I like Clark...why don't I trust him? Help me, please!

[Atman]

From long before he would even commit to a party affiliation, I had been a Clark supporter. At times back then I often thought I was the only Clark supporter. Everyone was telling me I needed to back Dean, he was going to be the one to watch. I said no way...he is a goober and unpresidential. He is goofy looking, and Americans are shallow and superficial. Clark, I said, was everything we haven't had in a president in a long time...tough, intelligent, articulate, and most importantly, skilled at world affairs. He was the only candidate with any chance of beating Bush.

Well, that was then this is now. Actually, now I think my dog could beat Bush. But there is still a crooked, dirty campaign of electoral terror to be waged by BushCo. and the strongest possible candidate is even more important than ever. But there are so many things about Clark...his ties to the dem "establishment" is just one...that make me nervous...I am getting the heebie jeebies about him, and finding myself torn...I really just do not like Dean. but I am very willing to support him, even work to elect him president, should it come to that. But he simply does not inspire me nor instill confidence. His goofy looks don't help either. :7 Clark seems to STILL be the one, no matter what Al Gore says.

I watched Clark in the debate today, how he handled Koppel, wouldn't give in and let Koppel trample his sentences and talk over him -- it was awesome. Every other candidate would stop in mid-sentence the second Ted said so much as "but, don't you think..." but not Wesley Clark. He stayed his course, got his point across on his terms. Almost as good as his shredding of Chris Matthews last night. I loved it...I was stunned. He was everything I remember telling everyone about so many months ago.

In that time, though, I've not so much switched to Dean as abandoned Clark. When he came out in favor of a Flag Burning Amendment, he lost me. I take one's opinions about free speech rights to be a very telling component of their personality. It takes a certain type of twisted person, IMO, to suggest people should be punished by the state simply for "disrespecting" a piece of cloth. Now I am questioning everything about him, and he makes me nervous.

What the hell happened? This is no flame bait or troll or anything of the sort. It is sincere. The debate just ended again, on ABC...Sharpton, Braun and Clark were the most impassioned and smart, but we all know what the former two's chances are. Clark, otoh, seems unstoppable if he continues to perform like this. I want so much to trust him. Please...someone...don't make me have to like Dean...why am I wrong about Clark?

[Renew Deal]

1. .

[Skwmom]

102. You like Clark? Then why the post "Clark = Stealth GOP"

You don't like Clark, this is just another post you can use to bash him. Clark is very trustworthy, too bad I can't say the same about Dean. In addition, if you are worried about a stealth GOP candidate I would take a look at Howard Dean. I'm beginning to think the republicans can't lose with Dean as the nominee.

[WillyBrandt]

2. No one is perfect

I flew into a fury when I heard Clark was in favor of the FBA. Nontheless, he is a great candidate, great both personally and in the progressivity of his positions.

Dean has his horrible NRA-certified gun stances.

Edwards/Kerry have their Iraq War votes.

Kucinich was previously anti-abortion rights (and was also a supporter of the FBA, incidentally).

All of the candidates are complicated and flawed, each with their own anomalies. The question is whether you evaluate the anomaly within the context of the candidate, or evaluate the candidate in reference to the anomaly.

Clark is great. Stick with 'em. We'll win this yet.

[WiseMen]

19. COMPARE RECORDS OF CLARK, DEAN AND KERRY

Compare the records objectively and the answer will be

John Kerry

[Myra]

77. Nicely said WillyBrandt . Good points.

There are things about General Clark I don't like either, e.g., his FBA stance. I'd rather see him waving the constitution and bill of rights around, and saying we have to protect them. I hate his "New American Patriotism" slogan.

I also have some questions that I'd like answered. I've posted some elsewhere in DU, so won't repeat them here.

But Clark's tentatively my first choice. I think he's brilliant and capable and tough and articulate and practical and has tons of charisma and humanity. Yet he doesn't seem arrogant, at least in public. He's a born leader kinda guy. He's been married to the same woman for 36 years, and she seems very kewl.

He's got an amazing academic record and military record:

-34 years of service in the United States Army
-Four-star general and NATO Supreme Allied Commander
-Graduated from West Point at the top of his class
-Master's Degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar
-Shot four times in battle and got the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart
-Got the Presidential Medal of Freedom

[slinkerwink]

3. sometimes you just have to go by gut instincts....

and my gut instinct tells me to go with Dean and I just instinctively like him because he reminds me a lot of my dad.

[Mattforclark]

5. Reason is more valuable than gut instincts

at least that has been my experience. Reason based on empiricial evidence has taken mankind to the moon and led to the internet, along with the theory of evolution and relativity.

Why trust reason over gut instinct? Because it works.

[slinkerwink]

8. a lot of Clarkites say it's gut instincts that have them with Clark

so your little explanation doesn't fly with me.

[Mattforclark]

10. It is not with me

so your point is rather irrelevant.

Saying that a lot of unnamed 'Clarkites' say x does not mean much.

[QC]

11. This explains a lot. n/t

[Pastiche423]

4. Listen to your inner self

There really is no reason to trust him.

[Mattforclark]

6. Once again

'inner self' is an inferior judge when compared to rational decision making.

[Pastiche423]

9. There is nothing rational

about Democrats voting for a status quo, non-democrat.

[Mattforclark]

13. Go back

to fact checking school. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Clark is anything but a 'status quo non-democrat.'

[Dookus]

15. Pastiche...

c'mon. For months you've played this stupid hit-and-run game. You throw up a totally unsubstantiated claim about Clark and never provide evidence. You do it in practically EVERY Clark thread.

Seriously.... find another hobby.

[Pastiche423]

18. What hit and run game?

I can't run.

clark din't become a democrat until October 17, 2003, a MONTH AFTER he announced he was running in the DEMOCRATIC primary.

It's whatcha call an expedient democrat. Ya know, one that runs as a democrat because the repugs din't want him.

He's in it for the glory. Just like the wars he fought, while killing inocent men, women and children, leaving their homeland saturated w/DU.

[Dookus]

32. more vapidity...

it reflects a lot worse on you than it does on Clark.

[Pastiche423]

38. Was anything I said

not a fact?

It's clark's history.

[Dookus]

44. well...

now I understand. You think "the repubs didn't want him" and "he's in it for the glory" are facts.

They're not. They're your conclusions, and you're welcome to them. But spamming every thread with the same crap for months and months just exposes your obsession.


There really are more productive ways to spend ones energies.

[Eloriel]

17. Au contraire

My gut instincts (intuition) has saved my life on a couple of occasions -- literally. That of my son, too.

