I like Clark a lot for 08? Am I wrong to? (link corrected)

[Divine Discontent]

http://www.driverheaven.net/archive/index.php/t-27507.html

there's so much baggage from his supreme allied commander days, could they just smear it all and give us another close defeat like Kerry's?

[marcologico]

1. If they can, they will, but that's no reason for anybody not to run. n/t

[whathappened]

2. i also liked clark

but who no's what low blow the freeps can come up with , they can't take a man on face first anymore , like the goof ball from cal , old arno . they have only girly men run and prop them up to be something there not , so if clark got the ticket he would get my vote , and hopefuly he would step on anybody that tryed to make him look foolish

[joeybee12]

3. Hell, they're gonna smear whoever we nominate, so don't let that influence

you!

Basically swift boat thugs made up a bunch of lies, and the media bought it. The only way to fight back is to hit them hard, and then hit them even harder.

I don't think you're wrong--just wondering why you're thinking that far ahead!

[shawcomm]

5. Yep. Can't let their ugliness decide who we run

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

4. Jesus

himself could run on the Dem ticket and the Elephant Brigade would claim raising Lazarus from the dead as "baggage" don'tcha know?

Clark's record is out there for the world to see, and yes it will get spun by the rightwingnutjobs (and unfortunately by some of our own...we do so love cannibalism in this party it seems) but I'd put General Clark's record up against any senator or representative any day.

[janx]

6. You're fine. n/t

[robbedvoter]

7. yes. Since the truth is not an issue when smears start, you should

not like anyone. or, you should fight for someone you think is worth it (like Clark). Your choice.

[Dr Ron]

8. So what is the truth?

That's certainly the case the thruth doesn't matter in the right wing attacks.

Still, as these charges have been around for a while, and I have heard them from Democrats supporting other candidates as well as from Republicans, it would be nice to be prepared to respond with the facts. Is there any truth to this story, and what is the full story?

[Sparkly]

10. Here's one source

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#1063645172520309%5C

[dogman]

9. So which part of this thread are you refering to?

The post at the top or the responses that point out his error laden post.

[phylla]

11. If Clark says he will run again...

It will be a joyous day for me.

I will work ten times as hard as I did in 2004.

And in 2004 I donated the max, housed his campaign worker for 7 weeks, gave fund raising parties for him, wrote many letters and made hundreds of phone calls to Hew Hampshire, Virginia, and Tennessee.

It took me two weeks to recover when he dropped out.

I had never supported a candidate before and did get on board later with Kerry, but I just wish that Wes Clark had been the VP nominee. But that is in the past.

Clark is more intelligent that any repub out there and he is a whole lot more "street smart" now, than he was before.

He won't take any crap off of them.

If he can get an equitable amount of media coverage, he will be a formidable Democratic candidate. And the President of my childhood dreams.

So yes, I will do whatever he wants me to do. Without hesitation.
I hope that you will too.

[Clark2008]

23. I already have my Clark 08 gear!

I have a coffee mug and a bumper sticker.

His website is being reworked right now (:bounce:) and I'm praying for the day he announces so I can dust off my campaign shoes!

Dean can lead the DNC and Clark should lead the country!

:loveya:

[WI_DEM]

12. They will use anything and everything and invent stuff along the way

but support who you think is the best man or woman to be president. Kerry's mistake was waiting too long to respond to the switch boaters, I don't think others necessarily will do that.

[Seeing Red]

13. They'd smear McCain if he decided to run

just like they did in 2000 ... we just need better rapid response ourselves, then we'd be much stronger

[xkenx]

14. Actually, Clark Baggage is

minimal. About the worst I've heard thrown at him was that he had "sharp elbows" as he rose through the ranks. That sounds like most politicians and business leaders who might have encountered jealousies along the way.
The most serious NATO-related comment was that a British General accused Clark of possibly starting WWIII by wanting to occupy Pristyna Airport. The facts are that Clark received approval to occupy the airport from Washington before the Russians could, because the Russians had not contributed to the effort. Clark ordered the British General (who then refused a direct order from his superior, Clark) to occupy. Washington than reversed direction, not wanting to ruffle Russian feathers. The 200 Russians then took their corner of the airport and subsequently had to be aided by NATO troops because they ran out of food and supplies. It has been commented on that Vladimir Putin was a keen observer of this action and learned from it that The Americans could be made to back off when confronted with firm action. Circumstances thwarted Clark from being able to carry out what he knew to be the right thing to do.
This kind of inaccurate flame will not go unanswered in a Clark campaign. Any kind of Swift Boat Liars attack will make them wish they had never spoken.
As a result of Clark's NATO days (he had "head of state" status for the military), during which he had to coordinate the military and diplomatic efforts of 19 countries, he was awarded Knighthoods or the equivalent from all of those countries. That is the true measure of Clark's accomplishments. No lies can wipe out that record.
READ BELOW ARTICLE

