Economy UP, Saddam GONE, WES CLARK our only option

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

I love Wes Clark for simply who he is -- the most honest, honorable, inspiring, intelligent and capable man I've ever known, and I think he should be the nominee for those reasons alone. But I also care about America and the Democratic Party and understand that with the economy slowly improving and this "Bush victory" with the Iraq war, only one candidate can defeat George Bush and save the Democratic Party from permanent minority status -- WES CLARK.

Wes Clark, unlike Howard Dean, is not running on just how terrible Bush is; he's running on how Wes Clark is a better man and leader than George Bush. Wes Clark is the only candidate who can uphold our liberal ideals and make them appealing to more moderate and Southern voters. Wes Clark has the chance to be our Reagan. As much as I disagreed with Reagan's policies, he was an extremely admirable (to 60% of the country) and successful (to conservative causes) president. He fundamentally changed the Republican Party and their electability. We need a liberal version of Ronald Reagan, and that man is Wes Clark.

The only candidate who can ensure George Bush never again puts on a flight suit is Wes Clark.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

6. intelligent comment ...

[Fovea]

2. Tell us more

not about Wes Clark, but how you know him.

[FrenchieCat]

3. you are absolutely correct...

Are you watching C-Span?

The film was outstanding!

A perfect person at a perfect time.

[arewethereyet]

4. all wes had going for him was military knowhow

now it seems the military is doing OK after all. he shan't be necessary to sort things out.

Now we need a statesman to get us energized and back on course internationally and Clark isn't half the statesman Edwards is. He can't even keep track of his own platform.

[FrenchieCat]

23. WRONG Answer

Try diplomat! Master Strategist! Try super stateman! Try a leader!
Try an articulate and intelligent NON POLITICIAN -

SEE THE FOREST.......BEYOND THE TREES: This election is about beating Bush......

[arewethereyet]

24. wrong answer in your opinion (which you ARE entitled to)

I'm assuming that you are, as yout tag suggests, French. Given this perspective I can understand your leanings toward what you see as his international prowess.

Re master strategist: why did he allow the Russians the opportunity to sweep into the airport as so colorfully described by the Brit general who refused his order to confront them ? The lack of leadership, and diplomacy reflected by this lone instance kind of shoots that one down.

Re intellegent: OK I'll give you the Rhodes scholar but why then can he not even recall how he proposed to pay for his AIDS initiatives ? Is this the sign of intellegence or articulation (he opted to intsted to make vague references to the red,white and blue and how we work together so well as opposed to his published answer of via repeal of the tax cuts.

Given some seasoning he might be alright but I'm not for on the job training. I might even consider Secretary of State for him (ala Colin Powell) as he does know some of the folks he would be dealing with.

But he's no statesman and absolutely not presidential to me.

[FrenchieCat]

32. So who do you suggest?

Considering all that is lacking in Clark, IYO.

Since Job Training is out...although I am not quite sure what he will need training on.

Your story about Pristina has no meat to it. Go here
http://www.clarkmyths.com/myth4.html

Unfortunately, this more dramatic account mixes up the order of the events and can only be plausible to people who are largely unaware of the context. Although the West was indeed shocked that the Russians occupied Pristina Airfield, the Russians could not have simply dashed into the airport out of nowhere on June 12. Instead, NATO noticed early on June 11 that something might be up when a Russian battalion with the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia had left its positions on June 10 and was headed toward Serbia. As NATO's political leadership had already been well aware that the Russians were unhappy with how the political negotiations were happening and that some members of their military were advocating moving unilaterally into Kosovo, these movements prompted NATO to began considering a variety of responses to the Russians' troop movements.

As such, Clark received authorization from NATO chief Javier Solana as well as U.S. Joint Chiefs Vice-Chair Joe Ralston to devise a plan to occupy the airfield in advance of the Russians' arrival. However, the planning was shelved because the politicians ended up believing Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov's assurances that the battalion would stop at the Serbian border--including a promise he had personally given Madeleine Albright that morning. It remains unclear to this day as to whether Ivanov was lying or outside of the loop. Meanwhile, Russia's diplomatic struggle to obtain overflight rights from Hungary and the Ukrane had already begun and they ended up losing to NATO. So the Hungarians' denial of overflight rights was already in effect before the Russians were in place at the airfield (see The Kosovo Conflict: A Diplomatic History Through Documents for Albright's June 11 statement about Ivanov's promise and other official pronouncements).

