Gen. Clark: "I haven't ruled out a run" in 2008

[Gloria]

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/10626/

Gossip from New York magazine.....

Intelligencer: December 6-13, 2004
Gen. Wesley Clark for President, eye-lifts while you sleep, Rudy Giuliani’s Hampton house, and more.

By Beth Landman, Kate Pickert & Greg Sargent

SNIP

Gen. Wesley Clark Rattles His Saber
Partying with the Clintonite exiles, the retired general hints at a new battle plan.
The dedication of the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Arkansas, the other week was as much about the Democratic future as the Democratic past— the cocktail discussion frequently sounded like fantasy baseball—but not all the guests were willing to cede this future to people who share the former president’s surname. At a party thrown by Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson, former general Wesley Clark was asked who he’d back in 2008. “I haven’t ruled out a run,” he was overheard saying. And they’re off.

[roguevalley]

1. I can face the next four years now, come what may. There is a

god. THANK YOU GENERAL and MRS. CLARK! I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOU!!!!!!!!

[ekhunter]

276. I do not want him in the white house!

he will do more harm for our party than good.

[Crunchy Frog]

285. I agree. He will do your party a great deal of harm.

On the other hand, his presidency will be excellent for the Democrats.:D

Welcome to DU.:hi:

[Willy Wonka]

2. To be honest with you - he should rule it out now.

:mad:

Before you start burning me - let me share you with an insight I've had.

I am a former Wesley Clark supporter, and I had a long talk with a Howard Dean supporter for 2008 who was once a Wes Clark supporter for 2004, and he gave me some serious insight on what's wrong with Wes Clark.

First and foremost - The General, despite the fact that he has worked with politicians for many years as a General, is not a totally experienced politican. As a matter of fact, he's going from a neophyte into a large lair of vampires with only a weak toothpick and a rock hammer, as I choose as my anology as a comparsion.

Second, he has supported the Schools of the Americas which I later learned after Clark's end of his presidency run that has shocked me to the core, and seriously doubted my ability to support him.

Finally, what convinced me was through our discussion with the Dean supporter, is that Clark is simply playing for money, not politics. I know many of you Wes Clark fans adore him, but do some deep research and deep thinking and step out of the support just like I did.

I beg of you, fellow Clark supporters for 2004, don't support him for 2008. Instead, if he wants to begin his political career, encourage him to run for governor of Arkansas and see how he does for the first four years. He's still a young man, and I'm willing to support him as long has he gets serious about politics, and not chasing after money.

Thanks!

-WW

[KittyWampus]

11. "Deep" Research? SOMETHINGS Really Deep In Your Post & It Wasn't

research.

By the way, I like how you wove together Clark and Dean in your story.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

bwah-ha-ha!

No kidding. They shouldn't have been so obvious about it.

Don't tell me we're going to return to the Dean vs. Clark argument again.

[TwilightZone]

12. Oh, please.

"Chasing after money"?

Oh, yes. That MUST be it.

I think you should "rule out" Clark bashing now, because, "to be honest", you're not very good at it.

Nice try. Move along.

[Willy Wonka]

20. Not even bashing Clark.

Just staying away from him and citing my reasons to do so.

[TwilightZone]

28. Yeah, right.

Claiming that a politician is in politics only for the money isn't "bashing"?

Of course it is.

Let me also suggest that you bother to form your own opinions instead of blindly accepting the statements of strong supporters of other potential candidates. You might actually learn something that way.

[Willy Wonka]

44. Ok fine, show me why you think Clark is a strong candidate.

I'm waiting to hear...

[TwilightZone]

69. Why bother?

If you know this little about him after the past primary, you're certainly not going to bother with it now, particularly in light of the fact that the entire basis of your understanding of him appears to be the words of a supporter of one of his primary opponents.

Again, nice try. But, next time, try to be a little less transparent.

[Sparkly]

98. Since you're a "former Wesley Clark supporter," I'm sure you're informed

No doubt you had reasons for being a supporter, read his bio, read his policy papers, read his books, read his articles, watched his townhall forums, watched his interviews, followed his campaign speeches, etc....

If not, http://www.clark04.com/about/

[kerry-is-my-prez]

51. Yeah - he must have been in the military all those years for the money.

Heard they get paid REAL well.

[Sparkly]

95. Also the luxurious housing, the Armani suits, the stress-free lifestyle,

the glamour, the celebrity, and of course, the haircuts. ;)

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[pa28]

46. Speaking as a Clark supporter.

I can understand a little of what you are talking about. There were things we learned that were tough to swallow.

When you say he was "chasing after money" I have to take exception. Remember, he devoted most of his adult life to a career in the military which paid him, I believe, less than $80,000 as a four-star General. He could have gotten out years before and made millions in the private sector with his experience and connections. His wife politely tried to remind him of these options but he refused.

He's not a greedy man in my opinion but if you have some source from your deep research that you would like to cite please do. I know quite a bit about him and have never seen any indication he's just into chasing money.

[andyadkins]

96. Clark's Second Candidacy...Sounds Good....

Reshaping general voter perception of core party tenets will in part be achieved by further emphasizing strong issue oriented candidates like Clark. A successful candidate must further remold the party's economic message to better illustrate that the science of wealth management and creation is closed and that core party values promote greater advantages for the system and all of its members.

[FrenchieCat]

166. Hello ....

and Welcome Andyadkins!!!:hi:

[Julien Sorel]

62. Chasing after money?

How in the hell do you chase after money by running for president? It's like working three full time jobs, but you don't get paid.

If he had been interested in money, he would have left the military earlier than he did and made a fortune is the private sector. If he were interested in money, he never would have run in the first place. He was sitting on a couple of corporate boards, and making plenty as a commentator on CNN.


Ridiculous.

[deminflorida]

65. I beg of you to continue to support the green party ticket and

stay a loser for the rest of your life because you want to make a statement.

Oh sorry but I think I'll stear clear of the "totally experienced politicans" in 2008 as well. I just got bit right on my ass for supporting one in 2004.

Maybe your friend "Dated Dean and Married Kerry", if he did ask him how it feels to be abandoned at the alter.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

126. Nope, sorry. No can do.

If he decides to go for 2008 I will be supporting him with absolutely every ounce of energy I've got. If you didn't know about his SOA stand until after he dropped out, you can't have been paying very much attention.

While I'm not a fan of the SOA, and personally disagree with Wes concerning it, it is not an appreciably different position than the one that Howard Dean took, or indeed, that held by most of the Democratic party. Hardly shocking. He was more forthright in his answers about it than Dean was, which shows IMO a refreshing honesty and willingness to state his positions openly, without trying to pander.

As far as your charge that he is "playing for money", I've never seen any claim so bizzare and ridiculous. He deliberately chose a lifelong career that kept him on a very limited income, and living in very modest circumstances, when he had the brains and the skills to be able to make a killing in the private sector.

I already have done some deep research and deep thinking. Obviously a great deal more than you ever did, if I already knew about things that you found to be shocking revelations. A Dean for '08 supporter is also, hardly likely to be the most objective source of insight on a potential Clark candidacy. I mean, talk about a little potential for conflict of interest.

I respect Dean alot, and with any luck, he will soon be the head of the DNC, where I believe he can do a great deal of good for our party. I simply do not see him as having a realistic potential for getting elected President and therefore, can't support his candidacy for such.

At any rate, kindly support who you want, while not trying to tell the rest of us who we should be supporting.

[sweetheart]

151. I think he should be humble

If he runs, i like the man, and i wish him the best. If he is the
dem nominee, he'll get my vote. He won't in the primary, as i'll
be with kucinich or someone who has not sold out, in any way, to the
war-corporate-plutocracy.

In the primary, i hope to see:

Hillary
Dennis
Sharpton
Clark
and Mario Cuomo

Between them, i think Cuomo would make the best president... balanced,
impeccable and experienced.

We need all of them... they are on the front line taking serious fire
from the nazis. God bless them all.

[w4rma]

177. I was worried about the newbie factor for 2004. But he has 4 yrs to learn

in time for 2008 so he will no longer be a newb, in fact I don't really think he's a newbie right now as he's been campaigning all over the country.

Secondly, Gen. Clark does not seem to be the type to play politics for money. I trust him, wholehartedly. He is honest and has a good heart.

Thirdly, the school of the Americas is one issue out of zillions. I'm not going to allow one issue, which is extremely obscure, to prevent my support of him if he does run.

Note, I'm still for a Gore run, but he doesn't seem interested so I'll take a Clark one, too.

Edwards is another I'd support.

Whew. If Gore, Edwards and Clark all ran in 2008, that would be a very very tough choice for me.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[Clarkie1]

209. Clark is truly inspiring, he is the only candidate I would ever volunteer

for or donate $$$ too.

All the rest are just politicians ;-).

[Cheswick2.0]

254. and he is just the War profiteer

I would rather a politician with some experience than someone who's whole adult life has been about war. Now he is selling that experience to the highest bidder as a lobbiest and consultant for foolish companies and government institutions willing to spend money on the wrong notion that we can make ourselves safer with security plans and equiptment.

[dogman]

256. Yeah, National defense is preposterous.

We should just submit to the will of others. Why concern yourself with politics at all? Just lay back and let whatever will happen, happen.

[Cheswick2.0]

261. where did I say national defense was preposterous?

What's the sense of making something like that up?
I said what I said. Can you deny that is what he is doing? Maybe you are all impressed with all things military. To me it is a huge turn off.
I hope Clark decides to do something with himself in the next three years than sell war for profit. If not there is no way I would vote for him.

[dogman]

265. Because you belittle the people who dedicate their life to defending us.

Where on earth is he selling war for profit? He's selling his wisdom and experience after giving 30+ years in service to his country. I'm personally not impressed with all things military or I might be one of the people on the Powell bandwagon. I'm impressed by integrity and intelligence that is why I support Clark. He is already using himself to promote alternative enegy and peace in the Middle East. I think that's impressive. He has also successfully campaigned for some of our new House Dems and I'm glad he has been there for the Party.

[Cheswick2.0]

272. sorry, but you don't get to put thoughts into my mind

I say exactly what I mean.

"He's selling his wisdom and experience after giving 30+ years in service to his country."

Exactly.....war for profit. He is capitalizing on the fact that he has spent his whole career in the war industry and we are presently foolishly focused on the ridiculous concept of a "war on terror". Catering to that fear to make a profit is not admirable to me.
But that's fine, many people chose to capitalize on their service after retiring. It is not something I respect in a democratic party candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. I hope he chooses a different path.

[RafterMan]

277. So if national defense is not preposterous

you're saying it should only be run by the ignorant and inexperienced?

Otherwise, why is wisdom and experience a disqualifier for you?

[dogman]

289. And you don't get to put words in my statement.

Apparently you are hung up on war. He is selling peace for profit. He understands what it takes to make peace work. He is selling national defense. Defense is not making war but it is willing to fight a war if necessary to defend yourself. He is not focused on the ridiculous concept of a "war on terror" but he is prepared to help this country prevent terrorism. I hope he becomes President and provides this country with the leadership it needs to care for its people in the ways he has proposed.

[Crunchy Frog]

259. Just can't resist coming onto a Clark thread

can you. It looks to me like you come on these threads for one reason and one reason only.



What I can't understand is what you think it accomplishes.

[Cheswick2.0]

260. I resisted coming on this thread but it stuck around forever

so I commented. Is that against the rules?

[Leilani]

262. Most Dean supporters are very nice people

as are Clark supporters.

And this race demonstrated that we had more in common than we had differences. If we unite to stand for certain principles, we can get a lot more accomplished together than separately.

You don't reflect any glory on your candidate by acting the way you do. In fact, you turn people off. Governor Dean is a good man, & deserves better supporters than you.

[Cheswick2.0]

263. I am not Howard Dean

What makes me different than many people is that the candidate I supported in the primaries does not define me, nor do I think of him as "my candidate" or "my guy".

If you are going to judge him by what you think is wrong with my behavior, well then that is a big difference between us. I judge candidates by their own behavior.

Everything I said about Clark is perfectly valid. It is my opinion whether you like it or not. But people who supported Dean are not all the same. We don't march in lockstep. I think you will find that most have no respect for the kind of international war for profit model that Clark is presently following.

We don't have more in common than we have differences. I would NEVER say someone was responsible for bringing "glory" to a candidate they happened to support in a primary.

Good lord, there is so much more going on than who is going to run in 2008. We have work to do in 2006. Is Clark going to be part of that or is he going to spend the next four years playing professional soldier? The fact that I care about the answer to that is a major difference between me and you. I am not interested in a candidate who's war credentials far outweigh his experience with domestic policy or party building politics.

[Leilani]

271. Fine, stick to your attitude.

No sweat off my brow...

And I am not my candidate, nor does he define me.

I supported Wes Clark for many reasons, which I'll not go into.

As far as what Clark is doing: the last Dem to win election was in Louisiana, against Tauzin. That candidate, Melanacon, was supported by Wes & supporters with work & money.

But you see, there are other things that need to be accomplished. Wes Clark just returned from Dubai, where he took part in an International Conference on the Middle East.

He's not playing "professional soldier." He is an internationally recognized policy expert on many areas of the globe. You may not respect him, but the international community certainly does.

We need to walk & chew gum at the same time. You are looking for a "pol", I'm looking for a statesman.

[Cheswick2.0]

273. ?

What exactly makes him a statesman? Robert Byrd is a statesman.

Wes Clark is an expert in one field, War. He is making lots of money remaining focused on that one thing. I am not impressed.
So it looks like he got the chewing gum down, now he needs to do something about the walking part.

[Leilani]

274. You wouldn't know a statesman

if you tripped on one.

There are those of us who look outward, & there are those with narrow vision, who only look inward.

It's sort of like the "big fish in a little pond" theory.

I prefer a "Big Fish in a Big Pond."

The last reply to you; I have much better things to do with my time.

[Crunchy Frog]

281. Your behaviour isn't against the rules.

It is, in my opinion, childish and tasteless, ends up making Howard Dean look bad (you are very closely identified as a Dean supporter, and whether or not you like it, your behavior reflects on him), and seems to be utterly without point as you don't even offer real criticisms, just snide remarks designed to piss people off.

You come off looking like an angry, bitter person who likes to sow dissention among Democrats.

There's no rule against it, but people will form judgements about you based on it, and some will extend those judgements to the candidate that you support.

[Radical Activist]

3. But I've ruled out voting for him

unless the other candidates are very weak. I wonder what issues he will run on if this primary isn't about the war in Iraq and foreign policy?

And for anyone who hasn't seen the Clinton Library yet, it is wonderful. Well worth the trip, and if you're not from the area you should visit Hot Springs while you're there.

[RafterMan]

4. Doubtless

the world will sort itself out in the next four years.

[AP]

63. Say it's McCain vs Clark, how does Clark distinguish himself from McCain?

Clark ran in the primaries on the argument that the war was going miserably because Bush was a bad C-i-C and that Clark, having military experience, would be a better C-i-C.

Well, if Bush is gone, you're just left with the argument of who will make a better C-i-C, the Democrat or the Republican?