General Wesley K. Clark USA (ret.) is the nation's most highly decorated officer since Dwight Eisenhower. Among his military decorations are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards); Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Silver Star, Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal (two awards); Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Army Commendation Medal (two awards); NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo, NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Legacy of Leadership and Lady Liberty(TM) Award.

His Foreign awards include the Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom); Commander of the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany; Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands); Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy; Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal); The Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland; Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain); The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium); Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic); Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic; Commander's Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria); Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defense of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia); First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania); Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia); The Skandeberg Medal (Albania); Order of Merit of Morocco; Order of Merit of Argentina; The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia) and the Military Service Cross of Canada.

(Central Europe Sep. 8, 2000, U.S. State Department Oct. 2, 1999, http://Individual.com)

More details on who and when awarded Gen. Wesley K. Clark, here below:

USA - Defense Secretary William Cohen, September 24, 1999
USA - Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, October 1, 1999
Bulgaria - President Peter Stoyanov, March 13, 2000
Czech Republic - Defence Minister Vladimir Vetchy, March 21, 2000
Slovakia - Defence Minister Pavol Kanis, March 22, 2000
Great Britain - Defence Secretary Hoon, acting for Queen Elizabeth, March 29, 2000
France - Minister of Defence Alain Richard, April 7, 2000
USA - Defense Secretary William Cohen, May 2, 2000
USA - Defense Secretary William Cohen, May 2, 2000, awarding Clark's wife
USA - Senate, Free-standing bill , June 29, 2000
USA - President Bill Clinton, August 9, 2000
USA - Goals For Americans, October 12, 2000



Albright in honor of Gen. Clark
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright

Remarks at White House Fellows Association Gala Dinner
In Honor of General Wesley Clark, "Legacy of Leadership" Award
Washington, DC, October 1, 1999
As released by the Office of the Spokesman, October 2, 1999
U.S. Department of State
(As Delivered)
And there is no better example of that kind of leadership than General Wesley K. Clark.

Wes is one of my personal heroes -- and not just because of the way he looks in a uniform.

General Clark has proven himself to be a diplomat of the highest order as well as an outstanding military commander and strategist.

In Dayton, he offered creative solutions -- and a mastery of detail -- to help bridge seemingly intractable differences; and he used a combination of charm and persistence to win the confidence of three leaders who had little if any trust in each other.

But for General Clark, that was just a warm-up. In Kosovo, he had what Italy's foreign minister correctly called "the most difficult task of them all" during NATO's first real military campaign.

In Kosovo, we asked the political and military leaders of nineteen nations to work together, and decide -- by consensus! -- on tactical as well as strategic decisions.

And we asked Wes Clark to lead and coordinate the entire effort.

I can testify that he did a tremendous job, from start to finish.

He is a man of wisdom and courage, who helped change history just a little bit. He has my personal admiration for everything he has done..

In short, General Clark is the embodiment of everything John Gardner hoped for when he created the White House Fellowships.

Wes has well-earned this award, and the lasting gratitude of our nation.

[Divine Discontent]

57. THAT'S what I wanted to see, THANK YOU! n/t

[CarolNYC]

66. well....

...there was the never elaborated upon "issues of character and integrity" smear from Hugh Shelton which the media tried to grab and run with. Interesting thing about it was even those who obviously didn't support the Gneral wouldn't go along.

I believe Colin Powell turned down the opportunity to agree with Shelton's assessment in some interview, if I'm remembering correctly.

And I have on tape, which I just came across recently while looking for something else, an interview with Gen. David Grange and Paula Zahn. Paula tried to get Grange to agree with Shelton's comment but Grange (who was so funny because he wouldn't even say the word Democrat, just things like "that party you are talking about now") wouldn't bite. He said he saw none of those issues in his dealings with Clark but that Clark was a persistent officer and driven to accomplish the mission and sometimes that creates friction.