[Mattforclark]

25. I am glad

that it has saved your and your son's lives.

Were the circumstances in which your life was saved such that you did not have the time to make a rational decision? For example if you were in a car wreck you wouldn't have time to make a rational decision. If you had time to make a rational decision but decided to go with your gut instinct, was your rational decision based on incomplete evidence or some other problem?

[Jerseycoa]

7. Like Dean

Go ahead. It's no crime. If you don't trust a candidate, he shouldn't be your candidate. Not really that big a puzzle.

:shrug:

[cliss]

12. I'm not sure either, Atman.

I've read somewhere (I think it was http://www,fromthewilderness.com); an article about Wesley Clark. The author mentions that Clark is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", someone who would betray the Democrats to keep the machinery of war going.

I don't know much more than that. I'm a skeptic, but if there's an article claiming that he is a wolf, I'm willing to read it.

I'll try to find it again.

[OKNancy]

80. That site also said Bill Clinton was a drug runner

Why people believe anything there is beyond me.

[opstachuck]

14. Clark's a good guy.

as a Dean supporter, I'll admit that I was a bit reactionary to Clark's entry into the race because he's incredibly well spoken and dignified and I wanted to think that he was all this bull shit that's being put forth by the doubters; however i came to my senses and realized that i was being silly. clark is a solid democrat and an incredible statesman. i just happen to think he's no dean. dean inspires people, so does clark, we should be happy for that. yipee. go team

[seventhson]

16. Google Clark, Stephens Group and Axciom

You will NOT trust Clark as pretty as he looks and sounds.

If he is a trojan horse he has to look and act and sound like a good gift (God's gift) to the Dems.

He's not.

His history as a military lobbyist for Stephens speaks volumes.

Stephens funded Bush and helped arrange Saudi Financing for Shrubs Harken ventures.

Yopu can google it.

Clark is not what he pretends to be IMHO

You are right not to trust him.

[IranianDemocrat]

22. That's nothing but guilt-by-google-association.

A popular method among the extremist left.

[tameszu]

23. Stephens funded Clinton--it is a big Dem supporter in AR

And look where that got the U.S. only 8 years relief from Reagan-Bush, and as close to universal health care as anyone has ever gotten.

[TorchTheWitch]

73. geez

As many times as you and your ilk have thrown that Acxicom irrelivant talking point out there the least you could do is fucking spell it right. But then again, it was Counterpunch that misspelled it to begin with... no doubt where you latched onto that one. Yep, Counterpunch who has been known to lie out their asses and who lied out their ass in a flame "article" about Clark citing Hackworth to back up their crap except that Hackworth is a big Clark supporter... ooooops, so much for them doing their homework.

As for Stephens Group, it's a family owned investment banking firm. They hired Clark as a consultant in defense, aerospace and technology investments and he served as managing director. The money is solely controlled by the family members, and Clark had no say as to what they did or didn't do with it, and was not privy to that information.

So fucking what he was a defense consultant. I'd certainly prefer that the military buy the best products at the best prices what with the over-the-top Pentagon spending... which apparently Dean has no interest in curbing.

[G_j]

20. his "retreat or defeat" remark

bothered me greatly, actually scared me. ... a flash back of Viet Nam.

Not saying he's a bad guy, I just don't trust that reasoning.

[SahaleArm]

24. Then coronate Bush for a second term because...

cutting and running is not an option. How about mentioning the whole plan? Including giving political and economic control to the Iraqi's. Not to mention internationalizing the force through NATO, etc.

[G_j]

34. give me a freakin' break!

can I feel uncomfortable with his statement at the debate without "coronating Bush for a second term" ?
:eyes: thanks very much :eyes:

[SahaleArm]

42. Hyperbole aside, you selectively took his quote.

Context is pretty important as well as totality of one's statement.

CLARK: Well, Ted, I think the real issue up here is, put the emotion aside, we disagree -- I disagree with some of the people on this stage about going into Iraq.

CLARK: I think it was a strategic blunder for the United States to do it. But we are there. An early exit means either retreat or defeat. Neither one is acceptable.

The United Nations is not able and willing to pick up this mission politically and nobody can provide security for the Iraqi people as they develop their own internal defenses, except a force under U.S. leadership.

Now, those are just the facts.

So we need to create an international organization. Take Paul Bremer, let him come back and consult for Henry Kissinger again. We need to get rid of the American occupation, put an international organization in place, put the United States forces reporting through NATO, take our force structure, make it lighter, lethal, more mobile, intelligence driven, and work to turn this problem back to the Iraqis.

Now, we have to have an end state that we're working for. This administration has not yet defined what our real purpose is in Iraq. There's no end state. What is it? Is it to create a model of American democracy? Is it to create anything other than a theocracy? We don't know.

I think we need an Iraq that stays together. I think we need something like some kind of a representative government.

CLARK: We need an Iraq that's strong enough to protect itself from Al Qaida, but not so strong that it threatens its neighbors.

(CROSSTALK)

CLARK: And if we work toward those objectives, I think we can quickly change the force structure, bring international support in, and make it happen.

I'm the only one who's ever done this. I worked it for Haiti. I worked it for Bosnia. And I worked it for Kosovo. So I know a little bit about how to do this.

It can be done. We can be successful if we're not too grandiose in our schemes.

KOPPEL: You indicated...

CLARK: And by doing this, Ted, we'll still have access to buy oil on the international market.

I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in occupying countries to extract their natural resources. I think you buy them on the world market.

[G_j]

50. "we can't do either"

was the rest of the sentence. First of all just as in Nam IMO, we were defeated the day we became occupiers. So straight off the bat I don't agree with his terminology. I can't get past square one with that.

[SahaleArm]

56. He said neither option is acceptable...

By retreat Clark is saying leaving the mess as is not an option. Under Geneva convention rules we can't do this unless the UN assumes control; which they won't and probably can't handle without a transition period.

Second defeat would only bolster a terrorist state of Iraq, one that dispises what we did to their country and didn't do for their country. It's far too simplistic to say UN in - US out, even though that is the eventual outcome.

[G_j]

69. close enough

I heard many a brilliant military mind use those same terms concerning Viet Nam.
If Clark is nominated I will support him, however I've been listening to what the generals involved right now in Iraq are saying and I don't like it. EVERYTHING is seen in military terms with these folks. "If you are a hammer every problem looks like a nail" as the saying goes.
Words such as retreat and defeat send up red flags for me. I'm uncomfortable because I'm not convinced his ways of thinking are that different from theirs.
The ghosts of Viet Nam still cry out. I want someone thinking outside of that box. That's me. But as I said if he's the candidate, I'll vote for him. He seems like a decent and intelligent man.
(on edit) something which could never be said about Bush.