When the Russians actually occupied the airfield on June 12, NATO initially wanted to place troops and armored carriers on part of it to block it--not to storm it--because there was a relatively low risk of a confrontation at the airfield--which was large and occupied by only a token force--whereas there might be a very serious risk if the Russians decided to force their way through Hungarian airspace. Then the Hungarians and NATO would be faced with deciding whether to shoot down Russian transports. Much better, Solana and U.S. leaders had reasoned, to avert such a grave situation by making it impossible to land Russian reinforcements in Kosovo. As SACEUR, Clark's job was to develop and implement this plan. However, because NATO is an alliance that work on consensus, every nation possesses a de facto veto over how its troops can be used (also known as a "red card"). In this case, the bulk of the available forces were British, and Jackson decided that he disagreed strongly enough with the policy that he wanted to exercise London's veto. When the two generals consulted their political masters, Washington reversed course--probably more as a result of a desire to placate London and the rest of NATO than out of a fear of provoking Moscow.

Who was ultimately correct here? You might argue that Jackson was correct because they ended up resolving the situation diplomatically without needing the particular operation Clark had ordered. But we have empirical evidence that nothing close to a serious confrontation would have occurred had Clark's orders gone through: several days later, with the situation at Pristina still pretty much the same, both Clark and Jackson authorized French and British units to take positions at the airport. The troops got there. The Russians denied them access. Everyone stood around and radioed back to their commanders for further instruction. Then the NATO units left. Lo and behold, no one got shot. No massive diplomatic crisis. No World Wars began.

Whether the Pristina Airfield story repeated by right-wing Clinton/Clark haters, extreme leftists who still insist that Milosevic was a just and democratic leader, or mainstream journalists eager to present a dramatic story but unwilling to do the legwork to check the facts, it's clear that the only reason it has any legs is because of Jackson's pithy but entirely hyperbolic quote. perplexed that one would use this incident to characterize Clark as someone who needs learn how to build alliances rather than risk showdowns. Considering that Clark's well-known support for NATO and international institutions have grounded his consistent and thoroughgoing critique of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, and have made him a target for conservatives

I can only assume that those who accuse Clark have followed Clark closely and are not aware of his foreign affairs positions, and is simply running with a meme that The Nation picked up along with its general opposition to the Kosovo intervention.

[arewethereyet]

36. So All Clark did was take orders... oh, thats better

Thanks, I've been reading more and more about how little input he had on the whole operation over there. This bit was most informative.

Maybe we had better let someone familiar with politics and the public take it from here. My choice is Edwards as he's the only one who is not holding no baggage. Kerry is not far back but a little too liberal for America to elect I'm afraid.

[FrenchieCat]

37. No baggage =

no experience.

Please, if you're for Edwards, then we talking about some real on the job training.

Plus Edwards will not be able to stand toe to toe with Bush...

So although I like Edwards, this is not his time...considering that beating Bush is what's at stake here....

[arewethereyet]

40. I'll put Edwards toe to toe with anyone at all

The guy does his homework, can keep his positions consistant regardless of context because he understands them so well from survey level to the details. He is in total control of his emotions and presentation and knows how to steer any discussion in the direction that best serves him.

Bush ? Please... bring on Churchill.

This is his time and more important, failure here puts into question if there will be a next time and if so how long that will be.

I understand you're sold on Clark but I know what the GOP will be able to do to him in the eyes of the public and its not pretty.

[FrenchieCat]

41. and I understand

that you're sold on Edwards.....

The GOP has plans for whomever will be the nominee,

At Clark land, we are more than ready.

At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree (on my part anyway)

But read this from the rethugs, as it confirms that they want Clark the least:

Here is the post from www.polipundit.com:
Give, Give, Give

To everyone who took up my call to donate to Howard Dean in June, here's your new assignment: Give all you can to John Edwards and/or John Kerry.