He also said that if the General was not knowledgable about some domestic issues that he would take those issues, study those issues, take them apart and come up with a plan to attack them. When Paula asked him if he would, like Hugh Shelton, not vote for Clark, he said he wouldn't not because of Shelton's reasons, but because there were other candidates that he'd rather vote for but none were from "that party we're talking about." I guess there still is honor among officers...at least some of them. They were some very nice words from a non-suuporter.

[allemand]

75. Is this the Powell interview you were referring to?

Interview on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Interview by Judy Woodruff
Washington, DC
September 28, 2003

(...)

SECRETARY POWELL: I've know Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me. And beyond that, I really feel it's appropriate for me to recuse myself from any further comment, now that he is a political candidate.

MS. WOODRUFF: You never called him Lieutenant Colonel Clark while he was a general?

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't recall that quote. I called -- he was a lieutenant colonel and a very good battalion commander when I was his supervisor as a brigadier general.

MS. WOODRUFF: And if you call somebody a lieutenant colonel when they're a general, does that mean --

SECRETARY POWELL: I cannot account for these kinds of wild quotes that one sees in the media. I don't recall the quote and I don't recall it in that context.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/iraq-030928-usia02.htm

[CarolNYC]

77. Yep, that's the one

Thanks for the transcript. Although there are many things I will always be upset with Colin Powell about, I do like that he chose to pass on the chance to bash Clark there and, in fact, had complimentary things to say.

[SheilaT]

15. There is nothing wrong

about liking Clark a lot for 08. Personally, I think it's much too early to be worrying about the nominee this early, and I myself wasn't that crazy about Clark this last time.

But once men and women start actually going for the Democratic nomination, there will be plenty of debate, especially here on DU.

But you like whoever you want to like at this point.

[AP]

16. I think that if Democrats are arguing about who's a better soldier in '08

the Republicans will win, no matter who they run.

Talking about who's a better soldier makes people not care about anything but their safety. When people wonder about their safety, they're more inclined to pick the Republican team over the Democratic team.

That's what happened last November, I think. Democrats didn't give voters enough reason to feel that work, opportunity and wealth were more important than war and terror, and when talk turned to missing explosives and OBL, people decided to go with the war mongers EVEN THOUGH most people felt the Bush had made a lot of mistakes.

No matter how incompetent Bush appeared as a soldier, and no matter how decent Kerry seemed as a soldier, talking about being a soldier all the time made voters think that maybe the increasing crappiness of life in America wasn't really so important so long as the most important issue is who is going to keep you safe.

And I really think that unless Democrats want to go around the world and start and win wars and kill a lot of people, voters are basically always going to think they're safer with the itchy-trigger-finger, shoot-first-ask-questions-later Republicans.

Now, this isn't a knock on Clark. He has a multi-faceted persona. But if we Demcorats think he's good because we think we're going to have this great debate in 2008 about what kind of soldier Americans should elect president and that Clark is going to win that debate, well, I think we're setting ourselves up for disappointment.

Clark would be a formidable candidate if he went to a university and started a poverty, work and opportunity center. He'd be a formidable opponent if he passed on making a lot of money sitting on corporate boards and instead tried to figure out a way to put a lot of money into the pockets of middle class Americans. I don't think he's going to be a forbidable opponent if he spends the next four years giving interviews about how to wage a modern war.

I think thinking about a Democrat talking about war from the progressive end of the spectrum (if that's even an adequate discription of his perspective) feels good to a lot of Democrats because that's the mood that predominates today. Everything is war today.

But it's that very mood that voters neede to turn around for Democrats to win. We need a candidate who makes people think about how we make the lives of our fellow Americans better through the injection of progressive values in public policy.

[dogman]

19. I think it's absurd to think people are going to value wealth over safety.

All the wealthy died right along with the poor in the planes and in the towers. Clark can give people the feeling that their security needs can be met by the Dem Party. The Dem Party can be a full service organization, it can meet all the basic needs of all the people. If Clark were a wealthy individual he might pursue a different path. He is not wealthy because he passed opportunities to make big money to engage in public service all of his adult life.

[AP]

30. Psst. FDR. That was how FDR kept America from going fascist before

and during WW2.

He convinced Americans not to sacrifice their well-being because of fear because FDR knew the bulwark against the corporate take-over of America was a large, strong, wealthy middle class.

This isn't about the greedy middle class caring more about money than safety. It's about the middle class being strong enough so they don't get pushed around and made miserable by people with a lot more cultural, economic and political power.