[SahaleArm]

74. No you are seeing the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan

Make no mistake about who runs the show and calls the shots versus who executes said plans. Watch Garner in the PBS Frontline special and you can see why he was sacked. I would highly suggest reading the plan that Clark has laid out: http://clark04.com/issues/nationalsecurity/. Lastly who's plan is considered outside the box? Only Kucinich has recommended a plan for immediate withdrawal, and what would happen if the UN refused a full takeover?

[poskonig]

21. They are both good candidates.

Clark hasn't been clear on a lot of issues, and this in conjunction with his past is probably the source of worry. I don't think this should be a big deal.

In anycase, if you are choosing between Dean and Clark, you can't go wrong with either of them.

[opstachuck]

39. unless it's for dating purposes...

in which case, dean is the clear winner. clark's idea of forplay is to call you a maggot and then massage you with napalm. huge turn-off. especially for us straight guys

[Catch22Dem]

49. Not clear?

I like you, so I can respectfully disagree that Clark has not been clear on the issues. Check it out. He's just as clear or more clear than any other candidate. http://www.clark04.com/issues/

[tlb]

26. How can you thinking of distrusting a dem who was a Bush fundraiser ?

Most natural thing in the world to nominate a guy who joined the party two weeks after kicking off his campaign.

[Pastiche423]

28. Uh, that's a month

[johnnyInc]

27. Did a four star general beat you up in grade school?

That might explain things...

Just kidding.

The flag issue isn't a deal breaker for me. I don't plan to burn any flags in the near future. Nice to know I have the freedom to do so. That being said, I can see why Clark would be for the FBA, serving under it for so long.

I heard Dean passed a Flag thing in Vermont... I don't know if that's false or not, anybody know? If that's true Dean might not be your candidate either...

I'm suprised * hasn't pushed a Flag Burning Amendment through the GOP controlled congress. Hell, I'm suprised * hasn't had his face sewn to the flag. * seems to be photographed in front of it in every picture I see. I wonder if * has two guys following him around with the flag behind in case someone with a camera comes near.

[Pastiche423]

31. Dean did not pass

"a flag thing".

[johnnyInc]

33. He passed one...

I'm sure, he walked in front of one at some time. <kidding>

[jumptheshadow]

88. He supported a law against flag desecration

Just thought I would clarify your statement since I know you didn't want it to be taken out of context.

[dfong63]

40. wes clark: bush and blair can be proud of their resoluteness on iraq

[texas is the reason]

41. haha!! i think powell has been demoted to official flag-backdropper..

btw- welcome to DU:toast:

[johnnyInc]

54. That might be what he puts on his resume.

Instead of *'s bitch.

[Jack_Dawson]

45. Clark's IQ is 190

And if it's not, it's at least 160. Point is, the guy thinks circles around people and the not-as-smart are sometimes threatened by that. Yes there will be people who can't think of anything else to say so they'll dust off the weak-ass arguments about "joining the party late" but being too stupid to realize a 4-star general can't declare party affiliation while in uniform...duh?

I don't think these people are "bad" people...I'm just saying they aren't necessarily the most gifted thinkers. Ignore them...they are understandably just trying to get a reaction.

[texas is the reason]

53. uhh,yeah.. no one with a high IQ has ever had any bad intentions-

here's a scenario- maybe clark is just smart enough to see an opportunity to seize power and take advantage of it. clinton had a very high IQ. but i would venture, maybe hitler did too? he didn't control all of europe by being stupid, you know.- blind trust of the seemingly intelligent is a hallmark of sheeple-dom. as is labeling those that disagree with you as "not necessarily the most gifted thinkers"

[burning bush]

86. And if its not its at least 140

and if its not, I'll guess again

Clark is brilliant, no doubt, but don't speculate as to his IQ, which may get him into Mensa, but won't hand him the election.

Smarter is not always better -look at what happened in 2000. :)

[Dubyawatchers]

29. I know why

I know why you don't trust Clark -
because at times he looks like an evil Mr. Rodgers.
:silly:

[carpe diem]

30. didn't Dean sign a law...

...in Vermont that makes desecration of the flag illegal. There's not currently an amendment to the constitution on it and is unlikely to ever be, but thanks to Gov. Dean, burning a flag in Vermont can get you punished by the state.

Edit: I just found the sight where I first read about this so I stand corrected... sort of..

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000850.html

[sleipnir]

35. He's out to "quell civil disobediance"

[texas is the reason]

36. i agree- clark is more attractive, doesn't "smirk" like dean...

and is probably more easy to pass off on to the sheeple out there. and he is SAYING all the right things- but i just don't trust him. bush did a 180 from the "compassionate conservative" he portrayed himself as during his campaign, and i fear clark may just as easily abandon his newfound democratic mantra once he takes office. clark and dean have similar stances on issues, and clark is prettier and more electable (but so is edwards) but i just trust dean's history a whole lot more when he talks about them- i find a 4 star general with less than a year as a democrat truly being liberal-minded a bit hard to swallow. plus, dean has convinced me that he is a SKILLED politician, and i think that will be the most important attribute needed to beat karl rove and his pet chimp.

[Atman]

48. Wow. Thank you all!

A lot to think about still, in small snippets. I am sure there will be plenty more when I awake tomorrow! This is going to take a lot serious thinking, this one! So far based on the first 44 messages, I am going with my distrust of Clark. It seems almost a common sense thing...the guy was kissing Bush's ass at a fundraiser not very long ago. Something just isn't right about it.

At least I can honestly say I don't despise Dean, and really wouldn't have a problem voting for him...I just he looked and acted more presidential...just to help make the sale to the rest of the voters.

Now to sleep on it...but I'll leave you with a comic I did when I first started to wonder...

[BootinUp]

61. The big difference is

Clark has actually published detailed issue statements/plans. Clark has published his 10 Pledges to Americans. Have you looked at any of this stuff? The difference is the Republicans needed to LIE to win the last election, and Clark runs one of the cleanest non-slime campaigns in the history of US politics.

If you check it out a little more, I don't think you would have these doubts about what Clark will do if he is President.

[dfong63]

37. wes clark: let them do the software in india

that's enough reason for me to distrust him. would you vote for a candidate who blithely wrote off YOUR job and YOUR industry? ok, so maybe you're not in that industry. but think about the effect that Clark's attitude is going to have on those of us who are. and think about what OTHER industries Clark might think are "old" and "dispensible".