The rationale is simple:
1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails.
2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards. It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined below.
3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by neighbouring-son John Edwards.

Donating online is easy. Just click here to donate to Kerry or click here to donate to Edwards.
posted by PoliPundit at 7:07 AM Link to this post

[arewethereyet]

43. I can agree to that (picture hand offered)

Another possible interpretation to what you mention is to keep things fragmanted enough that noone emerges and that maybe just maybe Clinton defies all reason and decides to "save" things. But even if they do no more than disallow any sort of broad base to form, they still win.

But its all part of the fun. Going to be a wild ride from here on out.

[Monte Carlo]

I respectfully disagree, but I like Clark very much.

If Kerry dropped out of the race for any reason, I would switch my support to Clark. He is certainly a very intelligent man with a proven ability to excel and work with others.

[JailBush]

5. Wrong message!

Regardless of how you feel about any of the candidates, buying into the hype about an improving economy and Saddam Hussein's capture is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot. If you really think the economy's doing great, why not just vote for Bush?

And don't you think we ought to wait a few weeks before we pronounce Saddam's capture a success? Iraqi freedom fighters might only be encouraged by Saddam's capture, and continuing attacks will tend to confirm that they're indeed fighting for liberation - not taking orders from Saddam.

And what about Saddam's trial? Care to estimate how many international laws or examples of common sense the right-wingers will violate in prosecuting him?

Holy cow, the Republicans have one lucky and largely superficial break, and people are already predicting defeat!

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

7. I'm not predicting defeat

I believe we can and will win with Wes Clark.

[CWebster]

15. And how convenient that they just set up those Iraqi courts..

How timely...

[nomaco-10]

8. Thank you, RATM All our problems are solved in one post....

We will elect a candidate who closely resembles Ronald Reagan, but the "liberal version". Why didn't we all think of this before?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Responses:

1) The economy is up? Could have fooled me and all of those folks that are unemployed, hungry, and homeless. The market is up, but I'm not at all sure why that's happening...looks like another bubble ready to pop as far as I'm concerned.

2) Saddam is gone...so what? Do you really believe that will make ANY impact on the situation in iraq?

3) I'm not yet convinced Clark is our "only option". He may be PART of the solution, but that is as much as I can give him today.

[LuminousX]

10. Reagan Recovery

The economic outlook is only improving for the wealthy few.

This analysis is weak. Dean isn't running on how horrible Bush is, but current events havne't changed regarding Bush.

[mazzarro]

11. Pure unadulterated BS!

Take that wherever you want! I will not accept your pronuncement as based on anything other than pure rethuglican crap!

[CWebster]

12. And goodby Democratic party

Just what we need, our very own Reagan.

[Q]

13. Economy improving and 'Bush* victory'?

- For a minute I thought I had mistakenly entered the RNC website.

- Bush* will put on the 'flight suit' no matter what Democrats do. He's able to do THAT because the media isn't free to report the truth.

[WillyT]

14. Yeah, And The Repub Message Will Be: Economy UP, Saddam GONE...

"Don't change horses in the middle of a stream!"

Apologies to Tower of Power.

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

17. there are many who are in

deep Deanial.

My letter to Bill Press on his recent column:
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/7479063.htm
Dear Mr. Press,
In your column entitled , Attempts to 'McGovernize' Howard Dean won't work, you sound mildly defensive. Howard Dean is no McGovern, but the result of this election, if Dean is the nominee, will be the same as it was then; Howard Dean will lose.

It is an established fact, whether you believe it or not, that Republicans donors have been contributing to Howard Dean since March of this year. Original reason was to keep Kerry off as the top contender. When General Clark entered the race, the GOP's generosity continued for Dean to counter Clark (You can verify that via www.polipundit.com see details below my signature). That Right Wing site is only a of several dozens that have links within their own text directly to the Dean contribution page. They have now switch their game plan and are attacking Howard Dean. They hope that the left will coalesce around Dean in his defense and make his followers ever more loyal.