[dogman]

33. That's just too simplistic.

FDR had to deal with an economic crisis first. He was entrenched in reorganizing our economy and WW2 gave him a springboard. The middle class was virtually eliminated until the industrial recovery to feed the war machine. There is really no comparison between 9-11 and Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an enemy nation attacking a military installation. 9-11 was a criminal enterprise attacking our civilian infrastructure. I know FDR was important to the history of our country and our Party but your continued attempts to link JRE and FDR are preposterous. It is obvious that the states that were the most economically disadvantaged put their security ahead of economic considerations.

[AP]

34. FDR understood very clearly the threat of fascism.

He understood that what Hitler was doing in Europe was exactly what the Republicans were interested in doing in the US.

He knew that fear fed fascism. Fear made the middle class feel that it was OK to give over all their power to Wall St, so long as Republicans would keep them safe.

FDR consistenly, throughout his entire presidency, told people that the most important thing to do was to grow and protect a wealthy middle class and not to be afraid. He believed in flowing money and power down to the people.

His arguments before and during WW2 were almost exactly the same.

WW2 helped the economy because factories in Europe were blown to bits and the US got a head start. However, it's so obvious to me that that the economy could have gone either direction. Had the profits from those factories just been concentrated in the hands of the factory owners, the economy would not have grown the way it did. Before the great depression, the US concentrated a lot of wealth in the hands of a few, and that's a big reason we had a depression. That could have happened again had the Republicans been in control during WW2. And that's what's happening today -- terror is being used to make a few very wealthy. It's greasing the skids of the wealth transfer that took the economy to the precipice prior the Depression.

We got a great economy after WW2 because so much of the wealth created after WW2 was shared with the middle class. FDR didn't hide the fact that that was his economic philosophy. And that's what's missing from the Democratic message today.

[dogman]

36. I haven't seen that message missing.

The message people are conveying is that they cannot trust the Dems to defend their country. We have and we have had an economic message. What we have not had is a message that are values are the values of the country and that we will defend this country and it's values. Message is what we have been missing because with the present media that message does not get out. That is the one good thing about JRE. He delivers a good economic message but that, in itself, is not enough. He, unlike Clark, does not carry the complete package. He was satisfied that the GOP was capable of defending America even though the Iraq War had nothing to do with our defense.

[AP]

38. What's missing is the democrats have not been articulating...

...a progressive value system that allows people to put the issues in the proper priority.

FDR didn't ignore national security. FDR articulate a progressive value system about rewarding people who worked for a living with a fair percentage of the wealth that labor creates. He argued that it was the role of government to help people do that because that would create a stronger society. He called that democracy, and the said that the opposite was "economic royalism" of the type that inspired the founding of this country.

He put all the pieces together in a way that explained why we were fighting fascist dictators overseas. And people got it.

The complete package is the person who can make that argument again today. Now read my second paragraph above and tell me who did that in 2004 and who is doing it today.

[dogman]

40. Wes Clark

That's why I've supported him and asked him to accept the draft in 2003. He is the total package.

[AP]

60. How?

In this summary, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1593815&mesg_id=1593815 , where do you find what I described?

His focus is primarily on how to wage a modern war, he almost outrightly dismisses the notion of articulaiting a framework based on progressive values (Republicans win because they articulate a conservative values framework withing which people make sense of their FP -- why shouldn't Democrats fight fire with fire?), and there's nothing in there about class and opportunity (which are the things which motivate Republican FP).

[BootinUp]

61. First, you're seeing one person's

quick summary one event. I think to be fair one would have to look at what Clark said in his own words. But I also disagree with your characterization of what was in the summary, namely that he dismissed a progressive framework. I don't see that at all in that summary. I also don't see where he is advocating modern wars, rather he talked about the need to use more than the military to deal with terrorism. And how he was strongly against the Iraq invasion. You seem to be the one who can't see past his uniform.