[Pastiche423]

57. Add to his s/w give away

He favors de-regulation.

Just what we need - more de-regualtion, eh?

[TexasSissy]

59. De-regulation of what?

[Pastiche423]

62. De-regulation

Clark criticizes front-runner Dean's business proposal

BROOKLINE, Mass. (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark criticized rival Howard Dean on Wednesday, arguing that the front-runner's business proposal is a throwback to failed Republican policies and abandons the success of former President Clinton.
The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

More...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. The more you look at that

The less diference there is between Dean and Clark on that one. Clark did not advocate further deregulation, he was concerned about excessive reregulation which was the language Dean was using at the time, which he subsequently toned down a little. Subsequently Clark clarified that many things have changed since the Clinton years and some additional protections may be needed for consumers workers and the environment in certain areas. Clark also has increasingly stressed the need for strict compliance with existing regulations, and for reversing the staff cuts that have rendered regulatory agencies toothless. Neither Dean nor Clark have fleshed out many specifics about exactly what existing regulations should be changed in what specific ways. The devil is always in the details and for now this has been a rhetorical debate that essentilly fizzled out because neither man wanted to paint himself into a tight corner.

[texas is the reason]

68. fair enough- good points.(n/m)

[Pastiche423]

70. You got a link

for clark's "clarifying"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I did at the time

And I posted the actual complete Clark statement text here on a relevent DU thread the same day the dust up hit. I did not bookmark the statement though. I am still learning the lesson that some issues keep reemerging for encore performances (and it isn't unreasonable that they might) so I have become a little more careful about bookmarking things.

I still haven't gotten around to donating to DU (and I really need to because they deserve it) so I can't use the search archives feature, but if you can maybe you can do a search of that day for posts I made. It's in one of them. And with that, I am going to bed. Good night all.

[Pastiche423]

75. Uh huh

I knew you couldn't back up your words.

It simply amazes me, that any Democrat would support or vote for a man that...

Did not become a democrat until October 17, 2003
Supported and praised the SOA (terrorist school on American soil)
After being fired from the military, he worked for Stephens Corp
He lobbied for Acxiom, to give the Defense greater invasion of our privacy
He praised whistle ass et al as recent as May 2003
He likes and would like to work w/PNACers again
He voted for Nixon, Reagan - Twice!, and poppy
He is for de-regualtion
He is in favor of amending our 1st Amendment
He is in favor of sending our s/w to India
He likes to wrap himself in the flag, ala the RW (playing to their rules) Have you seen his Rah! Rah! USA! USA! USA! ad?
He dropped DU and cluster bombs on innocent men, women and children
He was for IWR (if the repugs would have let him execute the invasion his way), he was against IWR
“I would have been a Republican,” Clark told them, “if Karl Rove had
returned my phone calls.”

AND...

Tonight, in the debate, he said this campaign is about National Security. Well, of course that is his best subject, but I believe most Americans are more concerned about jobs (like some more he would send to India), healthcare, their children's education, and our through the roof deficit economy.

I, myself, am most concerned about healthcare. My health is very poor and I can't even get a doctor that takes new medicare patients. And sadly, I am, by far, not alone in that boat.

[SahaleArm]

78. Good to know you've mastered the art of CCP. *nm*

[Tom Rinaldo]

98. I spoke Truth

It is that simple. In a court of law, truth is the ultimate defense against libel. It is not my responsibility to retain links for every statement made by a candidate. I posted the statement here at DU. It's in the archives, and I told you that. I do find it insulting for you now to say "I knew you couldn't back up your words."

You are very fast to throw around accusations.

[CWebster]

101. Anytime a Clarkie wants to respond...

The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

Dean staked out a traditional Democratic position that was largely abandoned by Clinton and the new Democrats, who tried to build a coalition of labor and business in the 1990s. While appealing to the liberal base that he energized with his war opposition and support for civil unions for gays, Dean opened himself to criticism of class warfare from Republican and Democratic rivals.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

I won't hold my breath, 'cause I know you Clarkies would just prefer to ignore this stuff and let it sink so the poorly informed who jump on the bandwagon say, "de-regulation of what" ...

[texas is the reason]

67. wow- what a quote!

media deregulation and unchecked corporate exploitation of the middle class= my #1 issue for 2004. I had forgotten this quote- scary to say the least. if i wanted unregulated media and corporate profitering, i would just vote for bush...

[TexasSissy]

58. I'm a Clark supporter, but I agree with you on this one.

I saw a documentary about the move of highly-skilled jobs to India. (And vice versa, by the way; India is losing some of its most highly skilled workers to America). I am guessing that Clark (like the other candidates, no doubt) was not up on this issue, since it's relatively new. It's not just minimum wage or factory jobs that are going overseas. We're now seeing highly skilled, highly paid jobs going overseas. And even our employees who do those jobs are going overseas.

In one sense, it may not be more important than losing factory jobs, which is important, of course. But in another sense, losing such highly skilled and highly paid jobs to foreign countries could have a more detrimental effect on our economy.

It's a big issue that needs to be dealt with at the federal level. I think Clark just wasn't up on this issue, so he passed it off, sort of. But when no one else picked up on it, I figured that they had all been so busy with their campaigns this year that none of them were aware of this fairly new issue.

[BootinUp]

65. Clark was up on the issue...it was one small phrase that could

have been put better. If you go back and look at the transcript, he laid out a very thorough plan to reduce outsourcing and reduce American companies building plants in foreign countries.

The phrase in question was in his next point about investing in new technologies to keep America ahead. He is right all the way he just inexplicably struck a painful note for many, but there is nothing about that phrase that leads to any policy against American software companies or employees.

I am getting tired of defending this one. Stop reading so much into a friggin fraction of a sentence and a phrase which does not exist in any form in any of his extensive policy statments.


Cheers
I'm a little tired and tense don't take it personally!

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I have trouble believing ...

... that anyone can seriously think that Clark was personally bequeathing the software industry to India as some kind of Royal decree. I heard the statement in the earlier debate you are talking about. Clark said he would do essentially everything anyone can do to protect that industry. He defends intellectual property rights, he wants to take away corporate incentives to outsource jobs, and he will introduce incentives for companies to create American jobs. He is also on record saying we need to examine how many high tech work permits should be granted foreign workers to take jobs here in the States. And he will strongly support funding of research into new technologies, and all new technologies will need new software.