Now, that debate isn't one in which you say, OK, Clark is Democrat, so his Democratic principles make him a better C-i-C then a Republican because I'm not sure that is a clear set of principles that very many Americans think of as the "Democratic" way to run the military and the "Republican" way to run the military. I think most Democrats think of the military as something that should be above and separate from policy differences.

I would rather be running a campaign where what kind of commander you are isn't the frame for the debate because I just can't imagine how that gives anyone a clear choice between the parties.

If the frame of the debate is something like economic policy, I think that's one where people either already understand what the differences are, or they can learn what the competing philosophies are and then understand what kind of choices are involved.

And I think that's a frame within which many people could be convinced that the Democrats have better ideas about how to run the economy than the Republicans and can be convinced to vote based on those perceived differences.

[RafterMan]

70. McCain will be 72 years old

On your more serious point, that was the theory this time. It didn't work. It's like the fortress blue electoral strategy -- all defense. Your electoral strategy of ceding foreign affairs and digging in on economic issues is the same kind of defensive battle. I say you have to strike at their turf. The rest of the world isn't going away, and the Democrats need to establish a clear alternative in that sphere as well the economic one. "If there's a crisis, we'll act like the Republicans" is a loser's message and all too common in the party.

Also, you say "military" a lot. I suspect you are one of those Dems who just can't get past the uniform. Too bad for you.

[AP]

73. Americans care most about jobs, healthcare and the economy.

I don't see how putting those issues on the back burner really helps democrats.

To win an election you have to convince the public that the issues you're strongest on are the most important issues. Democrats' strongest issues are carring about money flowing down to the people through good jobs, a decent economy, and healthcare that doesn't suck money out of your pocket and years off your life.

That's what happened this year. In the last ten days of the election, Bush convinced voters that the most important issue was war and John Kerry might not have been able to put enough on the table to convince people that wealth flowing down to the people was the most important issue.

Yes, Democrats need to convince voters that they're not weak on national security (which is the way 2/3rds of voters irrationally feel about Democrats. But it took 100 years to convince Americans that the Democratic philosophy about the economy was the best philosophy and I don't think they're going be able to do 100 years worth of work on national security in two years with Clark.

And I don't think there are long enough coattails for that strategy to work for lots of Democrats. If we're running a national campaign based on who's the best C-i-C, how's that going to help all the state and local Dem candidates and all the congresspeople running for election based on an economic message? There's going to be a huge difference between the message at the top of the ticket and what people are trying to say in every other race. I wouldn't want to be a woman running for election when the national debate is over who's better on national security?


(Is there a word besides "millitary" you want me to use to describe what most people are going to think about when you wage a campaign based on defense and national security and "foreign policy" that will prove to you that it's not just me who is going think that way?)

[RafterMan]

75. Well, you said it

"That's what happened this year".

The public already believes the Dems will do better on the economy. You have to come with a good Democratic economic package and go on to challenge the Republicans on their turf.

Your argument that "It took 100 years..." is specious. No major party carried that message until the New Deal. It did not take 100 years, it took a crisis, with the Dems stepping up to the plate. Now there is a crisis in the world, and you advocate ignoring it, letting the Republicans own that issue. I say carpe diem.

On the final paragraph, the fact that you put foreign policy in scare quotes speaks volumes. It's not some hypothetical enterprise, it's real, significant and has a great and growing impact on the country.

[AP]

88. OK. Then it took 60 years -- first time more voters thought Dems were

better on the economy was in 2000.

But the Dems did start running as the anti-fascist party when McKinley was winning races.

So it did take 100 years.

We're not going to make up a 20%-30% deficit on the national security issue in one race. And we're not going to win an election in which we try to do that if people don't have the sense that the Democrats believe that jobs, healthcare and the economy are not the things Democrats are truly focused on (ie, national security has to clearly fit under that umbrella -- it needs to come second, and not first).

[RafterMan]

91. AP, you make me laugh

It took three years -- 1929 to 1932. You can't seriously say the public didn't view the Dems as best on the economy in 1936. Nobody is capable of that much self-deception. Losing that mantle under Carter is another story altogether. Unfortunately, they could not capitalize on a similar disaster in another sphere between 2001 and 2004.

The McKinley race had nothing to do with fascism.

We can and must make up the deficit in foreign affairs. The situation in the world offers us the chance and dictates that we must. Candidate Clark gives the Republicans no ground to capture on the domestic side and provides a much-needed offensive into their overseas stomping ground.

[AP]

99. Nope. Saw a NYT article in 2001 breaking down exit polls for 2000...

...and IIRC they said 2000 was the first time ever that more (or significantly more) voters thought Democrats were better than Republicans on the economy.

You know that Truman said that if you wanted to live like a Republican you need to vote for the Democrat. He said that because at that time people associated Republicans with making you rich and Democrats with taking your money if you were rich and giving it to lazy poor people. That mindset persisted until 8 years of Clinton proved to many Americans that Democrats can create more wealth than Republicans

The McKinley race had everything to do with fascism. Read Wealth & Democracy. Mark Hannah built that party to make large corporation super wealthy and to engage in imperialist wars to suck wealth from other countries and give it to Wall St. Hannah hated Roosevelt and regretted putting him on the ticket because Roosevelt was the only thing that stopped the Republican Party from finishing the job that McKinley's assassination interrupted. And that happens to be a job that Bush is finishing today. This is why Rove always says that McKinley is the presidency after which he has patterned Bush. Get it? What's Bush? The most corporate friendly president ever, shifting a ton of power into the hands of corporations -- just like McKinley tried to do. That's also called fascism.

You know, after having to correct you on these two points, I should be the one who should be writing that you make me laugh, but I find that to be a pretty hollow rhetorical device, so I won't do it.

[RafterMan]

104. Surely they weren't thinking of economics in 1936

not with the great depression and all. Please show me the poll that had Republicans beating the Dems on economics.



Obviously Truman's quote refers to the Republicans as the party of the rich and his own party as the party of wealth creation.

Yes WJB ran as a populist. Does that make gilded age capitalism fascism? Of course not. Alton Parker did not run as a populist. Does that reset your clock? Who cares?

To broaden the point, are you saying that the Democrats were the party of nothing until 2000?

I still think you're funny.

[AP]

118. Take it up with the NY Times (and I can totally believe that people

still thought that Republicans were the party for creating wealth, but that creating wealth wasn't the problem during the Depression -- distributing wealth was the problem, and until 2000, voters thought of the Dems as the party that redistributes wealth rather than creates it).

Why do you think Truman had to make that statement about living like a Republican? If you're right, then he should have just said if you want to life like a Democrat, you have to vote like a Democrat.

[RafterMan]

125. Nonsense

Your reference is vague, based on an ancient personal recollection and does not include dates from which polling was done.

As I stated Truman included the statement about living like a Republican because he was casting the Republicans as the party of the rich. Since I am right, he was implying, if you want to become rich, vote Democrat. There is no other reasonable way to interpret the statement.

Getting back to the original debate, I can only conclude that you feel it is wise to give the Republicans control of the foreign affairs issue while basing your appeal on the idea that since 2000, the Dems have been the party of economics.

Best of luck.

[dogman]

128. The same 2000 when we should have won in a landslide?

But wedge issues narrowed the gap. Or 2004 when again economics would have given us a lanslide but FP and NS narrowed the gap. Eventually economics will win it for us, we just have to be here with smiley faces when that time comes.

[AP]

187. Gore wouldn't run on Clinton's record.

He wouldn't run on the economy -- untile the last week or so, when he started to climb in the polls.

Incidentally, there's another set of data which conflicts with Clinton's interpretation slightly. Clinton said Bush won with the message, "we'll do everything they did, but with smaller gov't and lower taxes" -- which was a message Republicans honed for years.

There was polling data from 2000 that showed that many Democrats voted for Bush even though they didn't agree with him on the policy issues. Now, IIRC, this was polling done only of Democrats to determine why so many voted for Bush. (Republicans, presumably, were very motivated by Bush's policy positions -- lower taxes/smaller gov't which they saw as the oppositive of what Democrats have done for decades, regardless of evidence to the contrary).

However, the polling revealed that many Democrats were willing to vote for Bush despite policy differences because they didn't like Clinton (and therein lied the value of 8 years of hounding him -- Gore got blamed). You can understand why Clinton didn't want to admit to that voter sentiment.

Nonetheless, there are a couple interpretations: Gore was smart not to embrace Clinton. It was the only thing that kept him close to Bush. Maybe he would have lost even more Democrats if he campaigned with Clinton.

Another interpretation: he should have run on one issue in particular: the strength of the economy Clinton created. If he did that, he would have been running on the party's strength -- something that most voters liked about the democratic party -- and he might have kept some of those Dem defectors who didn't like Clinton and never heard about how Gore was going to be better on the economy than Bush BECAUSE of the their differences on that issue (tax code, privatizing social security, investing in education, protecting debtors, shareholder rights, protecting the value of work, etc.).

That Gore started to close at the end suggests the latter would have been better strategy.

[dogman]

205. Gore didn't run on Gore's record.

He let himself be defined. The NRA destroyed him with many Dems. He lost Tennesee and other states because the NRA defined him as an enemy and Bush as a friend. He did not push the Bush awol story and let himself be defined as less than honorable.

[AP]

215. Exactly. Gore's record was Clinton's record, and he wouldn't run on it.

He ran on the idea that he was a moral, religious person (and he picked his neo-con insurance company whore running mate because he thought that Joe's devoutness would compound that theme).

That wasn't enough to run on. "Morals" should be the Democrats' strength, but it's not. His persona wasn't well-formed and as a consequence, he was very easy to define.

Gore should have run on his party's strenghts. It would have been a much better foundation.

[Leilani]

82. If McCain gets the nomination,

as a Dem, you better PRAY Wes Clark runs against him, because he is the ONLY Dem who can hold his own against McCain.

However, McCain will not get the nomination.

[AP]

89. My question stands: if Clark runs against ANY republican on the issue of

national security, what is he going to argue about national security that will distinguish him from the republican?

I know what the differences are between Dems and Republicans on many issues, and I know how Democrats run campaigns that highlight the differences between the two parties on those issues.

But when it comes to national security, I can't imagine how the Democrats set out their very different ideas about what makes good foreign policy in a way that (1) distinguishes them from the Republicans in a way that voters percieve on a very deep level, and (2) sounds like something that is very appealing to voters.

Any ideas?

[Sparkly]

93. If we even MATCH on public perception of national security,

if we even MATCH on appeal to rural and southern voters, we will win in a landslide.

On domestic issues, a majority of voters are already in agreement with Democrats. But there's a long-standing distrust of Democrats on national security that goes back three decades now. There's also a new distrust of liberals on "cultural differences" that someone like Clark can bridge.

If people were sitting around debating the fine points of foreign policy, more would have voted for John Kerry, who unlike the Chimp had a chance of resolving the current messes. Too many weren't thinking about "what makes a good foreign policy." Too many voted from fear, anger, pride, and the stereotypical image of a Democratic politician that the rightwing has been extremely successful at creating.

THAT is what we have to break through. We're already ahead on policy issues. It's having a candidate who can pull in former Bush-voters simply by being someone they trust and relate to -- that's what we need, imo.

[AP]

101. But my question isn't about matching. It's about distinguishing.

You have to give people a reason to vote for you. If people look at two candidates that are matched and they are given no reason to pick one over the other, I don't know why they're going to chose the Democrat when the issue on which you're asking voters to judge the candidates is one which most voters are inclined to believe Republicans are stronger.

Democrats didn't reverse the perception voters had of them on economic matters by saying that they also believed all wealth should flow to a few large corporations. They did it by saying that investments in infrastructure, public education and a social safety net are all ways to create more social wealth. And by saying these things, and by talking about the importance of small business loans and progressive taxation they laid a foundation which helps people distinguish between the parties even while the tax code becomes less progressive, and the SBA is defunded, and public education deteriorates, and it becomes harder and harder to stay in the middle class.

If Democrats are going to win by only talking about foreign policy, they're really going to have to lay a foundation for thinking about foreign policy which distinguishes Democrats from Republicans, and I really don't think "we'll start fewer wars" is a good enough message because Republicans will easily spin that as, "Democrats won't protect you from danger."

So what does make good foreign policy? What distinguishes Democrats from Republicans?

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. A multi dimensional approach to Foreign Affairs over a straight power play

That is the quick answer to your question. Current Republican foreign policy comes down to talking loudly and carrying a big stick. In other words, throwing America's weight around. It starts with the assumption that there is no one out there in a position to stand up against us once we make clear what our positions are, what our bottom line is, and what we are willing to do to those who stand in our way. The neo cons don't see that as being arrogant or bullying because, well we are always right afterall, and our cause is always just, and we're not threatening anyone, simply providing informative clarity on how we will defend America's interests. You are either with us or against us and we decide when you are with us.

Clark advances a more subtle and sophisticated world view, but one with nonetheless strong traditional and bipartisan moorings. America was the driving force behind the creation of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. America helped stabilize Europe after World War II through the Marshall Plan, which in addition to stopping Soviet inroads created a huge reservoir of good will toward the United States. American National Security strategy hinged on the creation of strong Alliances. N.A.T.O. was set up using a consensus based decision making process. Of course America retained inordinate influence due to our economic, military, AND MORAL leadership, but the decision making structure of N.A.T.O. showed respect and appreciation for the interests and contributions of all of it's member states. Good will generated toward America was understood to be a strategic asset to this country best not to be needlessly squandered (Democrats usually seemed a bit clearer on this concept than Republicans).

So the first point to make is, the most significant dividing line isn't between a Democratic and Republican foreign policy, though there have always been some partisan differences. It is between the predominantly bipartisan approach more or less pursued for 50 years by Administrations of both Parties vs the Neo Con world view and agenda embraced by GWB.

But a newer Democratic vision goes further and takes into account that the most compelling current threats to America's vital interests do not originate with expansionist military powers, and thus can't be kept at bay by our military dominance. Instability in any region of the world can now give rise to numerous security threats to America. It could come in the form of new pandemic diseases emerging from populations lacking basic sanitary, nutritional and health care resources. It can come in the form of varied environmental disasters. It can come in the form of masses of refugees fleeing from localized violence and economic collapses that create a moving wave of destabilization as they overload the ability of neighboring nations to readily absorb them. It can come in the form of a debt crisis whereby nations that have been buying the bonds that finance our massive deficits turn off the faucet and instead start dumping them. And of course it can come in the form of terrorist attacks on Americans and our economic institutions, both at home and abroad, carried out by those who have increasingly come to hate and distrust us.

Americas military might does not have the capacity to prevent a small country like Somalia from descending into chaos, not unless we are willing to commit large numbers of forces to such a nation for an extended period of time. And even then our presence could have the exact opposite from desired effect, if we are not suitably sensitive to local perceptions and concerns. Nationalism afterall is a powerful force frequently catalyzed by the presence of foreign occupying troops. And how many Somalias and Iraqs are we prepared to occupy in sufficient force to bring positive results from any essentially unilateral American intervention? Not even one seems to be the answer under the Republicans. They skimped in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the price for that has not yet been fully tallied.