[dogman]

65. For instance:

<snip>The Bush budget is morally unconscionable.
<snip>Health care: with better leadership and administrative tools, could cut out 1/3 of the cost. Go to evidence-based medicine.
<snip>Against getting rid of Al-Jazeera. Beat them in the marketplace of ideas. Muslims know its biased.
<snip>Jim Wallis/moral values: http://tinyurl.com/6c7vd is in his briefcase--he's reading it.
<snip>Vision isn't just terror and Iraq. Dems aren't a pacifist party. Hold Bush accountable!
<snip>There will, then, be 2 integrated markets, each bigger than the US. China and India are economic giants in the making. The question for the US: how do we guide the emergence of China into the international community, in a way that accomplishes that end and is in our interest too?
<snip>The Democrats MUST be a full-service party--not just a party that cares for the people.
The last one is my point and says it all. As Jim has pointed out this is one person's account as they saw it. The emphasis is what appealed to them, just like a lot of people in this country. As I've said above the red states are the most economically disadvantaged. They did not see that as their priority. Opportunity in this country is not lacking, the intelligence to take advantage of it is. These people choose to keep their state red. The first door to opportunity is blocked by the people they have put in office. The GOP engages class warfare as a key to its' base. These people are convinced by the upper class that they will be brought along if they just help supppress the class below them.

[Clarkie1]

70. That's exactly it - Edwards is great but he's a "one trick pony"

I wish Edward's all the best in researching poverty and it's causes, but but that old hat's not going to do anything to broaden his presidential resume. I am sure papers will be published, and the senate as well as a democratic president will be open to the findings of his institute.

Any of our potential candidates will carry the economic and social message, we don't need anyone in particular to carry that part of our progressive agenda.

What we need is a candidate who will make red state voters look twice, reframe the issues, and has unquestionable leadership skills in the international and foreign policy arena.

I a post-9/11 world, being a full-service party is the only chance we've got.

[AP]

35. Or, let me really simplify this:

- During WW2, the US was in incredible danger, and it wasn't just from Hitler. It was from the threat of fascism at home and abroad. And the danger was that America would either go forth as a democracy that gave people who worked for a living the rewards of the wealth their labor created, or America would become a fascist nation.

FDR understood the threat inside and out. And even though Amercia was at the precipice -- or because America was at this particular precipice -- his entire persona as commander-in-chief and as steward of the economy was organized around not being afraid, and building up wealth in the hands of people who worked to create it.

What FDR did for America has been chipped away to the point that we have to fight his battle again. And it's really important, in my opinion, that we learn the lesson of FDR and fight this battle the same way he did.

I think if we did that in 2000 or 2004, we'd have a Democratic president today.

[dogman]

37. Then you better arrange a resurrection.

If FDR is the candidate you are looking for.

[AP]

39. That's what I've been doing here at DU since Fall 2002.

Trying to arrange a resurection of FDR. And I started doing that before I had ever laid eyes on Edwards. I picked the candidate who did best what I thought FDR did.

[dogman]

43. Well I would hope for your success since we both want the same result.

I just happen to think it's Clark. Edwards held appeal for me early on but as he faled to stand up to the Patriot Act and the IWR he lost my interest. Then when he campaigned and became a one trick pony I actually lowered my original estimate of his promise further. He would have been of greater service if he were still in the Senate and actually advocated the things you discuss and showed leadership.

[AP]

51. ...and I see his arc still climbing.

And he'll probably do a better job showing people what he stands for outside of the Senate than inside.

[BootinUp]

21. Theres a lot more to Clark than "he was a good soldier".

But the bottom line for Democrats is getting someone the people trust, and someone who has demonstrated leadership ability.

Its not a question of whether someone has proven themselves a good Democrat by being in elective office. There are other ways that Clark has and will continue to contribute to his country and to the democratic cause.

You can't put him in a box AP, try as you might.

[AP]

31. I'm not saying there isn't.

I'm just saying that if he's not going to run on a persona that draws from those other things, then he's not going to win.

[Skwmom]

50. Well a person without national security credentials will not win. e/o/m

[AP]

59. A Democrat who articulates a progressive set of values that applies to...

...both domestic and foreign policy will win.

Which is what Lincoln and FDR did.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Clark talks about Peace much more than he talks about War

He talks about International Relations and trans national forces that effect the full spectrum of security concerns, including economic security. He talks about the destabilizing effects of an AIDS pandemic for example. Clark talks about clashes of cultures and values and finding common ground. In other words Clark talks about all facets of Foreign Affairs and while the military has a role in that in almost every nation, including ours, Clark does not posture as a soldier. So that is the first part.

I do understand that the relative importance of domestic and foreign affairs can be debated, but it is unfair and simply wrong to characterize Clark essentially as a soldier talking about war. War was very much on the mind of the public in 2004 with the Iraq invasion opening up into a quagmire, so much of the public debate was specifically steered in that direction this year, but Clark is not a Iraq one trick pony.