Yes Clark literally said "Let India do the software", but that was ad hoc defiant rhetoric, off the cuff in reply to a question, about America's innate ability to stay ahead of the technological curve with cutting edge innovations that can not be matched anywhere else on Earth. I will grant that it was a poor choice of words, for political reasons, as is evidenced by your reaction to them. Clark's point, and he has elaborated on this elsewhere, is that in todays world one can sit anywhere, in almost any nation, and log onto the internet with a personal computer. You don't need an interstate highway system to transport software to an ocean port where it can be loaded onto container ships. Access to education is becoming more universal due to the web. Everyone learns English. Even if no American company ever hires another employee in India to write software, a German or British or INDIAN company still will hire Indians to write software, and they will be cheaper than Americans. If we keep our research base strong enough, however, American's may be the only people with the vision to anticipate the evolving nature of the software that will be needed far into the 21st Century. We will make the break throughs, but we can't stop people in Ireland and Singapore and India from grinding out practical software applications. That isn't Clark's fault. HE did not create the vast pay differentials that exist between third world countries and the United States.

There are some things a President can do around the margins, relating to trade agreements that uphold minimal worker rights and the like. But even if Indian workers are given a 50% raise to cover expanded health care and retirement benefits or whatever, they still will be cheaper than American workers, and many will be skilled enough to write software. Clark has his eyes open, and he wants this country to plan for the future, not just complain about it. Don't blame the messenger.

[MIMStigator]

43. My coworker said she likes Clark but thinks he might be "too smart"

In her 60's, said she's gotten used to being smarter than the idiot * in office and doesn't know about replacing him with someone as smart as Clark.

She was SERIOUS but it's the first time I heard that one

[Jack_Dawson]

46. Wouldn't it be great if our current president had such ills?

Bush's IQ isn't within 70 points of Clark. But people love that for some reason. I'm moving to Sweden.

[texas is the reason]

55. you put alot of faith in IQ figures.

convienent how something so diverse as intelligence can be precisely measured on a numerical scale, eh? and BTW- clark is nowhere NEAR 190.an intelligent man nonetheless, though.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Is the flag burning the only reason you don't trust him?

I agree that wasn't his BEST moment but I'm willing to forgive him for that. IMO - it's not that big a deal. There's certian things that are deal breakers for me - and that's not one of them.

I consider myself a pretty good judge of character - used to be a psych social worker, also worked in human resources where I had to interview a lot of people - I get a good feeling about Clark and trust him. In all honesty, it's Dean that I don't trust - mainly because I can't believe that he's changed his views as much as he claims he has. BUT you have to listen to your own gut instincts.

Sometimes, people will remind you of someone from your past and that will cause you to either dislike a person or mistrust them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Clark is his own man

He's certainly not tied to the Democratic Party establishment. Geeze, remember all the grief he's also gotten for not having registered as a Democrat earlier and for having had connections with some leading Republicans? The "dem establishment" connection boils down to the fact that Clark was crucial to Clinton developing a coherent foreign policy that integrated the military into it. Clark forged on the ground the type of multi-lateral peace keeping and nation building forces that Clinton needed and used, but Cohen and Shelton actually worked to keep Clark at arm's length from Clinton, fearing Clark would have too much influence on the policy level.

Clark is not overly close to the Clintons, both they do both come from the same state so they naturally have some of the same connections (it isn't that big a state). Clark didn't have much time in the military to devote himself to developing domestic policy initiatives. It made sense for Clark to gather some economic and campaign advisors from the ranks of the last Democratic Administration. Unlike those candidates running who already hold elective offices, Clark could not start out with his own Congressional staff as a basis for his campaign. He started late, and he had to get up to speed quickly.

But Clark is anything but an insider, Clinton or no Clinton. He is accustomed to Command positions, and to strategic analysis. As he increasingly gains his footing he will forge his own course.

As for the flag burning amendment, it was hard for me but I made my peace with it. I will copy below what I specifically wrote abuut that about a month ago on a thread here at DU. I wrote it after seeing Clark talk about the flag issue in person in NH:

"I posted my opposition to that position on his web
site at the time it was announced. However Clark still
has my strong support. I saw him answer a question
about his stand at a dinner I attended. He said he was
asked by a questioner elsewhere how he stood on the
flag amendment to which he said he replied "If that is
something that the American people want, I will
support it" or something to that effect. He did have
the courage of his convictions to add that his
personal opinion is in favor of such an amendment, but
he left the clear impression that it is not a high
priority issue for him or one that he would push or
campaign in favor of.

I still am a strong Clark supporter for several
reasons. I have had no real difficulty with any other
position he has taken and I am wildly supportive of
many positions he has taken. I think he is the best
man to lead our nation at this time, and I think he is
the Democrat most likely to defeat Bush.

But returning to flag question for a second, I also
otherwise feel Clark is incredibly strong on the
issues of civil liberties and free speech. Read his
position paper defining his "New American Patriotism"
for examples. Clark was defending Michael Moore's
right to make his anti Iraq war statement at the Oscar
ceremony live on TV during coveratge of the Iraq
invasion within days of that controversy. Clark is
also a strong critic of the Patriot Act. He believes
dissent is what enables the people of a Democracy to
arrive at informed opinions, and that it is our
essential liberties that define us as a nation and
can't be sacrificed in defence of this nation when it
is under attack. Clark thinks of dissent as an
obligation, not a right. He also rebuked Alexander
Haige's comments that were made moments before Clark's
own appearance on the Scarborough Country MSNBC show,
this too during the war. Haige was claiming the old
"protesters give comfort to the enemy line" and Clark
strongly disagreed. He said (among other things) are
we supposed to suspend our Democracy when we are at
war? Suppose it goes on for a long time, should we
postpone elections?

So why on earth does Clark oppoose flag burning? For
one thing Clark firmly believes that the flag belongs
to all Americans, even the most radical among us. It
is not an Establishment symbol to him. He thinks
opponents of U.S. policies can proudly wave the flag,
and I suspect he would prefer it if we did while we
were denouncing this country's policies. Clark said,
when I saw him, that he thinks it is important that a
diverse nation such as America have a unifying symbol
that is above the partisan fray. I think that is the
intellectual underpinnings for his stance, but I
suspect to a large part it is personal to him. Clark
commented on the fact that he had fought under that
flag, seen men die fighting under that flag, and had
buried men under that flag. He mentioned also handing
that flag to the grieving families of soldiers who had
died fighting for their country. I think it is just
very personal to Clark. He knows how much comfort the
American flag has been to people who were proud of
their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers
and mothers, for serving and dieing in the Armed
Forces. For those people it is painful to see the
American Flag "desecrated" and Clark literally feels
their pain, he's been there to share it.