Under Clinton, with Wesley Clark's direct involvement, American forces, integrated into an International command structure, have become a stabilizing and "nation building" factor in the Baltics, after militarily confronting and defeating virulent ethnic nationalism which threatened the stability of a large swath of Europe. Unlike the current fiasco in Iraq, America's role in the baltics, despite the resort to combat, overall increased positive feelings toward America, both in the immediate region and throughout Europe and to a lesser extent the world. Even Bush Seniors Gulf War was fought with Syria Egypt and other Arab States contributing military assistance, and in essence the larger international community picked up the tab. Those lessons appear lost to the contemporary Republican Party.

Wesley Clark has spoken of the need for the United States to use every tool in our arsenal to secure our Nation's interests, which he firmly believes need not be at odds with the interests of the overwhelming majority of Nations on Earth. Economic growth at home that provides for the needs of all Americans, economic assistance abroad of a realistic yet humanitarian nature, diplomatic initiatives to resolve long simmering flash points of potential conflicts, the broad dissemination of America's positive ideals coupled with a foreign policy fully consistent with them, extensive international cooperation in addressing pan national problems facing the world today, respect for the valid national interests and cultural sensitivities of other nations, and yes the capacity to utilize our military as a last resort for an understandable, clearly defensible, and limited mission if need be.

[RafterMan]

113. Good post, Tom

I think part of the problem is that many Dems view foreign policy through the lens of domestic policy -- "lower/raise taxes by x% and the results will be...". It's not going to happen. It can't be expressed that way. Good foreign policy is the product of deep understanding and day-to-day involvement.

What voters want to know is, "Can you guys take care of it?"

With Clark, the answer is clearly "Yes". Many others in the party seem to feel their willingness to do what the Republicans would do is as good as their own vision.

It isn't.

When choosing between competing visions, voters will choose the authentic original. The Dems must have a candidate with enough understanding to present an original vision.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. By the way I only went to such lengths to answer your question

because you asked it several times. I doubt most Americans will think through these differences, though they do understand the sound bite version of "Go it alone vs. having strong alliances".

Some Americans no doubt do get the distinctions, and more will continue to get it if they are exposed to people talking to them about them. But that isn't really the point. What most Americans want from the Democratic Party is two fold. 1) An assurance that Democrats actually know what we are talking about. This is the matter of lesser importance really. Americans want to know that Democrats can be competent at foreign affairs, and simply coming across as knowledgeable and sure of our convictions passes that threshold of credibility, whether or not most voters are actually following the details of the actual debate. However if we seem to only be saying "me too" to whatever the Republicans are saying, people will figure they are really the knowledgable ones. 2) Voters need to believe that Democrats have the courage and strength needed to keep America safe, and this is more of an intangible governed by prior brainwashing topped off by gut impressions. This one is the biggie. Anyway, Wes Clark aces the test on both counts, and very few if any Democrats come anywhere close to his ability to do so.

[AP]

123. I think most Americans would rather go it alone. Wilson made the mistake

of thinking they wouldn't and Roosevelt learned that lesson and didn't make the same mistake when he was getting the US on board with the UN.

[AP]

122. "more subtle and sophisticated" isn't a strong enough contrast.

I can tell you in three sentences the differences between Dems and Repbulicans on dozens of issues which could make a 17 year old say, "yeah...I see that..." -- ie, in way that gives a person a paradigm for understanding things they actually observe in their lives even though they know almost nothing about politics.

If you can't do that with FP and NS, you cannot win an election.

It's the contrast that matters. It's giving people something that frames their perception of reality in way that makes sense of the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. See my add on post directly above

Clark, IMO, neutralizes the Republican advantage on foreign policy and national security. Clark is a real General, not a Hollywood action figure. There is a message there that keeps being sent without wasting a single ad buy to make it. WE kill the Republicans on domestic issues, take away even half of their foreign policy perceived advantage and we trounce them (in a fair election).

This is an endless discussion AP that has gone on for almost a year and likely will for the next four years. I think the results of the 2004 Election (even factoring in fraud) strengthen the arguments that Clark supporters have been making all along, but I am signing off now. Good night.

[Crunchy Frog]

129. Not to sound snide or anything, but

is it possible that the reason you can't find a clear distinction between the Dems and the Repubs on the issues of FP and NS, is that in the case of your candidate, and indeed, much of the Democratic party, there really is very little distinction.

One of the strengths that Wes Clark brings to the table is the ability to articulate a truly distinct vision of FP and NS that is starkly different from that of the Republican party. He is one of the few Democrats doing that, as opposed to simply following the Repubs and making little criticisms around the edges. He also has stronger credentials to do so with credibility than anyone else because of his unique background.

This is what Clark can do to provide the contrast that you yourself admit is necessary for us to win.

I don't believe our party can win by simply continuing to cede NS and FP to the Republicans.

[AP]

143. I said the same thing above (in a different way): Americans like to feel

that NS (and FP) is above politics. That's why we don't elect our generals. They do what they're told to do, and presidents, regardless of party, will, more or less, tell the generals to do the same thing.

You and I know that nothing could be further from the truth. Republicans use the armed forces, as Smedley Butler said, as racketeers for Wall St (that's what Bush is doing right now), and Democrats sometimes use the armed services to stop fascist imperialism (FDR) and to stop ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (WJC).

So, if you're running a campaign Dem vs Repub on NS and FP I believe you're going to have a huge rolling resistance in the first place trying to articulate a difference between the parties. I think voters are going to be very hesitant (moreso with NS) to believe that there are a set of principles that distinguish one party from the other, and people will rely instead on their century old perception that Republicans are more impulsive, less likely to shoot second ask questions first, and that that somehow makes people more safe.

I'm not so much saying that you should never run with FP and NS front and center. But I will say you're digging yourself a very deep hole if you do do that without figuring out what your message is that will contrast with Republicans.

Like I said above, Bush put FP and NS (and the consequent fear) front and center because he knew that would give Republicans a huge advanatage (and FDR told people there was nothing to fear because he was countering that same strategy). If you're going to chose to accept that the Republicans are right about the world -- that FP and NS are THE most important issue, and are much more important than getting wealth into the hands of people who work for a living -- then you better have a very clear argument for why your version of FP and NS is so much better than the Republican version.

I've also said this before: Democrats are handicapping themselves so much when they talk about FP and NS because these are things that people don't feel directly in their life. FP happens on the other side of the globe, and unless you live in the west bank, NS is an ethereal thing -- it's a cloud of danger and you never know when it will descend on you.

Your credit card bills, mortgage payment, your bank statement, the size of your raise, your employer's profitability, choices you make about where your kids can go to school, and the quality of public education are all things that happen arround you and that you see every day.

That difference is significant in politics because in the former case, you have to rely on mediated information when you talk to people about those things. Since they don't experience those things directly, people believe what they're told by broadcast and cable news. The media told voters that the problems in Iraq were the fault of the military and not Bush. The media told people that things were getting better and they they were going to have elections in Iraq. The media told them that OBL was on the lose and that explosives were missing. The media controlled perception of those ideas.

If I were running for president, I would prefer not to be involved in a campaign in which I had to (1) make a huge distinction between myself and the other candidate on issue that doesn't lend itself well to making huge (or even marginal) distincitons, and then (2) rely on voters ONLY believing my mediated version of what was going on the world and not on the Republicans' and the media's version.

I would rather spend my time giving people a frame for understanding what they see with their own eyes. It's much harder for the media and Republicans to tell you that what is actually happening to you isn't happening. They do do that, for sure. But it's much harder for them to do then it is for them to lie about you about what's happening on the other side of the world or what the Fear Factor is with NS.

[Crunchy Frog]

158. Once again, I can't even really figure out

what it is that you're trying to say. Also, I'm not sure if you realized this, but Clark talked a great deal about domestic issues, and framed them in moral terms in a way that likely would have gone accross much more effectively in the heartland than the way other candidates framed them.

What I can't quite understand is why you seem to have an obsession with Clark, to the extent that you show up in every single thread that appears concerning him, and post in it massively. You do far more posting about Clark than you do about your guy Edwards.

It's as if you need to bring someone else's candidate down in order to push your own. I just find the whole thing kind of mystifying.

[AP]

184. My obsession is that if he gets nominate I want him...

...to run a campaign that will win, and I see a lot of his supporters who seem perfectly content to see him run the same kind of campaign he ran this year, and seem perfectly content to run within the Republican frame for the world (it's frighetning place, be very afraid).

I think that's going to be a disaster.

Think of all this as constructive criticism.

[Crunchy Frog]

206. No, I don't think I will think of it as constructive criticism,

Thank you very much anyway.

His supporters are not content to see him run exactly the same type of campaign that he ran last time. We realize that he made many mistakes. He got into the race too late, he didn't contest Iowa, he was an inexperienced campaigner who made some neophyte mistakes early on, although he learned exceptionally quickly, and he did not have a very good campaign team, which was partly the result of him getting in so late, and partly the result of political naivete on his part.

We expect that he learned from his mistakes this time around, and will not be repeating them in a future run.

The part of his campaign that was not a mistake was his message and the way he framed it. If you think he was running on a Republican frame, then you saw a completely different campaign than the one I saw. His basic frame was to provide a totally contrasting vision from Bush's on the issues of NS and FP, (and yes, those issues really are out there and need to be addressed, acknowledging the existence of reality is not adopting a Republican frame), and to point out Bush's incompetence and hold him accountable for the catastrophes that occured on his watch. On the domestic front (which he did address, however much you try to pretend that he didn't) he basically took back the language that the Republicans have hijacked, and redefined the terms with traditionally progressive Democratic meanings, but speaking in a language that middle America could understand. He redefined as moral and family values, such issues as progressive taxation, ensuring the presence of good jobs, access to healthcare and education, and even gay rights. He redifined patriotism to mean the importance of dissent and disagreement and dialogue, and holding one's leaders accountable.

I found the way that he framed the issues to be absolutely the most brilliant part of his campaign. If he can correct the relatively superficial mistakes that his '04 campaign made, while retaining the message and the frame, he will not only win in '08, but he may bring about a fundamental realignment of American politics.

As far as your own "constructive criticism" goes, if you're so into the idea of framing a message so that it will be accepted, why don't you work on the way you're framing this message. Go ahead and try it, just as an experiment. Try to communicate with Clark supporters in such a way as to make them more receptive to your message. If you tried that, we might even begin to take you at your word that you're just trying to be helpful.

It doesn't seem to be going too well right now. You do recall how your "constructive criticism" went over with Wes Clark's son. It would seem that your own framing could use a little work if you expect anyone to take your advice seriously.

By the way, I NEVER go into an Edwards thread to offer the kind of "advice" and "constructive criticism" that you are so eager to offer on Clark threads. Even though there is a HELL of alot of "constructive criticism" that I could offer in that area. I just happen to believe that sort of behavior is classless, tasteless and tactless.

[FrenchieCat]

208. and Don't forget....

"clueless".....

[AP]

218. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Crunchy Frog]

237. Nope,

just want you to work on "framing" your message a little more effectively. You do want to be successful in your "constructive criticism" don't you?

[Leilani]

159. The American President is" Leader of the Free World"

By ignoring the most important duty a President performs, you ignore the reality of what it takes to become President.

NO WHERE in our constitution does it mention credit cards, mortgage payments, etc.

The Constitution, however, does address the issue of security.

So when you think President, think: Leader, & Free.

[Tom Rinaldo]

161. "That's why we don't elect our generals."

Fiddle sticks. Here is something published in the Arizona Record that a Google search brought up:

"By the numbers

17

Governors elected president of the United States, including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter

12

Generals elected president of the United States, including George Washington, James Garfield, Zachary Taylor and Dwight D. Eisenhower

15

U.S. senators who have become president, including James Monroe, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon

2

U.S. senators who moved directly from Congress to the White House: Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy

14

Presidents who won second terms, including Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Grover Cleveland"

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/metro/6595.php

I suppose your real point is that we haven't elected many Generals lately, with Dwight D Eisenhower the most recent General elected President (twice)

But it has been almost exactly as long that we haven't elected a U.S. Senator as President as it has been for a General (JFK in 1960 vs Dwight in 1956.) And unlike a long progression of defeated Senators, the last General who was nominated for President by a major Party actually won.

Lately there has been a cycle of electing Governors, but history is made of cycles and cycles do turn.

It is also conventional wisdom that had General Colin Powell chosen to run for President he would have been favored to win.

[Tom Rinaldo]

165. I think the block has been a professional political class in control

Political power has become an insider sport in Washington. That makes it difficult for a non member of the "club" (elected official) to win the nomination of a major Political Party. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that holding a significant elected office is not a sensible and appropriate stepping stone to the Presidency, I am simply saying that our Parties are now firmly controlled by career politicians and they naturally are the ones with the freest access to the strings that must be pulled in order to line up sufficient political support to win a major nomination in our current system.

The American people have not been "rejecting" Generals for President. They haven't been given the option frequently of late to chose one. Career military leaders all face the exact same hurdle that Clark did, a lack of insider contacts, politically vetted close aids, and favors owed them by Party officials. It takes a man of Colin Powell's or Wes Clark's obvious stature and ability, combined with their having extensive career familiarity with Political leaders due to their assignments in Washington DC, in order for a contemporary Military leader to break through the Washington insider power blockade.

[AP]

185. I wasn't saying "we don't elect governors president." I was saying we dont

have elections for our generals. Generals don't represent policy positions. Voters think generals act the same regardless of their political affiliation -- which makes it hard for generals to draw contrasts (especially Dem generals trying to draw a contrast with Republicans).

[Tom Rinaldo]

191. OK, but that gives us a further advantage with Clark IMO

Our military, using your logic which I to an extent agree with, is thought of by most Americans to be non partisan. I do believe however that everyone realizes that some Generals win wars while others lose them, and Clark is a winner. Still, on your main point, yes our military leaders are thought of by most Americans as true Patriots dedicated to defending our nation, not self serving politicians or corrupt lackies for special interests. That is why the Republican Party has gone out of its way to wrap themselves with the military wrapped inside a flag.

On one level of discussion that is a resonating contrast right there. It works in our favor with Clark.

Another "minor point" AP, following up on the discussion about the differences between a Democratic and Republican Foreign Policy elsewhere on this thread during which you observed that the distinction might be lost on many voters because it is too subtle. We aren't trying to elect a President as an abstract exercise in political theory. We are trying to install the best leadership possible for these troubled times. Yes we need to get our candidate elected, but the true mission is we need to ensure that this nation, and ultimately the world gets the leadership it needs in America. It's not just a horse race, the goal is larger than simply winning.

If one candidate (ours) understands what it will take to make our nation and the world secure, and has the skill to implement that vision, and the other candidate (theirs) has it ass backward and is rapidly increasing the ultimate danger to our security, the difference is huge even if it is not easily seen by most. And the difference is profound, a literal matter of life and death for tens of thousands or more. I want a President with the skill and vision necessary to make the world a safer place. I think Wes Clark is that man.

[AP]

198. If I were a Clark supporter, I would think long and hard about how Clark's

message might contrast to the Republican's message.