Of course Clark could not win the Democratic nomination in 2008 if significant elements of the Democratic Party relate to him only as a foreign affairs expert, that is true. Clark is much more than that in my opinion and in the opinion of many who have followed him the closest. He will need to break through to the public with a broader message to have a serious chance, that is true, but it is only February 2005. But perhaps this is where we differ. I know Clark has that message. I think Clark will be a candidate who makes people think about how we make the lives of our fellow Americans better through the injection of progressive values in public policy.

We don't need to argue about it now. Time will clearly tell. And please retire the meme about Clark making a lot of money sitting on corporate boards. If that is all he does, fine, point taken. I don't expect that though. Meanwhile Clark had less money for almost all of his life than virtually any of our candidates last time, and he still has less money now.

[Clark2008]

24. He wasn't just a soldier.

One of the things many people don't realize is that Generals don't just give orders and wage wars. Most of the battles we fight aren't against the enemy. They're battles to make sure that our troops have the tools they need to succeed in their jobs and raise their children.

That's what I did every day as an officer in the U.S. Army. I was responsible for the lives of tens of thousands of men and women and their families.

I realized that we would never win in battle if we didn't invest in the lives of our soldiers. That's why I fought to make sure that our soldiers had top notch health care. That their children had first-class schools and Headstart. That they had safe and affordable housing.

That they had time with their families - that they could go to church and PTA meetings and baseball games. And that everyone on my base learned to work together - no matter what their background or the color of their skin.

But like any city or state - no matter how good your programs and policies are - there are always challenges. And I saw my fair share of them over the years.

One of my first assignments was in 1970 after I'd come home from Vietnam. I was sent to Fort Knox in Kentucky where they put me in charge of C Company, Sixth Battalion.

It wasn't a glamorous assignment. C Company was supposed to have 91 soldiers, but only about 70 reported for duty. Many of the men had been wounded and were still recovering. Others were early returnees. On top of that, the administration announced it wanted to end the draft.

The newspapers were filled with reports of drug use, racial tensions and demoralization within the ranks.

The task at hand wasn't exactly an easy one. A lot of these guys had lost hope, and none of them thought they had a future in the Army. What these soldiers needed more than anything was good, strong leadership - and I did my best to provide it.

And together, we turned C Company around. Believe it or not, by the end of that summer, much to even our surprise, C Company actually won the reenlistment award.

The lesson here was simple: with the right plan, hard-working troops and good leadership, you can turn any situation around.

http://www.clark04.com/speeches/015/

[Jai4WKC08]

25. If Clark runs in '08

...it won't be as "the better soldier." Any more than it was in '04. He brings a helluva lot more to the table than soldiering. But you know that.

And anybody who listens to Clark, even now, knows that he talks about a lot more than just war or even international relations. He believes that we Democrats need to be a "full-service party" (to use his term). That means national security IN ADDITION TO economics, not in lieu of. But really, his main concern has always been the very character of our democratic system and the future of the so-called "American Dream," the threat to which is far greater than any external enemy or even temporary economic hardship.

But that doesn't mean that war and terrorism aren't part of the equation too.

You know, AP, I appreciate marketing as much as the next person. But you really don't give voters much credit for knowing what they want. If they were more concerned about war and safety than poverty, don't you think it might be because we're at war and more of them feel unsafe than are out of work? Sure, the Repubs took advantage of their fears, but that doesn't mean the fear wasn't real. And that ain't gonna change between now and '08, no matter how much any of us might wish it would.

Roosevelt ran on the economy in '32, but by '44 he was the WAR president. Because we were at war.

Any '08 candidate who cannot convince the American people he or she can handle war and security hasn't got a prayer of getting elected.

Btw, it is misleading for you to imply that Clark sits on a lot of "corporate boards" to make a lot of money. The only one I can think of is for a medieval history theme park, and I suspect it's as much for a lark, and because he has an interest in history, than for the cash. The rest of Clark's activity on boards is for not-for-profit foundations and research institutes. Like Soros' International Crisis Group. And guess what. Most international crises involve economics and poverty to a far greater extent than they do war and weapons.

[AP]

32. I do give voters credit.

I expect them to interpret the candidates as they mean to be interpreted. And where the candidates don't bother to put forward a clear argument about what they are, then I expect the voters to interpret them according to what their opponents say they are.