The egg of money, became the chicken of Media attention (note chicken and egg being interchangeable) Dean's campaign energized by money became respected by the media. The media, played their part, and started publicizing everything Dean. Whether Howard Dean is made of Teflon, or the Cocoon media is giving him a pass (my theory) is a question. However, it does seem odd that sealed records, draft dodging accusation, Enron connections, his own acknowledgement that he did indeed support "a" war resolution, the issues raised on his Medicare stance, his agreement to ship nuclear waste to be buried in minority communities in Texas (and a lousy environmental record), his flip flop on public financing; none of these issues were truly jumped on by the media (I won't even mention the confederate flag issue), but rather he has being given a pass. He wins the debate when he clearly does not win debates (reminds me of another recent candidate). Howard Dean's statement at the last debate that's "it's ok to lie to the American People under reasons of National Security" were not even brought up, let along discussed by the any in the media.

Why is it so evident that Howard Dean is being forced on the Democratic party? You must know the answer to why, so please answer that one for me. The man has been running for 2 years, and the most that he polls is 25% (after the money, and publicity and the endorsements). That's 75% of Democrats who don't see Dean as a winner, and does not include Independents. He will not help any members of congress running in the South, and he has no foreign policy experience, gravitas or charisma. Heck, he doesn't even look presidential at 5'7" and has no neck to speak of. He speech is fast and he stumbles through much of what he is saying, until he gets to his canned Tony Robbins mantra of "you've got the power". His following is supposed to be "college educated", but I am starting to rather doubt that they have done their homework. They have all forgotten to read the chapter on winning a General Election.

I note, as I have watched you on television that your own bias has come through loud and clear. It's unfortunate that you would try so hard to dispel the subject myth in your article, when you have ever bother to talk up any other Democratic candidate.

Admit that you are on the Dean bandwagon, Mr. Press, and like the rest of your crew, backing a loser and heading over a cliff. You may not have heard what Hillary said, but it's not the pundits that pick our candidates, it's the people. That would mean sir, that Democrats should not be paying attention to you.

Dr. Dean wants to take America back, but most Americans want to take our country forward. At the end it will not matter, as you see, Howard Dean will not win. I'm a Democrat and even I know that.
Respectfully,

Here is the post from www.polipundit.com:
Give, Give, Give

To everyone who took up my call to donate to Howard Dean in June, here's your new assignment: Give all you can to John Edwards and/or John Kerry.

The rationale is simple:
1. We still want Dean to be the nominee so that President Bush can crush him and have long coattails.
2. The biggest threat to a Dean nomination is no longer Dick Gephardt, John Kerry or John Edwards. It's Weasel Clark, for all the reasons outlined below.
3. To help Dean, we have to bring down Clark's vote totals in the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina.
4. In New Hampshire, donating to neighbouring-son John Kerry will help ensure that Clark won't surpass expectations by finishing ahead of Kerry.
5. In South Carolina, Clark can be stopped by neighbouring-son John Edwards.

Donating online is easy. Just click here to donate to Kerry or click here to donate to Edwards.
posted by PoliPundit at 7:07 AM Link to this post

[eileen_d]

16. Speaking as a Clark supporter...

I'm getting a little tired of the calls for unity around Clark at this time. I'm behind Clark 100%, for some of the reasons you listed, but let's have a little respect for supporters of other candidates.

Gore's endorsement last week didn't lock it in for Dean. And Saddam's capture does not lock it in for Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Yes agree about starting that type of thread....

But this does change the opponent and the perception that voters will have of Bush.

Bush has been strengthened, that can not be ignored.

We must put our strongest man forward to compete against Bush. As Bush will be touting the "War on terror" and his success.....

we need the candidate that is stronger than Bush in Bush's perceived strength!

We must know that this is about Beating Bush....not anything else.

[retyred]

46. So we should have respect for supporters of other candidates.

And to do this we must downplay respect of our own? Sorry to disagree with a fellow Clark supporter? but that's just dumb.

I respect anyones desire to back whoever they want but not at the cost of ignoring the one I believe is a better choice.

The call today as I and many here see it,for everyone to unite around Clark after what happened is the only natural response to what I/we believe is the handwriting on the wall.

As I said earlier this is a Clark/Kerry....Kerry/Clark moment. Sorry but that's just how I see it!



george bush…pResident?

retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Kamika]

19. sorry but the 3 million who lost heir jobs dont agree

Just what economy is up?