I don't think, "he's a better man" is going to cut it. He has to be seen as standing for a set of policies (whether they are FP/NS or otherwise) which voters see as distinctly different from what Republicans believe in.

I think one of the weakest parts of the argument for Clark is that it seems to be founded on the premise that Republicans' world view is essentially correct: threats abroad justify putting domestic concerns on the back burner (FDR never did that during WWII -- his argument was always that political and economic power for people who work for a living was the way to have a strong, safe America).

I think that strategy concedes a lot of territory to Republicans, and then you're left fighting over something very narrow, something which voters have no clear feelings about, something very abstract, and something where Republicans have a built-in advantage (people like strong fathers with short tempers and with hair-triggers when they think they're being threatened by an outsider, but they want a calm, fair, nurturing father when they think about their jobs, pensions, health, and education). You're working on incredibly tiny margins when you do that.

Just my opinon.

[Sparkly]

202. Ridiculous

I answered your assertion that there's no difference in foreign policy between Clark (and Democrats in general) and Republicans. He's spoken and written on this specifically at length.

Nor does he ignore domestic issues. As I've said, in a climate of FEAR and WAR, unless those are set aside, nothing on the domestic side registers. A majority of voters already agree with Democrats on domestic policy. It's relating to the candidate, feeling comfort and trust, and feeling assured the candidate isn't weak on national security that have to be there first.

Nobody's conceding ANYthing to Republicans.

(Edited to add: See a few posts down, #149.)

[AP]

213. Voters don't take into the booth with them pages and pages of writings.

They reduce those writings down to a paragraph in their mind and they contrast that paragraph to the paragraph they have in their mind that describes what the other candidate stands for, and they pick the candidate based on that contrast.

[Tom Rinaldo]

245. You keep talking yourself into smaller and smaller circles

You are bending over backward to see non distinctions when the distinctions are as clear as day. Clark boiled stark Foreign Policy differences down one sentence at a time, all of the time. "Bush pulled a bait and switch, instead of finishing the job with Bin Ladin, he went after Saddam Hussein." "Accountability goes to the top of the chain of command, George Bush set the tone and should be held accountable for the prison abuses but he never takes responsibility for any mistake." "Invading Iraq was a massive strategic blunder that made us less safe not more safe." "George Bush dropped the ball on fighting terrorism prior to 9/11, his attention was focused elsewhere on anti missile defense systems despite being warned that Al Quada was the gravest threat to America's security." These are all paraphrases of actual Clark statements, but they are pretty close to what he repeatedly said during his campaign as well as Kerry's.

Clark was among the first calling for changing the tax codes that favored firms that out sourced American jobs into tax codes that rewarded those that created jobs here at home. Clark called for actual cuts in the Defense budget, because he knew where the real waste is hidden. To finance tax relief for families Clark would have rolled back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and raised taxes on the wealthiest one percent.

Clark is a Democrat. Count on him running against a Republican if he gets our nomination in 2008. There will be plenty of strong contrasts between our candidates. Trust me. If I didn't know better it almost sounds like you think our candidate should not have strongly thought through positions on Foreign Affairs because having them is what people expect Republicans to do, and we should look different than Republicans. Somehow that doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me.

[Sparkly]

246. That's another reason Clark would win

I'll say it again:

- We don't use military power for the sake of asserting military power.
- We don't use troops to try to resolve issues that need to be resolved politically.
- We don't pull out of international treaties all over the place thinking isolation makes us stronger.
- We don't threaten other countries in the middle east and give them a reason to help Iraq fail (because they feel 'next on the list' if Iraq succeeds).
- We aren't afraid to put pressure on Saudi Arabia.
- WE WORK WITH EUROPE.

These are all things General Clark has said, and they're all contrary to Republican and Neo-Con philosophy and actions.

[FrenchieCat]

204. If I were an Edwards supporter I wouldn't talk about weak....

arguments so much. I wouldn't, if I were an Edwards supporter.... on the one hand talk about how Republicans views are Clark's views....when they are not.

and on the other hand, talk about how well Edwards would have done with Republicans (he had the chance to show us that and didn't).

Edwards is the one who has no foreign policy that differenciates from that of Republicans. Edwards is the one with the Foreign policies which...as you state "seems to be founded on the premise that Republicans' world view is essentially correct".

Evidence for that is Edwards is the one that voted for the Iraq war and linked it to 9/11...just like Republicans do. In fact, I still am not sure what Edwards position are.....but they don't sound very "distinctive" to me.

So as I see it.....in reference to FP/NS positions, it would be those of Edwards that are so close to....until they appear to be to those of Bush's.

Clark saw it and still sees it a entire different way than do Republicans.

Additionally, your spin...that supporting Clark means putting the domestic agenda to the side, is just that--your spin. That's what you want the slant to be for those contrasting Clark to Edwards.

AP = If you support Clark, means you don't care about domestic issues. If you support Edwards, means you do.

False Choice....which makes you, AP, just plain outright wrong ....

Sorry that Edwards is such a hard sell....that you have to pull a bait and switch as part of your ammo. Especially considering that Edwards was given a chance to show us what he had.....which turned out to be "not much". Couldn't even win his own county. Now that's what I call "weak".

[AP]

210. I think my track record speaks for itself here at DU.

I think I've been right much more than I've been wrong in predicting voter behavior, and I have a lot of posts in the archives you can check to see what I said about dozens of elections.

See what I said about Kerry during the primaires and let me know if you think I was wrong.

See what I argued about Edwards months before the first primary and compare it to the Deliberative Poll and to his performance in the primaries.

See what I said about different federal, state and local races.

You can ignore what I say if you want to. I don't really care. I just think there's plenty of evidence that I have sufficienctly decent sense of how elections play out that it's probably worth at least considering what I'm saying without just presuming that I crticize Clark only because I like Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

217. yep....I agree with one of your statements....

AP....this one about why you do what you do: " I criticize Clark only because I like Edwards".

BINGO! Now you are speaking truth. Say it loud....AP, you love Edwards, and you're proud.

It's OK....:evilgrin:

[AP]

221. You're not going to be able to misquote your way to a nomination...

...for Clark.

Your going to have to contemplate these issues and address them.

If you really believe that the only reason I do this is because I'm trying to sabotage someone I fear is better than the candidate I support, that's your loss. Again, I really don't care if you believe that or not, given the whole anonymous internet posting nature of this endeavor, but if I think I have a pretty clear track record of supporting the Democrats with with best chance of winning and of always keeping my eyes on the prize -- which is Democrats winning. And I think I have a pretty good track record of indetifying the weakness in candidates who ended up not winning.

If you want to search through the archives and try to find evidence of anything else, feel free. If you do find something, it might make you feel better about dismissing my criticisms of Clark. But I really doubt that you will find any comfort.

[FrenchieCat]

227. Pluuuueeeeaaaaaase.....

you are really not THAT important. Sure, you are the one Edwardian (it's not like there are that many anyway....you and a small handful and the Corporate media) that we can always reliably find in a Clark post.....but aside from that, Pluuuueeeeaaaaaaze.....

Like I said, you try to minimize Clark's knowledge of domestic policies and try to give readers a false choice....that they can only select Edwards if they are interested in Domestic policies. Then you go round trying hard to sell the notion that Democrats can't compete with the Republicans on NS/FP, so we should just give up on it. So with you, it's one thing OR the other. How limited!

I can believe that this is how many voters might think....just doesn't make rational, sensible or pragmatic. Your track record is that of supporting those who didn't help win an election.....and your train of thought makes winning future elections close to impossible (IMO).

Maybe you should stop giving out advise. Seems almost dangerous at this point.

[AP]

229. Then why waste your time responding to me?

I don't try to minimize anything. I try to predict how voters will vote. And I think I have a pretty decent track record.

[RafterMan]

232. We respond to you

because you are wrong.

And your track record is one of losing. "In the last ten days of the election, Bush convinced voters that the most important issue was war", you say, yet your solution is to pretend that didn't happen.

How clever.

[FrenchieCat]

238. I respond because I don't like to read about being given a false choice...

I knew we were in trouble with this last election when Newsweek magazine had the cover pic of Kerry and Edwards....calling them the "Sunshine Boys?"....Not only did I understand that calling grown men "boys" was not the perception that Democrats needed (since we are already the mommy party)..but there was a question mark added as well.

This was kinda of troubling to me....cause I knew that we were out to unseat an incumbent wartime President touted as a "Resolute steafast leader" who has the media in his pocket.

Maybe you do have a good track record....or maybe you just never saw it coming.

I did.

[Crunchy Frog]

240. I do thank you though

for providing us with an opportunity, in a Clark thread, to completely demolish all of the arguements put foreward for why Edwards would supposedly be a good candidate.

I would never be so low class as to go into an Edwards thread to do it, but I like being given an opening to do it in a Clark thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

248. Crunchy you have been on fire throughout this thread lol

How very very true. Soon as Edwards got the VP nod, I shut up about him. Even defended him a few times. I wished him well because he was on our ticket and if Edwards had proven me wrong about the type of campaign that would get our team elected I would have been thrilled, because that would have ended the Bush reign of Terror. Hell I even took off fro 4 days and campaigned for the John boys in PA.

I have not written one critical word about Edwards on DU since he got the VP nod, not even to this day. Not on a Clark thread, and certainly not on an Edwards thread. But if AP keeps trying to dominate Clark threads with his "constructive criticism" of Clark, well I am more than ready. Funny thing is, I'm still holding back, even after a few dozen AP posts here. My patience is wearing thin though.

AP, since I assume you will read this, it would all work so much smoother is you restrained yourself to making each constructively critical point once per Clark thread, with perhaps a follow up clarifying comment. That can be lived with. Yes I know you have a restless mind always searching for a new nuance to reveal, but there is a time and place for everything. Several dozen Clark critical virtually repetitive posts on a Clark thread is not effective if your motives are sincere. Please review Crunchy's comments on "framing".

[Tom Rinaldo]

249. Mistaken post. Self delete. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

250. My post #248 was meant to be linked to Crunchy's post

I thought I accidentally linked it to Frenchie (who of course has also been on fire) but I just have been through this three times. The software on this thread has a glitch and won't let me directly reply to Crunchy. I suspect Diebold (and yes I really don't trust them with our elections- though I DO trust DU's management!)

[Leilani]

224. Yes, your track record speaks for itself.

You were Edward's biggest supporter here at DU & promoted him endlessly.

And guess what, you got your wish: Edwards was chosen as Veep to run with Kerry on the ticket. And no where, I repeat, no where is there any evidence that he added anything to the ticket.

He was sent into the rural areas to try & boost Kerry's numbers, & Kerry lost a larger share of rural & exurban voters than Gore did in 2000.

Edward's appeal to minorities, & those at the bottom of the economic ladder? Bush increased his share of votes among Hispanics & blacks because of security issues & family values issues.

Edwards appeal to women? Kerry lost ground among women compared to 2000.

Edwards appeal in the South? Nada, zilch, zip.

Also John Edwards ran very poorly in the Southwest during the primaries, therefore, he was no help to Kerry in those states which we considered might vote blue: Nevada, New Mexico was lost, etc.

Edwards appeal in the heartland? Kerry lost Iowa.

The only improvement was the win in New Hampshire, which I would argue was due to Kerry & Kerry alone. He came from a neighboring state & had won the New Hampshire primary.

Therfore, I make the case that John Edwards added not one whit to the ticket, & to the campaign.

As an Edwards supporter, I would think you might concern yourself with Edwards' weaknesses, rather than Wes Clark's weaknesses.

[Crunchy Frog]

214. Right on Frenchie!

Exactly what I saw with Edwards, no discernable difference in foreign policy between him and Bush, other than playing lip service to being more diplomatic about carrying out wars of conquest against countries that hadn't done anything to us.

If we want to beat the Republicans, we need to run a candidate who presents a REAL contrast, as well as one who has genuine credibility in national security, rather than just pretending that it's an issue that either doesn't exist, or should be completely ceded to the Republicans.

[RafterMan]

219. For anyone who wonders what Frenchy and Crunchy

are talking about, please read this:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

If anyone can fit a dollar bill sideways between Edwards and Bush, I'll give them a ten.

"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage."

"And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled."

"MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before."

Thank you, Dick Cheney.

[dogman]

220. That's exactly where Edwards stood.

In the Primary Edwards and Lieberman supported B$$$co. Edwards even called Kerry wrong and took the same exact position as Cheney. In the VP debate he flip flopped and took a new position. I was shocked the Rethugs never called him on it. I realized then that, yes, he's a politician and will say what is convenient at the time and I realized why he was picked as VP candidate. I think the Rethugs did not bother to call him on it because they knew he was irrelevant and there was no need to give him any attention.

[RafterMan]

199. It's not a minor point

I live in a target city, and the idea of a president singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" in response to the very real threat directed against my home is as unacceptable as it is bizarre.

[Leilani]

211. I agree, RafterMan

Honolulu is also a target city, & we have had several security scares, which I think accounts for Bush doing better in blue states in 2004, than he did in 2000. Hawaii is a very liberal place domestically, but we are vulnerable out here in the middle of the Pacific...Pearl Harbor is a lasting legacy.

I would also make the point that terrorism & national security is inevitably linked to economic issues. After 9/11, people stopped traveling & Hawaii was devastated financially. Businesses closed, people lost jobs, & we were on shaky ground.

This would also apply to any area that caters to tourism & relies mainly on a service economy. I read articles about the effect on Las Vegas & other tourist destinations. Also, people employed in the service sector are among the most low paid workers in our economy, Therefore, the slightest downturn affects them proportionally high.

Thus, national security & terrorism, & the economy ARE linked. It is a cycle of fear: when people are afraid, their spending patterns change, & this in turn affects the economy in a very negative way. And when people are afraid physically, OR economically insecure, they will vote for who can restore a semblance of security to their lives.

[AP]

216. The antidote to fear is hope, not more fear. FDR proved this. I have no...

...doubt RFK would have won with that same message in '68. It is why Clinton was the boy from Hope so soon after Gulf War I. No doubt, it is why Edwards was beating Bush 48-37 in the Deliberative Poll.

[RafterMan]

222. The antidote for fear

is solving the problems that cause that fear.

"The only thing we have to fear" speech was in reference to the great depression, not foreign threats -- you do not seem to understand this.

FDR responded to Pearl Harbor by declaring war on the Japanese, not by fiddling with tax rates or singing clever ditties.

[AP]

228. Which you'll never do if you scare people into voting for Republicans.

When people are afraid they don't vote for the more sane of the available candidates. They vote for the candidate they think will kill the other guy first. 98 percent of the time that's goig to be a Republican.

I can't think of an election where the liberals beat the fear mongers by conceding the world was a very frightening place. They win the election by convincing people that fear shouldn't stop them from voting for their own best interests, and then once they win they make the world a less frightening place (like Wilson tried to do with the LoN and FDR did with the UN).

[RafterMan]

230. I can't think of an election the Democrats won

by ignoring the dangers in the world.

It's not a matter of "scaring", it's a matter of dealing with reality rather than some fantasy land. Again, you seem to be living in a fantasy land where the threat of terrorism is somehow not quite real. Why is the idea of *solving the problem* anathema to you? Is it because your guy can't?

