly don't want airport security to go back to the way it was pre-911, nor do I believe most Americans would.

On the issue of Acxiom, I do not accept your assertation that this company is nefarious. They do things like compile the data that is in phonebooks -- big deal, go get an unlisted number. The problem is not Acxiom, but rather the policy conditions that result in compromised privacy. Furthermore, after 9-11, Clark wanted to do something to help improve airport security, and started lobbying for Acxiom initially for free, because he believed in helping his country improve security. And from what I've read, his every step working with Acxiom was focused on maintaining privacy concerns and safeguarding civil liberties.

Frankly, I find that more honorable than if he were to lobby for a weapons firm. He was working not to compromise privacy, but to try to balance the need for more security post 9-11 with the need to safeguard civil liberties. He's obviously not doing it for them money, since he had the opportunity to pursue profit like many of his officer peers after Vietnam, but he chose to serve his country, and continues to this day.

If you're concerned about data mining, you would be more accurate if you targeted your credit card company, or all those cookies on your computer.

Fishbine, I'm not likely to change your mind, since we've had this discussion before. But do realize that I don't accept your premise, and thus do not share your concerns.

[DemCam]

38. "Cometh the Hour." indeed, friends.........

The winds of change are upon us and it is magical.

Stirs up something....in people. He does indeed...even the most jaundiced among us...of which I qualify...a bit of the bounce is rubbing off and it feels just fine.

[RandomUser]

39. I agree

There's still a long road to the whitehouse, with lots of ups and downs, but this is a good start.