This is a totally jobless "rise"

[FrenchieCat]

22. The perception of Bush will change

with this capture....the Republicans will brag about this one and call Bush a great leader......

We must put our strongest man out there that can neutralize that issue.

See The forest........not the trees! BUSH MUST BE DEFEATED....and SADDAMs Capture, whether we like if or not, WILL HELP BUSH!

[Clark Can WIN]

20. AMEN BABY

[MarkTwain]

21. You are a brave man,

.... RATM, for stating so eloquently and succinctly the facts of political life in America for the electoral year 2004.

Ignore the nastiness. Ignore the bitterness. It results only from the primal awareness of the very serious faults of their candidate that the Dean synchophants have deep in their soul but are, as of yet, unwilling to admit or even acknowledge.

Ignore the blinders which these same synchophants are begging you to share.

You have spoken the truth. The truth just sometimes is a very hard pill to swallow for those not even aware that they need the medicine.

Until it's too late and the United States and its democracy is being removed from the ICU to the morgue.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. no, actually we have nine options

So support Clark, he seems like he would be okay. I will certainly support him if he gets the nomination and perhaps before that. But stop the nonsense. He is not the only candidate who can beat bush.

[maddezmom]

29. we have 9 choices in the primary

and I support Clark, but after that I just want *bush out! :)

[economic justice]

26. You are right

I agree with your analysis 100%.
Clark '04!

[gulliver]

27. That's true. I hope we see it in time.

It was true before Saddam was captured also.

The capture of Saddam may save the election for Bush. I give that about a 15% chance because of our experience with Uday and Qusay. Three weeks from now, the media could easily be running either glowing headlines about the collapse of the resistance or questioning headlines about a new wave of catastrophes.

Either way, Clark is about our only chance to save the world from four more years of Bush. If the jobs market has picked up even slightly, the national security issue will take center stage. I believe Bush will be very vulnerable on national security in a month or two, but would crush Dean.

As has been said many times, we need a candidate that can appeal to everyone, Republicans, swing voters, and Democrats. Clark is obviously not going to appeal to Republicans enough to get a majority of them to vote for him, but he will have sufficient appeal that he will swing some ex-Reagan Democrats back to independence. There is no way Dean can do that. No way.

Junior would need to have a catastrophe on his hands in Iraq for Dean to win on national security. But Clark can simply make a case for putting the reigns in more trustworthy hands.

And it isn't just because Clark is a four star general. It is because Clark's sense of duty, international comity, hard work, fair play, etc. is so strong and apparent.

Dean also has these characteristics but is a governor of Vermont up against a governor from Texas. The comparison to Bush on the national security issue will not become Democrats.

[dansolo]

28. Remind us again why Wes Clark is the only option

If George Bush is doing so well, as you point out, then why would people pick anyone over Bush? Bush is the incumbant, and if things are good, he will not lose, period. It won't matter who we send up against him.

[opstachuck]

30. whatever makes you feel better

you can spin this a million different ways and you can ignore the fact that all our candidates have positive agendas, including howard dean. you can also ignore the fact that if this sadaam thing does turn into big points for bush then our best shot is with someone with considerable domestic policy experience.

[ComerPerro]

31. Get serious

Ok, if you want to play the right wingers game, then do it somewhere else.

Look, this fucking war was not about just capturing Saddam. Supposedly it was about preventing him from selling WMD to terrorists. Remember, WMD? You know, links to Sept eleven? The ones that don't exist. This wasn't a war of liberation, because Bush doesn't think that our troops should be used for nation building, nor should the US be the worlds policemen.

So Saddam was caught. Big fucking deal.

And when you say the economy is up, you are only partially right. The stock market is back up, which means corporations are doing better and the rich will be getting richer. The stock market just doesn't affect the lives of average Americans at all.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Saddam was caught...

and although I agree that it's no big deal....the big deal is that it strengthens Bush for the election....

We cannot deny this will be spinned in that way. Heard on BBC, no less, today......

Announcer said, "Bush said he wanted him Dead or alive" (not that was Osama, but will anyone notice?