Those of us who must face the real problem in the real world shouldn't have to pay the price for your ignorance.

[AP]

233. "It's the economy, stupid" -- remember that one?

And it's not that they ignore them. Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon on fighting communism in order to take that issue of the table, and then focussed on Democratic strengths. He did not let the red scare or NS or FP totally frame his campaign (and Kennedy was a war hero).

[RafterMan]

236. What was the threat in 1992?

Remember that one? Neither do I. Most people thought the world looked safe -- they don't now. And they're right.

Yes, Kennedy ran on a "fear" platform and won the election. How is that an argument for you? It isn't, unless you see Clark as only a uniform, which has been argued too many times to count. No taxes for families making under $50k is not letting "NS or FP totally frame" anything.

[dogman]

231. I pointed out here that you are historically wrong about FDR.

Check out the British agent Intrepid. FDR used his lies on national TV to instill fear in the American people in order to push us into WWII. Your whole case for Edwards is based on one poll. There are any number of polls that come up with different results. Polls are tools, only one poll is decisive. Edwards was popular and so is William Hung. Hung is by no means an artist however.

[AP]

235. FDR did exploit the fifth columnists -- but that was an aberration in...

...a strategy of whose essesnce was the fireside chat.

The fireside chat was the way millions of Americans related to FDR -- it epitomized the message he was trying to send.

He had to do that because the press was playing newsreals of Hitler's frantic lunatic rantings. Most Americans spoke no German. They were terrified. FDR did the opposite of what Hitler was doing because to play into the fear Hitler was creating would have been to open the door for fascists to win in the US.

Same thing is happening today.

[RafterMan]

239. That's just completely wrong

Americans in the 1930s did not fear Hitler, they feared economic collapse. 80% were opposed to entering WWII, while FDR supported it.

Your argument is pure fantasy.

[Sparkly]

149. My answer was about matching, because at that minimum we can win

Because what we win on are domestic issues as long as people aren't freaked out with fear over national security concerns. That's my opinion.

However, a foreign policy that's different from Republicans is no stretch, now that the neo-cons have taken over that party.

- We don't use military power for the sake of asserting military power.
- We don't use troops to try to resolve issues that need to be resolved politically.
- We don't pull out of international treaties all over the place thinking isolation makes us stronger.
- We don't threaten other countries in the middle east and give them a reason to help Iraq fail (because they feel 'next on the list' if Iraq succeeds).
- We aren't afraid to put pressure on Saudi Arabia.
- WE WORK WITH EUROPE. We value goodwill and trust among our allies, Europe in particular will be stronger by 2008 and the US will be weaker -- both militarily and financially. We really need to be appealing and cooperating with Europe rather than distancing ourselves, humiliating ourselves, and insulting them. If the day comes that oil is traded in euro's, our economy will be completely irrelevant. I believe Europe is going to grow in importance to our foreign policy, and General Clark is experienced, connected, expertly knowledgeable, and admired in that area.

[Leilani]

100. I agree with Sparkly....it's perception...

Navy POW for 5 1/2 yrs, Naval Academy Graduate....winner of all sorts of awards...

Who in the Dem party can stand on the stage with MCain, & go toe to toe on EVERY issue of foreign policy, national security, military policy, Pentagon budget, etc.

Wes Clark is a West Pt grad, 30+ years of honorable service, wounded seriously in Vietnam. Awards out the wazoo.

Wes instantly takes away McCain's advantage.

Then they move on to domestic issues...Wes wins.

Finally, McCain knows & respects Wes Clark...I've heard him say it.
You put some defense no-nothing on the stage with McCain, & McCain wins automatically on all national security issues.

Also, McCain is no slouch intellectually, but Wes is superior. I don't know of anyone more brilliant on the political scene today than him.

[AP]

102. Standing toe to toe isn't going to win it. Distinguishing yourself from

McCain is going to win it.

What is the Democratic Party's winning argument about FP? What ideas are voters going to take into the polling both which convince them that voting for the Democrat is going to make the world a better place?

I'd rather see someone go on stage and argue for a set of ideas, FP or no FP, which voters graps as representing something that could make a significant difference in their lives.

It's not about going to toe to toe and looking similar. It's about drawing contrasts.

[Leilani]

103. You just don't get it!

You never have, & you never will.

You never discuss things with people in a back & forth manner.

What you do is post AP opinions, & dare us to disprove them.

I've tried since the primaries to discuss issues with you, but you don't listen.

I refuse to try & disprove your convoluted logic.

We told you in the primaries it was about security; we were right. you were wrong.

The "Two Americas" went nowhere fast.

People were afraid of dying.

[AP]

106. Democrats are not going to win when the prevailing mood is that

they're afraid of dying.

That is a frame that only works for fascists and the way to fight it is to do what FDR did: convince Americans that the only thing they should be afraid of is fear.

[RafterMan]

110. But why should the Republicans win

when that is the prevailing mood?

Again, you surrender right at the crisis point.

[AP]

117. Because the very thing that makes the world a dangerous place --

Republican's total hair-trigger, irrational, shoot first ask questions later approach to FP and NS -- is exactly what people want on their side when the think the world's a dangerous place.

Look, Bush didn't start these wars thinking, "Oh, gosh, how am I ever going to win another election now that I've fucked up the world so badly?"

They started these wars because they knew they'd never win another election (without cheating) so long as voters weren't afraid of the world and therefore expected their government to make their lives better. When people are afraid, Republicans win.

What defeats that is not accepting the Republican frame for the world and trying to out-scare voters (FDR never did that). What beats that is building a frame that puts the focus back on what's really being threatened, what's really at stake and what the Demcorats have a record of protecting and that is a big, wealthy, happy, democratic middle class.

[RafterMan]

119. People "want" it

because it's the only coherent program they're presented with -- Dems only ever say, "We agree/disagree with the Repubs, only we're different".

Nobody (but you) is suggesting the Dems try to "outfear" them. The suggestion is that the failure of the party to address those fears will result in perpetual defeat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. By the way, since this originally was a Wes Clark thread

the real secret I believe of a Wes Clark candidacy is this: Wes Clark doesn't have to spend 2/3rd's of a nominating convention trying to convince Americans that he is tough enough for the job. Wes Clark doesn't have to defend xyz number of Senate votes against this and that weapon systems. Wes Clark never looks or feels out of place at an American Legion Hall. The result? Wes Clark can concentrate on the issues. In fact Wes Clark, in my opinion, will be the most free of any possible Democratic candidate to concentrate on discussing Domestic issues during a Presidential campaign, because he won't have to endlessly drain time and resources buffing up his macho credentials.

[Leilani]

127. Excellent post, Tom

as usual.

With Wes there are so many issues taken right off the table, because he has the credibility that others in the party are lacking.

That leaves him free to discuss OUR issues.

[dogman]

112. Then why did FDR use British Intel reports to show the Nazis had a plan

to divide SA into regions they would control. He is reported to have known thesee papers were fabricated but he was determined that we enter the war to stop Hitler. Why do you think B$$$ invokes FDR so often? He thinks he did the same with Saddam and is about to try and give us his idea of a New Deal. The Dem Party had seized the trust of the American people in FP and NS until the debacle of Vietnam when Nixon seized the iniative to lead in FP.

[RafterMan]

115. Well-said, dogman

"seized the trust"...very insightful.

Presented with a crisis, FDR grasped it, comprehended it, used it... he didn't say, "but we want to be the New York Times party of economics in 2000, let Alf Landon talk about Hitler..."

[AP]

116. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself."

Fire side CHAT. SWEATER. Happy Days are Here Again.

That's how you fight fascism.

It sounds crazy, but it's true.

OK, that or you get lucky with a TR. But Cheney is no TR.

I'd rather go with strategy with a track record.

[dogman]

120. That was one speech to encourage the populace.

Look at what he actually did. Look at the one Republican who broke the Dem hold on the Presidency and what he offered to persuade people to follow him. FDR won an economic war in his first terms just like Clinton did. We then were faced with an enemy that required strength and resolve to deal with. This paved the way for Ike to get the GOP back in the game. Ike had no ability to convert that into policy, Clark is more than a General and has a long term plan to restore this country to live up to it's potential.

[CarbonDate]

171. Contrast: War hero (McCain) v. Trial lawyer (Edwards)

Yeah, there's a winning strategy :eyes:

[AP]

189. Edwards symbolizes a set of polices that contrast with Republicans

extremely well, and that includes his work as a trial lawyer, and that's why he did well in the primaries, I believe.

When you thought of him, the contrast with Republicans was fairly clear, and it was a contrast that even Republicans liked since so many of them feel that they get ahead on their own, with no help from anyone even the government, even though Edwards kept saying that it was good public education and his mother's job at the post office that really helped him get ahead.

[RafterMan]

203. He doesn't contrast with them on foreign policy

[AP]

226. I disagree. I think he does, becasue his argument about FP is basically

a subset of his argument about domestic policy:

I know people jumped all over him when he talked in that one debate about US FP being screwed up because we organize it around making life better for Saudi sheiks when we should be organizing it around making it better for the citizens of countries like SA and Afghanistan, which segued into a discussion about building public schools in Afghanistan being the route to a safer America because it would mean that fewer people would go to the madras (sp?) schools where they learn to hate America. It would also mean building up a middle class and less inequity would mean less anger directed at a big cause of their inequity -- the US.

That was the most brilliant statement of what American FP should be that I heard in the entire primary season. It was subtle, but it was brilliant. Basically, it was a statement about what Edwards's domestic policies are -- about what he believed would make America better: good public schools, a wealthy, happy middle class, and a society that isn't organized around shifting all the wealth to people at the top who are already rich. He then lifted up that template and placed it on SA and Afghanistan.

It was brilliant. It was a coherent world view that made a ton of sense, and it's something that most Americans must believe on some subliminal level, and hearing Edwards say it has got to be the beginning, for many of people, of translating core liberal values into a sense of what policy should be (both domestic and foreign). Edwards wasn't just talking about what America needs to do overseas. He was telling people what he believed in and tying it all together.

Anyway, bottom line, Edwards needs to find ways where he can SHOW people what he meant when he said what he said in that debate. He needs to articulate this unified theory of the world (about what the role of the government should be, about building up middle classes, about the danger and inefficiency of oligopoly, and about the value of opportunity) and then fit that paradigm over both domestic and international issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=257x95#99

[RafterMan]

243. The skies above are clear again...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

Nope, sorry.

[FrenchieCat]

168. AP....you often write as though

9/11 never occurred. The War in Iraq is just one action that the Republican took....but 9/11 occurred to all Americans...and the "security issue" that we got beat on had nothing to do with Iraq.

I think you would be hardpressed to find many who think that 9/11 was just an "incidental" part of the election....it was an integral part.....and Democratic candidates, other than Clark, really acted as though 9/11 was not an issue to be discussed. Edwards certainly made no criticisms as to how 9/11 was allowed to occur.

That is the problem with many Democrats. Many have challenged Bush's Iraq position but not the fact that 9/11 occurred on his watch. Edwards agrees with Bush on 9/11 in terms of how Bush was handling it. In fact, Edwards, like Republicans, tends to meld the Iraq War and 9/11 together...a big no-no in my book. How does that make Edwards a great spokesman for the Democratic party? It just doesn't.

The problem with Edwards is that he doesn't have a different National Security policy from Bush. Maybe that's why you always poo-poo the issue of National Security....cause your man doesn't have much to say about the issue and HE doesn't have a distinguishing position. See AP, whether you see it or not......Wes Clark did and does as noted here:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D17F93B590C738EDDAB0894DC404482

Wes Clark was the only candidate who truly criticized Bush's handling of 9/11. He was the only one calling for Bush to be held accountable for the greatest security failings that occurred on 9/11.

Economic issues by themselves, which is where you feel Edwards' strength lies....cannot solely win elections after 9/11.

Our message has got to be a full service message. The reason Bush did well in 2004 is because of 9/11 and nothing more. Edwards is weak in the area of National Security and that won't change. The War on Terra and the memories of 9/11 will be with us for a long, long time. To stick our heads into the sand and cede the issue to Republicans is the worse mistake we could, as a party, make.

Beyond that....Clark is not just about National Security (although you wish it so and wish other Democrats to believe it as well...as it helps your man out).

Read this about Clark and economics.....
And just what did you do in the class war, Senator?
There were those who, concerned more with party credentials than the public interest, challenged Clark's right to run as a Democrat. At candidate debates he was asked to justify his recent decision to be a party member. But what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.
>snip
Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

[AP]

192. I think that I think the same way your average informed voter would think:

Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.


Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

A lot of Republicans -- who presumably care more about a FP/NS than Democrats were willing to forget 9/11 and vote for Edwards. Nothing to fear except fear itself. Happy Days are Here Again. Democracy was at a bigger risk of falling to fascists inside the US and abroad in the 1930s than it is now, and that message won elections then.

[FrenchieCat]

197. That's the press talking....and the constant "sham" polls that

are used to manipulate voters. It's obvious that "Regular voters" didn't care about the polls you are citing....as they didn't even vote for Edwards in his own county (guess the Republicans and Independents there knew him too well).

The press and the polls also said that Edwards was talking owls out of trees. I never saw even one owl....so, I don't take the CM (corporate media) and the presstitutes words for anything unless it makes sense to me.....based on other evidence.

I don't believe their polling either. Hell, they said Edwards name and showed his pic enough....without letting anyone know what he even stood for.....so I wouldn't be surprised if the uninformed voters would just go whichever direction they are pointed in taking a poll.

And please....don't flatter Edwards to the point of saying that voters were willing to forget 9/11 and vote for Edwards. That is just bullsh*t that doesn't jive at all with the reality that occured on the ground. You will be much better off if you take your head out of the sand. Your citings are meaningless....cause we actually witnessed what actually occurred....and Edwards and his rumored Republican and Independent magnet didn't quite attract.

[AP]

223. The Deliberative Poll is not a sham poll and it was a pretty accurate...

...predictor of the Kerry vs Bush race, eh?

[FrenchieCat]

241. you liked the poll results...

so it was deliberative. Sounds like CNN touting their polls.

Polls are for lemings, presstitutes, and politicians with a ready finger to the wind.

[robbedvoter]

141. Uh one cares about the constitution, peace the other is a W'as* groundhog

occasionally popping up for a non-crap statement. Also, I am sure Shelton will endorse the Groundhog.
Thanks for playing. Now you can go in your favorite group and start another thread - with all the entries yours, all copied from this thread.

[CarbonDate]

170. You can't see a difference between McCain and Clark?

I suppose you probably couldn't see a difference, military experience-wise, between Clark and Kerry, either.

To turn your question around, what would McCain run on? He ran on campaign finance reform, which was passed under Bush. Mission accomplished? Seriously, what would he have to run on? His support of this disastrous war?

[KittyWampus]

13. It's Not Like He Was Responsible For Many Thousands Under His Command

and their families, knows more than a thing or two about economics, promoted ALL kinds of progressive/liberal causes while commander...

you people are either so transparent or so uninformed it's pathetic.