So I still oppose his position, but I understand it,
and I do believe Clark is strong on civil liberties.
In his mind, that is what he was in the military
defending, what he spent his life in service to. You
really need to listen to Clark speek on that sometime.
It's pretty powerful stuff, and I'm convinced of his
sincerity."

I've met Clark three times now. If anything he seems more earnest in person than on TV. Clark says what he believes, and he believes what he says, and it is so refreshing to be around him and realize that. Speaking for myself of cours, I fully trust him, certainly more than I have any national politician in my lifetime, with the possible exceptions of Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Clark has the openess of Carter and the toughness and intensity of Kennedy. I think he will make a great President.

[TexasSissy]

52. It's good to question what candidates say and how they say it.

IMO, everything a candidate says should be filtered by the listener. Otherwise, we could all just be Jim Jones cult members who foolishly believe, without question, everything some "leader" says.

The thing about Clark is that he's not an experienced politician. He has years of leadership, military, intellectual, and academic experience. But not political. So he's not as smooth as, say, Gephardt. It seems to me that Clark is being totally honest in his answers, but that he's trying to say them in a certain way, as if he's been coached on how to be a politician. Which isn't a bad thing. So that may be what you're picking up on. I don't pick up a sense of him lying about his views on any issues.

I try to balance what a candidate says versus what he's done. Kerry, for example, is very articulate and moving. I saw his Medicare speech on CSPAN. It was awesome. But then he didn't even vote on the bill! Actions are more important than words.

Clark is trying to learn how to speak like a smooth politician, which is necessary. The candidates can't just open their mouths & let words spill out. For instance, if Dean were to say, "I'm going to raise your taxes, when I'm elected President," he probably wouldn't get elected. So what he says is that he's going to roll back all of Bush's tax cuts. Same thing, but said in a more electable way. Which is what politics is about. But even Dean, who has years of speaking experience, stumbles over his words sometimes. So it's understandable if Clark does, too. But I think he's trustworthy (to the extent that any candidate is trustworthy; they're all only too human, after all). He has very strong views, which is a good sign. Strong views on the environment, especially. When someone has strong views, I tend to think that they'll pursue goals that align with those views, generally, and I wouldn't dwell on minute by minute sentences. But if your gut tells you that you don't trust him, by all means, vote for someone you feel you can trust.

[Pallas180]

60. I think Clark is not being himself . I like him but I'm not comfortable wi

with him and I think it may be because he's not comfortable
with himself, like he's trying to hide the real Clark and that's what's coming across.

A friend said he's coming across as "squishy" and maybe that's
it. He can't have been a four star general and head of Nato
and have been so smiley and accomodating.

I'd rather see the real personality and I dont think we are.

It makes me wary of him too.

That's one thing about Dean. What you see is what you get. A
cocky lil rooster who'll stand up to you.

[creativelcro]

63. you don't like him because he reminds you of Gen. Jack Ripper

That is the real Clark, I'm telling you....

[LiberalBushFan]

72. flag burning amendment

I was bothered about the flag-burning thing too, but after I saw him speak about it (at a non-televised event), I was 100 percent comfortable with his reasoning. What he said told me that he fully understood the issue, and also that he understands his audiences better than I do. It was response to someone's question about how he would win the South (the audience was mostly Northerners). He said something like "Now, about the flag-burning amendment, I bet almost none of you would support an amendment to protect the flag, right? Raise your hand if you support it. (Few people raise their hand). I felt the same way you did." Then he talks about sometime when he was down South, and someone asked him, I forget who, "WOULD YOU SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE FLAG?" and from the look in that guy's eyes, thinking about all the people who died for and were buried under the flag, he said "I support the protection of the flag." I'm sure he knew it wouldn't go over well in the primaries, but unlike other candidates he's looking far ahead of that, because he's running to beat Bush and that's it.

I started out not trusting him for awhile, and mainly supporting him because of his electability, but if I could choose one of the candidates to immediately become President, now it'd be Clark. Please trust him, he needs people like you! He's not too good to be true! Come back to us!!!

[Myra]

76. Ok, if you want to evaluate Clark, here's some input Atman.

But I warn you, it's long. Careful what you wish for... :).

Look at how many attacks on Clark either:

1) are gossipy and therefore inherently impossible to refute,
or
2) crumble under scrutiny.

I'm not saying to trust *any* candidate completely or blindly.
Ever.
By all means, investigate them and decide for yourself.
And each candidate will prove to be flawed, i.e., human.
I'm just sharing what I've observed in researching General Clark.

Here are a few examples of attacks on him.

================
Examples of method 1:
================

Nov 20, 03 Interview w Dan Rather on 60 Minutes 2:

(CBS) DAN RATHER: ...I do wanna give you a chance to address what's been suggested by some of your opponents...
Wesley Clark was always smart. He did not go to school to just eat his lunch. He finished first in his class at West Point, after finishing first in his class in high school and he's first in his class, time after time after time, and an absolute rocket ride up the U.S. military.

But somewhere along the line, Wesley Clark developed a reputation among some others -- Schwarzkopf, Shelton, Tommy Franks -- just something about Wesley Clark that tees me off. Has that been your experience?"

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Listen, Dan, I don't know if we can ever set aside gossip. What I learned in the military is that gossip starts early and it stays forever. And all you can do is do your best to be who you are and work through it..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584555.shtml

“…just something about Wesley Clark that tees me off…”
This kind of attack lacks specifics, so there is nothing concrete to refute. It’s the kind of smear that has been planted in the media from the second Clark joined the race.

It’s much like the infamous, and effective, whisper campaign used by the right wing during the 1991 senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. They were used to discredit Anita Hill's claims that Thomas had sexually harassed her in the workplace years earlier.

Senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, had said he was "getting stuff over the transom" suggesting the committee should "watch out for this woman." David Brock, a writer for the American Spectator magazine, published a book entitled "The Real Anita Hill," wherein he called Hill "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty."

Lack of specifics = nothing concrete to refute.

Also, wasn’t Schwarzkopf all over the TV during the Florida recount ordeal trashing Gore and helping BushCo steal the election?
Hm, isn’t Tommy Franks the guy who just said we’ll likely scrap the constitution in favor of a military form of gov’t if there’s another terrorist attack on the US?

---------------------------

Here’s an example that’s nothing but smears. Pages and pages of smears:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&c=1&s=taibbi

Some excerpts:

-"His eyes are blank."