Announcer said, "America's public Enemy #1 is now gone" (again, that was Osama)....

So if BBC can do that kind of propaganda, what will our media whores do with it.

No, the bottomline is although catching Saddam means little, that is not what will be sold to the American people.

We therefore, need our strongest candidate in the area of Foreign relations, someone who caught his dictator (Clark is testifying tomorrow at the Hague)....to countered what will be touted as Bush's Biggest Point...

The sheeples and masses, of course, will fall for it all. As usual.

Now those are the facts, plain and simple. Hope I answered you wondering as to how Catching Saddam changes anything.

[w4rma]

33. Employment down, Salaries stagnant or down, Wall Street bank accounts up.

The stock market is not equal to the American economy. Privately owned buisnesses are not listed in (or reflected in) the stock market. Most small buisnesses are not listed in (or reflected in) the stock market. Employees are not listed in (or reflected in) the stock market. Salaries of employees are not listed in (or reflected in) the stock market.

Saddam is not equal to Osama. Saddam is and never was connected to 9.11. Saddam is and never was connected to Al Queda. Osama has no connections to Iraq (except for his assassination attempts on Saddam in Iraq). Osama has ties to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Al Queda.

[Ksec]

35. Im goin with two candidates,

DKucinich and Clark.

Equal donations, equal support and equal time given to each campaign.

I hope my dual experiment works OK.....

[FrenchieCat]

38. Not a bad solution....

to your quantry.

Sounds reasonable.

Bush out at the end has to be the only goal. A sound strategy is what we have to have.....

your approach sounds noble!

[Piperay]

39. Totally agree

this whole thing should help Clark. :thumbsup:

[webkev]

42. Clark is the only one who can win

I agree with you completely..

Clark is running on the strenght that he is a better person who is physically and mentally superior to *..
Although Dean may be better in his ideals (to democrats).. he won't appeal to voters who don't get very much involved with politics..

They won't thing dean is cool..
clark is someone that republicans will vote for..
Dean turns off republicans and some democrats..

[durutti]

44. Lots could change before election day.

In politics, 24 hours is an eternity.

[bowens43]

45. I think you're wrong

and I think that a win with clark may be winning the battle but losing the war. I don't see him as honest, honorable or inspiring. I don't think he's a liberal or a progressive. Frankly I don't believe anything he says. When I hear Clark speak , I hear a man who wants to be president and a man who will do or say anything that he believes will bring him closer to that goal. a man who will stop at nothing to get the power he so desperately craves. I think that I would be willing to put up with four more years of the idiot if it meant we would be able to have someone on the ticket who has Democratic credentials in 2008. He is the only one of the nine candidates I can't support. I'm not saying I won't vote for him if he gets the nomination but I won't contribute to or work for his campaign nor will I encourage anyone else to do so.

We don't need a reagan, we had a reagan. It was a disaster.

[OneBlueSky]

47. I don't want to sound fickle or anything, but . . .

like it or not, the Sadaam capture does change the electoral equation . . . it was only a couple of days ago that I announced my support for John Kerry, believing that he had the best shot against Bush and remaining uncomfortable with Clark's ties to the military-industrial complex . . . I'm not changing my allegiance (short as it has been) just yet, but I'm certainly rethinking what may be required to have any shot at all in 2004 . . . and, despite my misgivings, that may mean nominating Wesley Clark . . . gonna have to think on this for a few days and see how it all plays out, but anyone who thinks this Sadaam thing doesn't make a difference in the minds of the great unwashed doesn't know how politics is played in the information age . . . just look at today's tv coverage, and the absolute fawning over George Bush that's taking place on the airwaves . . . our chances next yeat are slim to begin with, and this just makes them slimmer . . . again, I'm not switching just yet, but I'm certainly going to have to consider whether Clark is a) our strongest potential candidate, and b) "good enough" . . . my head hurts . . . :(

[goodhue]

48. many options

but we must bring our troops home now!

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[Clark Can WIN]

49. Cool, but he's not our only option

Merely our best one.

[HoosierClarkie]

50. I agree.

"I'm not here to bash the president, I'm here to replace him!"
-Wes Clark

Now more than ever his style will come in to play.