[Radical Activist]

26. Yes I'm transparent

I don't support Clark for President. I don't think I've made any effort to disguise that fact.

I simply can't trust a candidate who I can't judge by previous voting record in office and who is arrogant enough to run for President as a first time candidate. I have the same issues with Sharpton and Nader. He's a good guy and I think it would also be smart if he would help move Arkansas stronger in the Democratic column by running for Senate or Governor where I suspect he would do a good job.

[Sparkly]

92. I see it as quite the opposite

A voting record is a handicap. The longer it is, the worse it is. We should have learned that long ago; we just learned it again.

"Arrogant?!?" A man like General Clark is hardly arrogant in running for president!! Somebody who served one term in one office and that's it, maybe. But someone who was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes Scholar with a degree in Economics, a decorated Vietnam veteran, a four-star general who sacrificed to give 34 years of service to the country, and former SACEUR?? I think that's more than enough to qualify him. In my opinion, he could be the best thing that's happened to this party -- indeed, this country -- in a long, long time.

He doesn't need to run for state office. That'd be a huge step down after his career, after having head-of-state status, after working with the Pentagon, the White House, and international leaders working diplomacy and winning wars. No, he does not need to step down to local politics in Arkansas!! In fact, he doesn't need to do anything. As I see it, it's not about him needing to run, it's about the country needing him to run -- he's served more than anybody could ask already.

Just my opinion.

[Radical Activist]

108. Governor or Senator is not "stepping down"

and I hope Clark doesn't see it that way because then my comment about arrogance would be confirmed. State government and the US Senate have a major impact on the lives of everyone in this nation. I know for a fact that the Governor of my state has affected my life in more ways than Wesley Clark ever has.

[dogman]

109. We don't have to solve the problem of a state in crisis, we have a nation

in crisis. We need a proven problem solver and leader to turn this country around. It takes leadership, statesmanship, and courage. These are things that Wes offers right now. The President does not make laws , he makes policy and puts together a team to accomplish his goals. Clark has excelled at that. He offers an alternative to politics as usual that would appeal to a broader spectrum of people because he is not tied to failed policies of the past.

[Sparkly]

154. It's certainly not a step up.

From dealing with matters of international war and peace at the Pentagon and all over the world to dealing with road-widening projects in Arkansas? I'm not trying to diminish the importance of state politics, but someone who's had head-of-state status representing the United States doesn't step UP in representing Arkansas. (I'm not measuring it by how much you observe somebody directly affects your life.)

[CarbonDate]

172. I guess that's the difference between you and me

I do see going from being deeply involved with international politics to governing the small state of Arkansas as a step down. Yes, the governor of a state affects your life in more ways than a NATO commander does. Your governor also has much more impact on you than the U.N. Secretary General does. But let's follow this to its logical extension:

* The mayor of my city has a much more direct impact on me than the governor of my state. Therefore, going from governor to mayor is not a step down.

* My (hypothetical) child's teacher affects my child's life in more ways than my child's principal does. Therefore, going from principal to teacher is not a step down.

* My garbage man affects my life much more directly than the President of the United States does.

Need I go on?

Perhaps going from being NATO commander to being Arkansas governor is not a step down, but it is certainly much more limited in its scope. I also, apparently unlike you, regard 34 years as a military officer as an impressive record in public service, elected or not. He was serving the people of the United States in exactly the same sense as a cabinet member or civil servant. I don't really understand how Gen. Clark's contributions to America's foreign policy under the Clinton administration doesn't count for anything simply because he was a military officer as opposed to an elected official.

[For PaisAn]

188. You said it Spakly!

"In fact, he doesn't need to do anything. As I see it, it's not about him needing to run, it's about the country needing him to run -- he's served more than anybody could ask already."

Precisely!

BTW, I believe Clark has 3 degrees, Economics, Politics and Philosophy. What a great combination, huh.

[robbedvoter]

21. I am sure he is devastated about it.

Why is it some supporters of certain candidates cannot stop themselves from popping in threads of others and making gratuituos poisonous comments?

[Radical Activist]

24. I don't know

I'm not even supporting anyone for President yet.

Why is it that supporters of some candidates have to use this board to campaign for the '08 primary?

[robbedvoter]

37. "have to us"? What would that be?

[Radical Activist]

42. I fixed the typo

I'm sure you just had trouble figuring out what I meant and that you weren't making a petty comment.

[Sparkly]

94. There are two things here you should know about.

1. Freedom to support Democrats in any way we choose; and

2. Freedom to hit "ignore" if we have a problem with, for example, "supporters of some candidates using this board to campaign for the '08 primary."

Just a thought.

[Radical Activist]

107. If you have any complaints about my posts

You can file them here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2209233

[CarbonDate]

173. Kucinich supporter. Figures. n/t

.

[Hippo_Tron]

105. He has integrity going for him

The man has never held a political position and thus hadn't been corrupted by the system. He also seems to be a pretty likeable guy.

[returnable]

5. Kickin'

Nice pick-me-up on a Monday :toast:

[davidinalameda]

6. whoo hoo!

run Wes run!

[dogman]

7. I see the MSM pushing McCain for the GOP.

It will take a better candidate from our side and I feel Clark is up to the task.

[Mike L]

10. If McCain runs, he is unbeatable.

But I don't see the GOP corporate leaders letting him get the nomination.

[dogman]

16. He is not unbeatable.

We just need someone who has the background to stand up to him and represents our party and can deliver the message in terms that people understand. McCain's problem in the GOP is he wants to take the leadership role instead of being the front man, so you may be right that he will not get the nomination.

[RafterMan]

17. McCain isn't unbeatable

His act with Bush has tarnished him a little bit, plus he'll be 72 in '08.

[Mike L]

34. I didn't know McCain is 68. He doesn't look it.

But how old was Reagan when he won the first time?

[RafterMan]

38. I think Reagan was 69

Dead at 93, elected 24 years ago...

[Bouncy Ball]

50. He's not unbeatable.

None of them are.

[jsw_81]

52. The right-wing hates McCain

Trust me, he'll never get the nod.

[Leilani]

80. McCain will NEVER get the nomination

but, on the off-chance he does, Wes Clark would be the BEST Dem to run against him.

[Mike L]

8. He has no chance, but I'd like to see him run for something in Arkansas.

[Larkspur]

9. OK, what kind of elected and Democratic Party credentials is Clark going

to muster to justify running in 2008? Is he going to run for governor of Arkansas, win it, and govern effectively? Or is he just going to tour the talk shows and work for lobbyists?

[KittyWampus]

14. Democratic Credentials? Oh, I Think He's Swimming In Them Unlike Some

posters on this forumm who seem intent on trashing Democrats for whatever reason.

[maxanne]

286. Oh yeah

He surely does. Voting for Reagan and BushI give him a big Democratic swimming pool.

[RafterMan]

288. He voted for Nixon, too

odd that George McGovern endorsed him...what does he see that you don't?

[dogman]

18. He's a leader.

He's proven his ability to lead effectively. He has a grasp of where this country needs to head.

[Willy Wonka]

22. OK. A leader.

Fine, a leader, but a leader of WHAT?! Don't say the military because he doesn't lead the military, but takes orders from his Commander in Chief.

[robbedvoter]

23. Aren't the Oopma-luumpas needing your leadership just now?

[dogman]

25. A leader of people.

Some people are leaders, some are followers, and some wander about aimlessly following their fancy.

[Sparkly]

97. haha

You're kidding, right? You think the Commander in Chief manages every part of the military, creates loyalty and morale among units, makes each and every administrative and strategic decision, etc. etc. etc...??

[Leilani]

131. A Leader in International Relations

He is in the Mideast right now playing a leadership role...check it out.

The American President is "Leader of the Free World."

Of all the Dems as possible 2008 candidates, Wes Clark most clearly fills that role.

[TwilightZone]

30. Do you just sit around all day waiting for people to post Clark threads?

Just curious....

[Larkspur]

56. No, I also write and get letters and op eds published in my local paper

I had a call today from The Hartford Courant asking permission to print my rebuttal to the publisher's bashing of Howard Dean.

[Crunchy Frog]

130. So, you don't like it when people bash Howard Dean

but you feel perfectly comfortable coming into a thread like this to bash Wes Clark. I think there may be a little hypocrisy in there somewhere.

By the way, I absolutely never go into Dean threads and bash him. I find that sort of behaviour extremely gauche and rude. Posts like yours make me sorely tempted though. Do you have some sort of interest in stirring up dissention and fighting among Democrats?

[Larkspur]

138. If asking what credentials Clark is going to achieve in order to make a

legitamate claim to the 2008 Dem Prez Nomination is "bashing Clark" then you need to consult the dictionary on what "bashing" is. I don't consider making lots of money as a consultant for lobbyists a legit credential for the 2008 Dem Prez Nomination, but if he was willing to run for governor of Arkansas and demostrate that he could win an election as well as govern effectively civilians, who are not required to obey him and who are allowed to openly disagree with him, then I will have more respect for him.

In regards to my response to the "Dean bashing" article by the publisher of the Hartford Courant in Sunday's Northeast Magazine, my response is getting published in a major Connecticut newspaper and I'm striking back in an intelligent and forthright manner at the publisher of the Hartford Courant, who is the top of the paper's food chain. Hmmm, I can see why you are jealous.

[Crunchy Frog]

152. Not at all jealous, but find your reply to be

somewhat disingenuous. Not technically "bashing" perhaps, just something that looks and feels very much like it. None of us, including you, has a time machine to be able to tell what Clark's future activities will be and whether or not they will "earn him the right to run for President".

It is also disingenuous to ask him to run for Arkansas governor as prelude to running for president in '08. You do realize that he would be getting sworn in as governor at exactly the same time that he would need to seriously begin his presidential campaign. Yes, of course you realize that, I give you credit for a little bit of intelligence.

I'm glad you're getting a letter published, but your description of it sounds a little like that of a child explaining to others that she has a pony and they don't, nyah, nyah. I'm happy for you that you have a pony, no I'm not jealous.

For the sake of Howard Dean, I hope that your letters to major publications don't have the same tone to them. You'd be surprised what a little grace, humility, and respect for others can accomplish sometimes in getting your view accross to others.

[Larkspur]

167. Here's a copy of what I sent the Hartford Courant

Don't know how much of it they will print, but here's the whole kit and kaboodle I sent them. Here's the link to the article I'm responding to An Argument for Progress http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/northeast/hc-davis1205.artdec05,0,2635522.story?coll=hc-headlines-northeast


Mr. Jack Davis said that he was “astounded that a major American political figure would so angrily give away one of the major achievements of the American Revolution - escaping the repressive British common-law libel system,” and that “Dean's audience at the Bushnell applauded .”

If Mr. Davis was so astounded by Howard Dean’s provocative statement that American libel law and the Press itself aren’t protecting the Truth and that the former governor would consider a more regressive libel policy towards the press, why didn’t Mr. Davis interview Howard Dean about it? Why didn’t Mr. Davis interview the attendees at Howard Dean’s event to ask them why they, who Mr. Davis calls progressives, applaud stronger reigns on what Rush Limbaugh calls the “liberal media?”

As a person who has had provocative letters and op eds published in The Hartford Courant, did it ever occur to Mr. Davis that the purpose of provocative speech is to get people to think outside the ruts they’ve burrowed into their brains?

Mr. Davis is amazed that progressives would applaud Howard Dean’s regressive libel law idea. The first key to understanding this Dean supporter behavior lies in the answer to “Why did so many people, progressives included, support the centrist Howard Dean during his bid for the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination and still support his vision today?” Paul Loeb in his Jan. 15, 2004 article “Dean and Kucinich” http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16280 sums up the feelings of Dean supporters the best.

Combined with a clearly expressed belief in the power of ordinary citizens to make history, Dean’s momentum has been a direct product of his feistiness. Rather than concentrating on focus-group-honed minutiae that the Republicans can easily switch to their advantage…, he’s taken on the core questions of who pays our taxes, how we treat our environment, whether we have health care, and how we relate to the rest of the world. He’s challenged Bush on basic premises, not just minute particulars. He’s offered a clear choice instead of the usual blurred one. And with the help of an Internet-savvy campaign staff, he … has made people feel valued enough to participate (in his campaign).

Thanks to the Media playing his Iowa rally-the-volunteers speech as a “Scream” speech over 600 times, a Democratic funded 527 group that used an ad morphing Dean into Osama bin Laden and other dirty tricks, as well as some internal Dean campaign problems, Howard Dean became a defeated 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate, but Howard Dean is not a defeated person. Unlike his former competitors, including the progressive Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean’s presidential campaign was not called “Howard Dean for President.” It was called “Howard Dean for America.”

What Mr. Davis fails to understand is that unlike the Joemomentum Liebermans of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean not only was willing to take the flak for proudly promoting those core progressive and Democratic principals, he also was willingly to throw punches where they needed to land, whether it be on Republicans, “Bush-lite” Democrats, or the Media. In contrast, Joe Lieberman would rather preen himself on the conservative Bill O’Reilly show and milk the few drops of attention O’Reilly’s rabid neo-con audience is willing to give him than tackle the “Pirates on the Potomac,” whose policies are, as 2001 Nobel Economics Prize Winner George Ackerlof says, “a form of looting” of the Federal treasury.

The Joemomentum strategy of the Democratic Party will condemn it at best to perpetual minority party status and at worst to a national joke, while allowing the Republican Robber Barons to drown the Federal Government in red ink. Maybe that is what the owners of pro-Republican Chicago Triune Companies, which owns The Hartford Courant want. FYI. I was born in Chicago and raised 60 miles south of it, so I am quite familiar with the right-leaning Chicago Tribune paper.

[RafterMan]

169. Nice pony

nt

[CarbonDate]

174. They'll trim it extensively....

...if they print it at all. I've written, and had published, dozens of letters to the editor over the years, and I've yet to have one printed that ran over 300 words.

[Cheswick2.0]

269. I have had letters that long published on many occasions

it really depends on the paper.

[Larkspur]

275. I'm not sure what the Northeast Magazines's word limit is

My response fits the Courant's word limit for op eds, so they could print it as a long LTTE or an op ed.

[robbedvoter]

39. yeah...he is not rich enough to represent "the middle class" party

You may have a point there.

[deminflorida]

66. He's going to run and win the nomination for President. Then he's

going to WIN it. There won't be any surrender either should the Repubs try and steal it next time around. That much you can bet on.

[mmonk]

84. Democratic credentials?

Let's look at some Democrats with "credentials". There's Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman,.....get my drift? He has administrative experience and problem solving credentials, speaks five languages, knows foreign leaders, and believes in democracy. Sounds "credentialed" to me. And he doesn't run away from the L word like half the elected democrats do.

[JNelson6563]

15. I will back him

if he does some serious political ass-kicking between now and then.

I will back anyone who does so. Private sector work or being a Dem in office and doing lots of capitulating doesn't deserve support as the Dem candidate in 08. We need someone to provide outstanding leadership for our party NOW. Whoever that is will get my support and be deserving of the support of all here.