-“Clark brings up Cincinnatus a lot. He was the good Roman dictator…
That said, the Cincinnatus imagery seems to me to be a decoy. The throne Clark is really after is Caesar's.”

-"His favorite dessert (is) a napoleon."

(Get it? Clark likes dictatorial desserts so he must want to be the new Caesar!!!)

- "(He) gave a short address that was laden with military metaphors."

(Gee, he did spend 34 years in the military, and was a four-star General and NATO Supreme Allied Commander. And as a presidential candidate he's speaking to voters while the US is mired in multiple "wars": against Afganistan, against Iraq, against "terra-ism." It only seems appropriate to employ military metaphors under the circumstances.)

But lack of specifics = nothing concrete to refute.

================
Examples of method 2:
================

Many attacks on Clark take his comments totally out of context, and distort his message. Why would they need to distort his words if he’s really a bad bad mean man?
For example, he’s constantly attacked for a column he wrote in the London Times on 4/10/03.

Here’s the entire column from April 10, 2003:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Here’s a FAIR Media Advisory from September 16, 2003 that quotes from it:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

Here’s the transcript from a November 16, 2003 interview with Clark on Meet the Press that quotes from it:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp?0dm=V219V

Please compare Clark’s actual words with MTP’s and FAIR’s versions of his words. In particular, compare versions of the first and final paragraphs. In my opinion they grossly distorted his message, which was actually a grim and ironic warning about Iraq.

In fact, I did a comparison, and ended up completely disgusted with both FAIR and MTP. Here it is, if you’re interested in reading it:

FAIR describes Clark's tone as "exuberant." But I don't agree. The tone of Clark's remarks was ironic. He was using "victory" rhetoric to build a bigger point - that it would be premature to claim "victory" and that the stated goals of the invasion hadn't yet been achieved. FAIR never acknowledged that irony or the many warnings Clark went on to issue.

Two examples from the opening paragraph:

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad?"
(Russert)
&
"Already the scent of victory is in the air."
(FAIR)
The very next sentence, *excluded* by FAIR, is
"Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

The next paragraph, *excluded* by both Russert and FAIR starts with:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad..."

He then goes on and issues some pretty sobering warnings:

-"Then there's the matter of returning order and security.
The looting has to be stopped.
The institutions of order have been shattered."
...
-"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli
dispute. And these questions are still quite open."
...
-"And more tough questions remain to be answered.
...
-"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of
that is begun, much less completed."
...
And then in the final paragraph he returns to irony to drive home his point that the work is not done:

"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue - but don't demobilize yet. There's a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Here's FAIR's version of the final paragraph:
"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home:
"Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue.""

Leaving out his final phrases grossly distorts his conclusion.

Note:
The General did say some things that left him wide open to criticism, and that I find pretty sickening. In particular this:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair..."
And there are other things I wish he'd said but didn't.

Still, his overall message is grossly distorted by both FAIR and MTP.

[faithfulcitizen]

79. Because he seems too good to be true...

But he's not perfect. And he shouldn't be held to some unattainable standard that others certainly are not. You aren't going to find a candidate that you agree with every single word they have to say or every single issue. Didn't Gephart and Kucinich support an amendment? You don't hear people harping on it constantly. While I don't agree with such an amendment, many also forget to look at the full context of what he said to those Veterans that day...that patriotism is more than symbols, it is about speaking out and questioning your leaders in a time of war. (never got repeated) So, you have to look at the whole picture. Clark is still honing his campaign skills and message, which may make him seem uneasy at times, but he is a very quick study and doing a great job. He knows how much is at stake here. I think he has a tremendous amount of courage to even get in this race, knowing how much his former (republican) colleagues would try to smear his reputation he built over a lifetime. I think all democrats should be at the very least, proud to have him in this party and thank him for the credibility he has brought to many of the Iraq war/national security issues. Many independents and mod. repub. would not be listening now had he not spoke out. I had a very unique opportunity to watch him in action "behind the scenes", and I can tell you, I trust this man more than any "politician" I've ever seen. He's sincere, warm, caring, surprisingly humble and ready to take the fight to W! And I think he's the one to do it. Go with your gut and keep listening... :)

[Myra]

81. "I had a very unique opportunity to watch him in action" Don't stop there!

faithfulcitizen, you gotta tell us more.
Dont make me beg. It's so humiliating.

[faithfulcitizen]

83. well okay...

I've been around for a while, and part of the early draft folks, so seen and heard more than I could write here. But, a couple of weeks ago, I drove him and staff to a fundraiser and helped the advance team and staff during his very brief visit. From conversations in the car, and hanging around with staff, you can pick up on a lot. For instance, when we pulled up to the location of the fundraiser, a very wealthy, prominent family's house (make that compound) there were about 30 staff lined up to welcome him. He laughed and said, "What's this? What are they going to do, carry me in? I didn't get this kind of treatment at my chateau in Belgium!" Really funny, and you could tell it was not what he was accustomed to. :) Another example: (I was the only female in car) and the staff guys were joking about Hally Berry and Mellencamp's wife (supermodel) and he laughed, and kind of politely scolded their remarks. He leaned over and said don't mind them, they don't get out much, or something like that. He was very chivalrous and funny. He made many phone calls too on the way, to thank people for supporting his campaign that he had just met in another state. His brother-in-law was with him, and we talked about the campaign at breakfast the next morning, while General Clark was off for his daily swim. Very gracious as well. Gert must have a wonderful family. Anyway, before he went off to "Face the Nation", he thanked us for "taking care of me and the staff" during the visit. Extraordinary experience! :)

[Myra]

89. Thank you so much for those details faithfulcitizen!

Word of mouth accounts about people's behavior are the so significant. Esp in a case like this where we're trying to
make one of the most important judgements of our lives.
And part of my support for General Clark is gut level, intuition.
I believe intuition is powerful but fallible.
Hey, my gut's been wrong many times.

But I sure get good vibes from Clark.

[drfemoe]

82. could it be related to

stuff like this?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=866189&mesg_id=866189

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=865271&mesg_id=865271

I don't know what your trust-o-meter is set on; but whevever I begin to respect Clark, I just get a look at what kind of 'morality' his campaign is generating.

:thumbsdown:

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

100. Ha, what a joke

All we get is open ended unsubstantiated attacks. Tell me something, where is the superior morality in that?

[VermontDem2004]

85. Unless you have proof that he is untrustworthy

then I wouldn't worry about it.