Julie

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. I Think Clark Does Need to Stay Active and Strong in the Next Few Years

His support of the Louisiana rep who won the runoff election is a good indicator of where his heart is, IMO. But he does need to stay visible and active and a party leader, I agree. And I have faith he will do so.

DTH

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. That's fair Julie

But I hope you make some kind of an allowance for continuing to make a living. Not always but usually people running for President are already in elected office which gives them a paycheck, visibility, and a core political staff to do ongoing groundwork for them. While Clark is currently working in the private sector, he is currently in the Middle East participating in an important conference concerning the relationship between Western and Arab issues. That isn't all fun and games.

[JNelson6563]

41. Amen to you both!

As a mom raising a family and running a house, I know how hard it can be to fulfill regular life duties as well as work hard to provide political leadership (and I do so on a smaller scale than one with national political aspirations).

With how many are starving for serious political leadership I have no doubt that whoever provides it during these dark days will be rewarded with a wave of support from we the people!

:toast:

Julie

[blackangrydem]

19. This is not a "news flash". It would be one if he said he wasn't running.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. Clark can run a progressive campaign that ordinary Americans can embrace

For those, like the poster above, who were not paying sufficient attention, Clark had a broad and progressive platform above and beyond his positions on Iraq and foreign affairs. It required paying close attention during the 2004 primary season to learn anything about Clark's domestic policies, because the media didn't want to discuss it and rarely let him either. Clark was essentially forced to defend himself as a Democrat or asked to talk about Iraq whenever he got air time.

In my and many others opinion, Clark had the most progressive taxation policy of all of our major candidates. That can and should be debated of course, but the point is Clark had solid thought out positions on Taxation, health care, revitalizing the American economy, the environment, tolerance and inclusiveness, and much much more. I find it amazing that outside of left leaning activist circles such as DU, where Clark ended up being one of the most popular candidates, if not the most popular candidate, most of the public seems to assume that Wesley Clark is a moderate if not conservative Democrat, for the most part based on his having made a career in the military.

It is hard to adequately put into words how much of a potential gift that perception is to progressive Democrats. It is the antidote to George Bush and company crowning themselves as "compassionate" conservatives. Too little attention has been given to that semantic ploy. The Republicans create perceptions through linked associations. Liberal became a derogatory term because the Republicans incessantly used Liberal in the same sentence with perceived negative values and principles. The repetition of "compassionate conservative" leaves a subliminal linkage of the two concepts. Pretty soon compassion will be associated with Church sponsored charity and little else, and the Democrats will be marginalized in yet another area of our key strength. That is the Republican way. Their current kick is representing American values as Republican, and "Hollywood values" as Democratic. This despite showering praise on the terminator serial groper. Likewise, facts be damned, the Republicans tirelessly associate themselves with the military and America's defense.

That makes Wesley Clark the perfect stealth candidate to run against the Republicans. It is almost like they invented software that runs national elections but left back doors into the programming that swings elections to their side whenever certain key words and phrases are recited by the media. "The military" is one of them, but they never counted on having a Wesley Clark as one of us, perfectly positioned to benefit from their groundwork. Kerry was flawed in that regard despite being a war hero because he was more widely known as a war protester, and he is a very wealthy Senator from "Liberal" Massachusetts. Clark is from the South, an Army man who was middle class virtually his entire career, and he even previously voted for Republicans. That stamps Clark as a patriotic moderate in the public mind, a man who loves the American Flag, believes in God, and has the courage to stand up against America's enemies, a man who isn't stained by association with elitist Blue State Liberals.

[dogman]

29. What a sensible summary.

Is that allowed? Thinking like this might get us elected.

[Nashyra]

31. O h Thank you

This is great to hear, will keep me motivated on the local level, and will keep me working my butt off for the party.

[returnable]

43. But.. but... What about the Haitian man-tits?

:hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

255. everytime Clark supporters use that phrase it makes me sick

Those Haitian men didn't think the whole thing was very funny. They grew breast tissue when incarcerated at Krome detention center. It was a shameful thing we did locking them up because they were Haitian rather than Cuban.
I have no idea if Clark had anything to do with what happened. Some people seem to think he did. No matter what the case, I don't think it's very funny to continue to mock those men.

[dogman]

257. It's not mocking the men, it's mocking posters who will use convoluted

sources to denigrate Clark. It's such a desperate, slimy approach to debate. It all ties to the anti-SOA group who seek to blame Clark for US policy he himself has sought to change for the better. Some people think we could have this country without a national defense. What people think and what's real, are different things.

[Cheswick2.0]

266. it is mocking those men

it is a humorous and snarky reference to a very hurtful occurance in the lives of men we shamed for being from Haiti.

[dogman]

270. No it's not about the men, it's about the subject and lame attempts to tie

it to Clark. Now you claim to know the intent of the posters. It would be comparable to the Dean scream, ridiculous on its face, sheer propaganda to hurt someones image.

[Crunchy Frog]

258. Jealous?

Hey, maybe if he becomes President, he can do something to make yours bigger. Is that why you always post on his threads?

[Cheswick2.0]

267. I was going to alert on this post

however I think it is much better to let it stand as a testimony to you.

[Forkboy]

278. lol

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

283. I think it's kind of amusing

how you constantly come onto Clark threads to make snide, childishly rude remarks, then get offended if people respond in kind. I genuinely don't know what your motives are, but I reserve the right to speculate.

Do you really expect people to be all lovey dovey when you come into their threads to attack their candidate? What's your response when people come into Dean threads to make outrageous statements and attacks about him? Oh, I know, you're as gentle and sweet as a dove under those circumstances.:eyes:

I have yet to see any kind of meaningful explanation for your behavior in Clark threads. Until I do, I'll continue to jump to my own conclusions as to your motives when you weigh in on the subject of breast enlargement on a Clark thread.

Please, go ahead and alert on me and get these posts deleted. I deserve it. I've gone way overboard. My last post and this one are in extremely bad taste. I'm simply sick to the gills of dealing with people coming onto a thread about my candidate to attack him. While you're alerting, you may want to truly examine your own reasons for behaving as you do.

You were wondering above, why this thread had gotten so long. There's your answer, people who hate Clark, coming onto this thread to make baseless and crude attacks on him. We defend our candidate when he is attacked. Your posts just ensured that this thread will keep getting even longer.

Added: I may have behaved rudely and inappropriately, but one thing you will never see me do is go onto a thread concerning another candidate just to attack that candidate and piss off his supporters. This has nothing to do with how I feel about the individual candidates, simply my own notions of what constitutes civil behavior. I do however, reserve the right to be uncivil towards people who engage in that sort of behavior themselves.

[Leilani]

284. LOL!

They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

[cali]

32. I have no problem with Clark running

I didn't support him this year, but I think he's a good and thoughtful man. I do have concerns about his viability as a candidate due to his lack of political and governing experience, but there's no doubt that he's a very quick study. He does need to do something in the next couple of years to keep in the mix- become a spokesman for progressive dems, maybe start a think tank, It's easy to get lost in the political sea in just a year or two.

[KittyWampus]

47. He Has TONS Of Governing Experience. He Governed NATO Troops

and their families in Europe.
Getting funds, filling potholes, deve etc.

[cali]

60. Sorry, I should have been clearer

and said elected governing experience. Being responsible to those who elected you is important.

[FrenchieCat]

180. Clark was not "elected"....and neither was

Nelson Mandala.

That didn't stop Mandala from being a great leader. It's about leading...not how well and often you lied to get "elected". It's about standing when everyone else is sitting. It's about speaking words that no one else will.

The measure and the worth of a man cannot be counted by the number of votes he received.

If that's the case....then Bush is great. Heck he got "elected" a few times.

Plus it is more important how one fared with those he was responsible for (whether you are elected or not). Clark did not have a single soldier die in Kosovo....and he minimized civilian casualties. He was entrusted with lives.......that were put on the line....and he was able to be "responsible" to those folks...as well as the 1.5 million Albanians. That's leadership.

[OnionPatch]

33. I love Clark

and really, really wish he would run.
And I don't believe he isn't experienced politically enough to run. In fact, I think it makes him look more like an outsider and that's a GOOD thing.

[GRLMGC]

45. Good luck to him

but the primaries are far away. God knows how much things will change from now to then. We may have candidates we never would have dreamt of. Either way, good luck to him in whatever he does.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. Thank you - you've made my day!!!

n/t

[Bouncy Ball]

49. You know what?

I can't even THINK about 2008 right now. I'm too depressed by the Dems I see in elected office right now, not all of them, mind you, but WAY too many who are willing to happily bend over and take it with nary a word of complaint.

I never fully researched Clark, but what I knew of him sounded...ok.

I want a street fighter. A get down and dirty if he has to to kick the repukes in the nuts kinda candidate.

And I honestly don't know if ANY of them fit that bill. Well, one comes close but it isn't Clark and the one I'm thinking of won't be given half a chance anyway, so what the fuck ever.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. Wes takes no one's bullshit!

Didn't you see him kick ass on that faux news interview? The guy interviewing him tried to say Wes said something that he didn't say and Wes handed him his ass on a platter! You want a street fighter? Someone who can get down and dirty? Wes is your man! He will not take shit from ANYONE!

Go Wes! :bounce:

[Bouncy Ball]

55. But is he at all connected with the DLC?

Will they trot out the Vets Who Will Brazenly Lie About Other Vets on him, too?

Is he beholden to any corporate interests?

Sorry, don't mind me, just feeling very disillusioned lately.

[in_cog_ni_to]

59. They already did bring out other Vets. Remember Shelton the asshole?

I do. :grr: Corporate interests? He wasn't beholden last year. We'll see what happens in 4 years. I somehow doubt it. He'll keep his plate squeeky clean if he's planning on running. Wes is a great candidate. :loveya:

[Bouncy Ball]

61. Well

at least some of us are feeling optimistic.

[RafterMan]

74. Corporate interests

Well, people use "beholden" to mean all sorts of things.

One company he's worked with is call Axciom, which uses a database to match publicly available consumer info with terrorist watchlists. Many people consider this problematic, but my feeling is that if the information shouldn't be used like that, it shouldn't be public in the first place. Wes Jr. (who voted Green in 2000, I believe) said it did the job without any funny business. And it falls far short of Poindexter's weird TIA project.

A better one is his involvement with WaveCrest, a company dedicated to making super-efficient motors. If Clark enters office and appoints a bunch of super-efficeint motor-man cronies to the DOE, well, more power to him. Not that he would, but the thought is more pleasing than the oilmen we've got now.

A third is the Stephens Group, a Little Rock investment company for which Clark worked. They apparently had a relationship with the Club for Growth, which was responsible for some right-wing hit-squad stuff in the past election (I don't remember what). Unless you're heavy into tinfoil, it's connection to Clark is immaterial.

Those are the corporate charges that I, a Clarkie, recall being made against him in the primaries. I'm laying them out for you because I don't feel there's anything to be ashamed of there. I hope you don't, either.

Finally, if you're feeling down about politics, check out Clark's town hall meeting in Hennicker, NH. He gets a couple of really tough questions and shows the kind of integrity that makes us believe in him. It cheers me up when I get too cynical.

http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=%22new+hampshire%22+clark+Henniker

And sorry to sound like a moonie!

[Dinger]

77. Oh YEAH!!

I just watched it again. Had it downloaded. It was an interview with David asman (ASS-man"), 11-17-03. Damn, unfrickin believable! I'll have to make a transcript. I know this probably won't work, and I apologize in advance for my ineptitude, but try this: fnl_clark_111703_300.rm

It's not a link, but hopefully there is someone her savvy enough (and a lot smarter than me) who can make this clickable. It is a thing of beauty. Clark shouts the little prick down more than once...Clark "Don't you dare!....."
Ahhhh, memories.......


P.S. I believe Kerry won, and it still could happen, but in the meantime, Clark in '08 sounds fantastic!

[CarbonDate]

175. I agree

It's a damn shame about Al Sharpton; that guy's a real fighter.

Or were you not referring to him? He's the only guy I can think of who's more of a fighter than Wes Clark, so I'm kind of drawing a blank.

[Zensea]

53. I haven't ruled out a run in 2008

either, but 2008 is a long ways away and there's more important things to do in politics in the meantime than to focus on one elected position in the country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Well I agree that there are many essential things that must be done also

And 2008 is a long way off, yes. I do not expect people who are not hard core supporters of Wesley Clark to put much if any energy into doing groundwork for Clark to be able to run in 2008. I believe the point of this thread was to pass on some information 1) to those who do support Clark about the fact that he has not closed his mind to another run - some "feared" he might have AND 2) to alert Democratic activists at DU that Wesley Clark's name is legitimate to raise in discussions with those who want to speculate about 2008 around the coffee maker/water cooler whatever. Some in the media have already begun to ignore Wesley Clark. There was a CBS report on possible candidates for 2008 that relegated Clark's name to the status of Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun while actually considering Dick Gephardt seriously.

Personally I have also been working on the voter fraud issue and am additionally increasingly active in my local Democratic Party. I have a fund raising meeting in fact to go to in less than two hours. The fact that some of us are talking about Wesley Clark now does not mean that we are not also active in other issues. The fact is though that for those of us who believe Wesley Clark is the right man to lead progressive Democrats out of the wilderness and into the White House in 2008, the time to get serious about it is now. Wesley Clark will not be anointed by the Party chieftains, he is an outsider in their book. An activist base has to form and form early if Clark is to have any chance to get past the Democratic Party leadership Washington centric Congressional main stream bias.

[Zensea]

58. I can see why this might irritate you!

There was a CBS report on possible candidates for 2008 that relegated Clark's name to the status of Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun while actually considering Dick Gephardt seriously.
oy vey!

[deminflorida]

67. We're used to the media....but you know what we'e already raising

money.... money talks, bullshit walks. The grass-roots Clark campaign is already in swing. Months before Howard Dean's name was even mentioned in 2002.

You'll hear about us soon enough. So will the media.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

72. Keep us all posted.

n/t

[Rowdyboy]

86. You're completely on the money, Tom

and it really is hugely encouraging to me. I will jump to Clark immediately, should he decide to run. He's absolutely our best chance to beat whoever the Republicans nominate, even McCain (though it'll be a cold day in hell before the Christian right will allow him the nomination-no way, no time, no how!)

[allemand]

64. Strong on defense and not afraid of calling himself a liberal

Clark is the real deal.

[MoonRiver]

68. BE STILL MY HEART!

Please, let it be so! I think the General is the only person in politics that I totally and emphatically trust! :loveya:

[Sparkly]

71. Yeah!!!

:bounce: :D :bounce: :D :bounce:

[Dinger]

78. Good To See Some Kindred Spirits Here

Hi Sparkly, and others..... you know who you are!:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

132. Hey Dinger,

why don't you come over sometime and visit us in the Clark supporters forum?:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=235

[Sparkly]

150. Hi!

What Crunchy said...:hi:

[Pithy Cherub]

76. What great news and how very interesting

that Wes Clark showed no hesitation in discussing this rather openly at the Clinton Presidential Library! :)

[RafterMan]

79. That is curious

given all the talk about Hillary.