[Nile]

87. You can not trust any politician.

It is just part of the game.

[webkev]

90. political reasons..

it just sounds better to have something to get the other side on our team fo this one..

Just like on 60 mins when they said "he favors gun control, womens rights and a constitutional ammendment banning flag burning"..

it overshadows the other two but doesn't really mean much

[annec]

91. Think beyond one issue

The flag burning issue has burned a lot of people. Yes, Gov Dean's record is not so clear on this. He did NOT outwardly oppose it when it came up in his state. He stood out of the line of fire.

I believe General Clark has seen so many people die fighting for that flag and being buried under that flag, that it is too strong a symbol of our country to him. I watched my Dad be buried under that flag and believe me, that symbol and image rings strong with me.

As for trustworthiness, Dean doesn't ring true to me there. He goes to Iowa and says 'We rural people'... he grew up rich, not rural. He becomes everyone's candidate without truly defining who he is. It does make him easy to like, but somehow hard to believe. Why did he lock up his records in Vermont if he is so proud of his past record? He says he will unlock his records if Bush unlocks his... well, Bush's aren't locked up. Bush tried to, but the state prevented him from it. I just don't feel I can trust Dean either.

And yes, Clark became a Democrat this year but he was a registered independent and he can bring along a lot of those independents out there. We need a man in the White House that can truly unite this cuntry. Lets not just look at parties anymore. Lets look at the whole picture of this country, not just the Democratic Party.

I am proud to be a Democrat, but I don't hate Republicans because they are Republicans. Lets get over that one!

Also, just a sidelight... but Kucinich is about the most liberal candidate out there and he too supported the flag burning amendment. Lets not make this a one issue race.

Peace

[mmonk]

92. Go with who you want

I trust him because I've read his books and downloaded all his pdf position files. I think he would be very good as president. Most of all is his driving concern over this country and where Bush has taken it.

[CWebster]

93. Hell, I don't trust him either

I think there is something rotten in the Democratic party.

Lieberman, even with his name-recognition and Gore coat-tails fell hard and fast because he couldn't sell the DLC line.

Kerry destroyed his own political advantage by cleaving to DLC policy.

And along comes General Clark, who by now is well-versed on the winning formula and knows what pitfalls to avoid. So even though the evidence abounds that his opposition to the Iraq invasion doesn't stand up under scrutiny, he projects opposition. And he is the image of triangulation, the Dick Morris strategy of out-witting the Republicans at their own game. Instead of exposing Republicans perceived strengths as the utter disasters they truely are, they say, "look we can do this better than you". So, this image is projected, but the inherent flaws in it are ignored, like that Clark was fired from the Pentagon, under Clinton, and that a British general accused him of threatening to start WW3.

There goes that response to the Republicans in one fell swoop.
But in addition to that, Clarks positions pretty much reflect Lieberman's, from Israel to corporate pandering---but this is all obscured in his slick, personable, made-for-prime-time, New Democrat version of the old Republican.

No thanks.

[gulliver]

94. Once you think your "dog can beat" Bush, you've lost.

Your dog can't beat Bush. Snap out of it. Once you let yourself think that way you will be willing to trade away some strength in the general election. You think you have some strength to spare, so your fear is diminished and your greed takes over.

You have not even begun to see what the Bushies and the Republicans will throw at us. Dean looks strong, but only among the Democratic base. That's why I don't trust Dean in the general election.

[CWebster]

95. Nah. I don't think so

The key is to NOT be intimidated and seize the day.

I listened to the C-Span calls after the debate, and with the exception of a couple of braindead "ditto-heads", it was fairly anti-Bush across the board.

[gulliver]

97. C-SPAN calls convinced you of that...

That's what I'm talking about. Hubris. Half-baked analyses like that one. Partisan greed.

In the general election Clark brings to the table everything Dean brings. But Clark adds the national security issue on top of it.

I'll vote for Dean if I have to, but in the general election, I trust Clark.

[CWebster]

99. No he doesn't and clarkies NEVER respond to any of this:

Do you trust this?

"The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

Clark offers insight into current military conflicts around the world and their implications. As global markets increasingly sustain American business, international political and military strategy plays a vitally significant role. An expert on coalition building and the resolution of conflict and its after-effects, Clark presents a singularly informed and dynamic view of leadership.

http://www.transamericareinsurance.com/newsbreak.asp?Month=9&Year=2003

In announcing his presidential campaign, Wesley K. Clark promoted himself as the candidate best qualified to prosecute the war on terror. As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise to help a handful of high-tech companies profit from the fight.

Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director of four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications.

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Sep/928.html

[BootinUp]

103. Never say never

I and others have responded to all of these points before, I will not spend a long time on this post but here are some rebuttal points just for you:

The re-regulation/de-regulation argument was discussed in detail before, and what you have is posturing with little substance from both sides. Clark has not said we need any new de-regulation, just look at his website for the statement.

So you have a problem with the Clinton era economy? You don't have much company there.

Clark was against the medicare/prescription drug bill.
Clark is for effective enforcement of existing regulations and reforming where necessary.

Americans want a strong economy. You cannot win a national election by proposing a mantra of regulations unless you justify them well.

"Clark offers insight into current military conflicts around the world and their implications. As global markets increasingly sustain American business, international political and military strategy plays a vitally significant role. An expert on coalition building and the resolution of conflict and its after-effects, Clark presents a singularly informed and dynamic view of leadership."
...is this a minus?

"As a businessman, he has applied his military expertise ..." + to advise the US government in the fight against terrorism. Thats better.

Really do you think Americans don't like businessman, and generals? If Clark has done something unethical you're going to have to show it, not just throw out accusations.

[mmonk]

96. What made me join the draft movement

was primarily two things. First, while Bush's popularity was high and the networks were into all the flag waving, there was this general on CNN that was very critical and was saying the war was an elective war, not one of necessity. That started my curiousity, especially when most military "experts" seemed excited about invading Iraq. Then I was in my car listening to NPR. They interviewed Clark and he started talking about the neocons and the PNAC and the threat to American democracy. Then he talked about healthcare and the selling of America to corporations. Someone called in to the show saying he would make a good vice president. He then said he wasn't interested in being vice president but was considering running for president because of the draft movement but hadn't decided. Then I thought, here is someone retired, had it made with business interests and such and he really was worried enough about things he was considering running because people asked him to. And it took guts to be against a wildly popular war considering his past. But we have some good candidates and you will make a good choice. However, I don't see the so called trust issue.

[Moderator]

104. I am locking this

It is inflammatory.


DU Moderator