Clark and Clinton will also be together at an upcoming conference on the Middle East in Dubai. Hmmmmm...

[Leilani]

81. A Big, Big, Wes Clark kick to the top!

KICK

[tabasco]

83. Clark is what we need the most.

A real LEADER ! Clark is sincere in his desire to move this Nation forward and has the leadership ability to do it.

I will support Clark if he runs.

[FrenchieCat]

85. That's great.....

I am glad that Wes Clark isn't taking his name out of the ring. Since Kerry, Biden, Edwards and others have expressed their interest in 2008, I am glad that Clark is also saying....never say never.

I think that when I look at the strategies that some Dems are coming up with....
1. Get a swing or Southern moderate governor who can win Red States a la Clinton circa 1992 (Warner, Easley, Vilsack}--Regardless as to whether they are "miktoasts" or too "Conservative".

2. Get a left leaning Democrat outsider...stimulate the "Left" vote and forget about those swing voters (Kucinich, 2004 Gore, Dean}--Regardless that swing voters do make the difference (we had the "left vote" this time....and still couldn't pull it off.

3. Get a "moderate" who's got "some" NS/FP experience(Bayh, Biden, H. Clinton)--Regardless that these are all Senators and we know damn well how vunerable that makes a candidate.

4. "Re-do" 2004 and just run Kerry--Will his Theme song in 2008 be the same as in 2004, "No Surrender"?

5. Forget about NS/FP and concentrate on running on the economy and Charisma (Edwards)--Regardless that Edwards failed to even win his own SC county as VP on the ticket in 2004.

6. Run someone who can attract minorities (Richardson, Obama)--Regardless that Richardson failed to deliver NM and has some questionable "Women problem issues" and Failures (Livermore Lawrence Lab issue)....or that Obama has just been elected to the senate and would have to start campaigning very shortly (a la Edwards).

If these are the choice strategies and some of the choice players...I'd much prefer to go "Wes Clark". I think that he would attract votes from most that would want to try any of the "strategies" as listed above. I think that he is the best to represent Democrats as a "full service" party in 2008.

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Hanover_Fist]

87. Go Wes......................

EOM

[Crunchy Frog]

133. Anybody reading this who wants to see him run,

please sign this new Draft Clark petition if you haven't already. Also please pass it around to anyone else you think may be interested.

http://www.draft-clark.com/

[bluestateguy]

134. This time get into the race early!

Set up the exploratory committee right after the midterms, vigorously contest Iowa and denounce the war in Iraq in crisp, clear and unambiguous language.

[Guaranteed]

135. Clark is the McDonald's of the Democratic Party.

Apparently he has a lot of support, at least here on DU, but I honestly don't understand why.

He says a lot of the things that he's "supposed" to say with regard to foreign policy, it always sounds like to me, and he's a general.

But what else is there? I mean, I'm sure he's a great guy, but he just doesn't do it for me. And I definitely considered him during the primaries. I looked at his website, and liked what I saw. But, it was between him and Dean, and when I compared the two it just seemed like Dean was more real, or something.

I dunno. I just don't think Clark is going to energize people if we run him.

[abburdlen]

136. If all you see in Wes

is he's a general says what he's "supposed" to say concerning F.P. then I can understand why he doesn't do it for you but I wonder how closely you looked at him.

The Clark I see is a brillant man whose love of this country, what this country has the promise to be, has been his guiding point his entire life.

Look again at the crowds at the clark rallies. Look at his fund raising numbers from January. Look at the vocal support he's still getting here. If Clark throws his name into the hat you'll see energized people.

[deminflorida]

153. Yeah right they sure don't look energized to me either....

Don't let the bandwagon leave you at the dock. Clark supporters are energized alright. And believe me compared to John Kerry, no one has energized the party like Clark since Bill Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

157. Well Dean did too BUT Clark also energizes Red State Democrats AND

like Dean he pulls new people into the Party, but in Clark's case that includes a large percentage of Independents looking for a man of substance and integrity. More people should check out this collection of letters written to the first Draft Clark movement posted at the DU Clark supporters group:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x610

[CarbonDate]

176. I understand.

He seems too good to be true. I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop this whole time, but it just hasn't happened.

Try to look less at what he is and what he says and look more at what he's done and what he's doing. The work that he's doing to support Democratic causes should prove his merit as a Democrat, and as far as his career goes, look at just how involved he was not only in the war effort in the Balkans, but also in the diplomatic efforts preceding it. There was a lot more to his role as Supreme Allied NATO Commander than ordering troop movements.

[ArkDem]

137. I'll go out on a limb here

Wes Clark will never be President of the United States. He got nowhere with the Clinton people backing him and he won't even get that far when they aren't.

[robbedvoter]

140. I was wondering where Arkansas Project was: on a limb, huh?

What a perfect Whitewater peddling post!

[abburdlen]

142. Nowhere?

Won the Oklahoma primary, second in New Mexico, North Dakota,and Arizona. I also recall he finished third in New Hampshire after only being in the campaign for 4 months.

Some have argued the 'clinton' people did his campaign more harm than good. Personally I'm looking forward to seeing you proved wrong.

[ArkDem]

144. Yeah, he was a real 'barn burner'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

145. Yes he was, thanks for admitting it

Clark's speech at the Democratic National Convention brought more frequent and sustained standing ovations than any other presentation given to that body. You should view it often. One of my favorites though was the performance Clark gave at the rally held in New Hampshire the weekend before the primary there. It was stunningly powerful. I defy anyone to watch it and not be moved and energized.

But tastes do differ. Personally I never got into Disco though it sold a ton of records to people who obviously did.

[ArkDem]

164. Good analogy.

[Crunchy Frog]

160. Thank you for showing up, right on time.

You don't like Clark, but you never met a Clark thread that you could keep yourself away from. For your great diligence, I give you this award,

[ArkDem]

162. Thank you!

[Crunchy Frog]

163. Glad you like it!

You've worked hard for it.

[Adelante]

253. lol... Crunchy

You're the best :7

[cyn2]

139. Excellent n/t

[kentuck]

146. I supported Clark in last election....

I went from Kerry to Clark because I thought Clark had the best message and positions to defeat Bush. when he was defeated in the primaries, I went back to Kerry. I still think Clark was the best man for the last election. Will he be the best man for the next election? Maybe.

[AmerDem]

147. I'd easily support Clark again

Long before Clark caught fire I was one of the first writing to him to make a run for the top office. Will do so again.

[GOPBasher]

148. I've ruled out a win for Clark. The Diebold machines will win again.

[deminflorida]

155. Clark will garner so much support from all parties that any

attempt to steal it would start a velvet revolution.

[CarbonDate]

181. Thanks

Nobody from the voter fraud crowd had come to piss on this thread, yet. I was starting to get a little worried.

Thanks for your diligence. To you, and all the other people who feel compelled to mention "Diebold" on every single thread discussing the future, I present:

[GOPBasher]

244. I'm sorry. Let me mention that I love Gen Clark.

I think he'd be a great President and he'd destroy the Repugs in a fair election. I simply want us to make sure we have fair elections. The exit polls were not wrong on election day, and that can be seen in every state that has paper ballots.

Not sure why you got so angry.

[Dinger]

247. That Would Be Fine If . . .

it would be within 5%, but Clark will "kick the shit" out of any repug he runs against.

[cdp]

156. I'll support Clark again

[cidliz2004]

178. Clark walks on water

I would follow him anywhere

[illbill]

179. Thats...

a bad thing. Are you going to follow him back to the Republican Party?

[FrenchieCat]

182. Maybe he doesn't walk on water....

but he does walk the walk....instead of talking a lot of sh*t.

In reference to the Republican party.....why would you ask such a stupid question after all that happened during the primaries?

Sink your loafers into this and stop perpetuating the "Republican" nonsense. It's unbecoming. Or do you have something against "Independents" too, Mr. Full-of-Pink-Tu-tu-Democrat party purist???

http://factcheck.org/article97.html
Clark has never been registered as a Republican. During his Army service he registered to vote as an independent (as do many career military officers) in his home state of Arkansas . Clark says he voted for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan out of concern for national security during the Vietnam and Cold War years. But he says later he found Republicans to be “shrill” and “isolationist.” And so he says he voted for fellow Arkansas resident Bill Clinton and most recently for Al Gore, both Democrats. Clark changed his voter registration to Democrat only after retiring from the Army in 2000 and declaring himself a candidate for the party’s nomination late in September, 2003.{/i]

[For PaisAn]

190. Follow him back to the Republican Party?

That's odd to say since he's never been a Republican. Giving the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you didn't know that even though it's been posted here hundreds of times.

Al Sharpton said it best at one of the debates, in reference to Clark, that he'd take a "new" Democrat who behaves like a Democrat over the "old" Democrats who behave like Republicans.

Nuff said.

[Crunchy Frog]

225. Please peddle your Karl Rove talking points elsewhere.

Wes Clark was never a member of the Republican party. If you can provide any documentation to the contrary, I would love to see it.

[Cheswick2.0]

264. you are right...he just voted, campaigned and raised money for them

it's all about networking I guess.

[robbedvoter]

268. Shouldn't you be watching Clinton's zipper? he will sin again, I tell ya!

You are neglecting your purpose in life!

[sparrowhawk]

280. He also voted, campaigned and raised money for Democrats.

[cidliz2004]

251. O.K.

Besides being dumb, you are are also insightful. I like Biden, but I love Clark. I read your garbage on the other thread to and to say that you do not know what you are talking about is just the start of it. Why don't you find a thread that doesn't talk about Clark since you apparently aren't intelligent enough to appreciate the man's brilliance and you aren't knowledgeable enough to make a legitimate attack on him and you are too much of a weeny to even appreciate this man's numerous acts of courage and sacrifice to his country for the last 30 years.

I have decided, people that are weak or people that are dumb, which quality in people irritate me more.......decision people that are dumb. Thanks for helping me with that decision.

[HootieMcBoob]

183. Good News!

:kick:

[Texas_Kat]

186. If Wes Clark runs...

we'll be there. Hell, we're here already!

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office."

Tom Harkin

[njsketch]

193. You Can't Be Against Lieberman and For Clark...

Clark should rule out a run for President in 2008 right now. He is a faux-Democrat, Clinton puppet.

Sorry Wesley, but you cant be for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney before you were against them.

The Democrats need to nominate a Democrat to oppose a Republican in 2008. Wesley doesn't fot that mold.

[high density]

195. You need to get your facts straight

Wes Clark was consistently against the Iraq war.

Check out Wes Clark's "Republican" positions: http://www.clark04.com/issues

[For PaisAn]

196. Your post rings a bell

It reminds me of the Republicans saying Kerry voted for funding the troops before he voted against it.
Someone's been listening to too much Rush, et al.

[Sparkly]

200. Faux Democrat?

Wesley Clark has proven he's a Democrat and has LONG proven he's nobody's puppet, including Clinton's. Obviously you know little or nothing about his work during the Clinton administration.

[FrenchieCat]

201. Clarkies and most Democrats

are against Lieberman.....so why wouldn't it make sense?

Maybe someone who is an extremely low poster (2 posts?) can be for Lieberman and against Clark? I think so.

Calling him "Wesley" reveals that you may not have Democrats best interest at heart. Democrats need to nominate a KICK ASS Democrat to oppose Chickenwing incompentent Rethuglicans.....and that would be WES CLARK. There might be other objections from Democrats, but any right thinking Democrat would not call Wes Clark a Clinton puppet either. That's Rethug code approach.

Busted?

SO YOU SEE THAT YOU CAN EAT YOUR HEART OUT RIGHT NOW....

WES CLARK
"RED DOG" DEMOCRAT IN '08

Won't take any Sh*t, AND...will kick ass in Red States

[Crunchy Frog]

234. Oh I can't? Just watch me!

I was going to vote for Cobb if Lieberman got the nomination. I didn't even vote for Lieberman in 2000, I voted for Nader. (I'm not proud of that fact, just stating it for the record. I found the Gore/Lieberman ticket too Republican for my tastes, so I chose to go with what seemed a genuine alternative.)

We do need a real Democrat to oppose a Republican in 2008, and Wesley does fit that mold, even if he doesn't "fot it" as you so eloquently state.

I suppose you think that George McGovern is also a "faux Democrat and Clinton puppet". This is what he had to say about Wes Clark.

There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

[FrenchieCat]

242. and of course, the real kicker....

is that Wes Clark admitted publicly that he voted against McGovern....since he voted for Nixon....

And McGovern still saw it fit to endorse Wes Clark. It's pretty clear that McGovern, having lost the presidency himself, knew who and what it would take to win. McGovern learned a hard lesson....don't think that the obvious escaped him one bit.

Another is Michael Moore.....who also knew what it would take, insightful as he is. Again, he endorsed Wes Clark.

Even Jimmy Carter was toying with the idea.....and again, Wes Clark had voted for Reagan.

So you see, it really is about the man...and Clark is that man.

He can beat those Republicans....and I think he could do it better than anyone else could. I think that Wes Clark could decimate just about any Republican candidate. Plus, I think that he would not be so restricted in his VP pick. Could even run with a woman....unlike many of the others potential candidates.

[cidliz2004]

252. Obviously you know NOTHING about Clark work knowing

People change. Just because Clark voted for Reagan - Nixon, 20+ years ago does condem him to death. So get off of it already. Clark also voted for Clinton and Gore....and that was more recent, does that count for anything? Probably in your book NOT! Do you hold grudges in your personal life to? If so than I totally understand your opinion and conclusion on Clark. Question, Is holding grudges serve anybody? I know people that hold grudges and they are sad lonely people.

[Donna Zen]

282. I can't do what?

What deity died? I can be against Joe Lieberman and for Wes Clark and I am. Lieberman does have many aspects of his voting record that he should be given credit for: civil rights, education, etc., but it was Lieberman's choice to get in bed with the neocons, and my choice to oppose him.

What you say?

Sorry Wesley, but you cant be for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney before you were against them.

The Democrats need to nominate a Democrat to oppose a Republican in 2008. Wesley doesn't fot that mold.

It seems to me that the Democratic ticket voted to approve the appointment of Rumsfeld. I repeat that VOTED for Rumsfeld, and never said a mumbling word against the man. And when it came time to support the IWR, both members of that same ticket voted "yes," while 22 Dem Senators, including Paul Wellstone vote "nay." Wellstone, before his vote, cited a four star general who testified against the "blank check" for bush. No fooling you, you're correct, it was General Clark. My, my, how the good Democrats stick together.

I am a Democrat; Wes Clark is a Democrat and I know I make my own choices. I'm sure of about that; what confuses me is who all those people are who voted for the "big lie," and who or what kind of people come here to smear Democrats.

[high density]

194. I guess it's time to put some Clark08 stickers on my car.

http://www.clarkmart.com/

[Clarkie1]

212. I have a Clark 04' bumper sticker I'm going to change to 08'!

Woo-hoo!

:-)

[Forkboy]

279. Who wants some punch?

:party:

[janx]

287. I do--thanks!

B-)

[donheld]

290. Can anyone rule out dying before 2008

:shrug:

[arwalden]

291. This Is Hopeful And Encouraging News :-)