As for FDR, FDR continued to tell people during the war that he was fighting "fascism" -- and economic system, and that it was important to build up wealth in the middle class than it was to be afraid. His arguments barely changed when he shifted to fighting fascism at home to fighting it abroad.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Every pre-election poll showed

That the voters thought Kerry was better, by a wide margin, on every domestic issue except taxes. Face it, they just didn't care. They wanted a leader in war and, black box fraud aside, Kerry couldn't sell it.

As for FDR, fascism was a label, one that conveniently if inaccurately included Japan as well as Germany. Joe Average American of 1944 would not have defined fascism in economic terms, and I cannot recall a single speech where FDR attempted to educate him. They were purely "the enemy" who bombed us at Pearl Harbor, were attempting to take over Europe, and had us next on the list.

[AP]

52. It's about priorities. They thought Kerry was better on the issues that

didn't matter to them, and Kerry didn't do enough to make them higher priorities for people.

Had he talked from the beginning the way Edwards talked from the beginning, Kerry would have convinced people -- just as FDR did -- that what matters, even in times of danger, is that we keep looking after the people, and we make sure they have jobs and power.


Japan was a fascist imperial nation, by the way.

And I have a tape full of speeches all of FDR explaining fascism to people.

[Skwmom]

47. Clark would be a formidable candidate if he started a poverty, work and

opportunity center? So I guess you think this makes the personal injury attorney a formidable candidate? All the Republicans need to do is run the "hair video" and do voice overs of the "channeling an unborn child" closing argument and Edwards is toast (of course they won't stop there because they are out to brand the Democrats as the party of phony political opportunists without any morals or integrity). Furthermore, starting a poverty, work and opportunity center when one has done zero pro bono work as an attorney might make people wonder whether the move is sincere or just another political move (like voting for the Iraq War Resolution).

As far as making money and serving on corporate boards your personal injury attorney started out as a corporate attorney but switched to personal injury when he made so much money representing a rich corporate client in a personal injury case. Furthermore, in the short time your personal injury attorney was in the Senate he found time to look out for the corporations. Clark could have made millions; however, he chose to serve his country. Throughout his life Clark has demonstrated how deeply he cares about this country and the American people.

There were a lot of problems with Kerry's war record and many tried to advise him that he alone could not overcome the national security deficit (you of course argued the opposite because you were pushing for Edwards as the VP pick). Trying to imply that because Kerry couldn’t do the job that Dems should just throw up their hands and let the Republicans own the national security issue is ridiculous. But I guess when your pushing a guy with zero national security credentials you really don’t have any other alternative. Since terror is a REAL issue and the Republicans and corporate media control the message, if the Dems can’t compete on national security they can forget ever winning back the Whitehouse.

As far as talking about being a solider all the time, that's hardly all Clark talks about. Considering his intelligence, credentials (a degree in economics for starters), his life story and personal accounts by others, listening to Clark I feel confident that he has an excellent grasp of the intricate domestic issues we face and the leadership skills to get us out of the mess we are in (and the compassion to fight every day of his presidency for the American people). Unlike so many politicians Clark would NEVER sell out this country or the American people.

[Adelante]

17. Yes, you are wrong to like Clark for '08

If you accept that trash as truth. Try some reputable sources and see what you come up with.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Clark is terrific; I supported him in the primaries; but it's way too soon

to pick a candidate for '08. The political landscape can, and probably will, change enormously in the next few years. For that reason it seems to me that all this speculation about who could, would, will, run in '08 is very premature. The important thing for now is to rebuild the party and the grassroots level. That said -- if Clark does decide to run again, I'd be inclined to support him again, given what I know about him and the people who, as of now, might be candidates again. Whatever "baggage" Clark or any other candidate might be said to have shouldn't even be an issue, unless it's some really awful stuff -- like a history of alcoholism and drunk driving, draft dodging, cocaine use, arranging a girlfriend's abortion, lying to Congress, that sort of thing </sarcasm>. The thing is, no matter how exemplary a candidate's life may have been, we already know that the Rethugs will just make shit up if they haven't got any real dirt. So let's just get organized and in a couple more years pick some good candidates and let them speak for themselves.

[Skwmom]

49. The Republicans started pushing Bush years before the 2000 election.

Of course they've already started pushing certain Democratic candidates. So no, I don't think it's to soon to be discussing 08.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. They will smear absolutely anyone who runs.

I don't think that Clark's baggage is any worse than anyone else's. The biggest difference that I see between Kerry and Clark in that respect is that I think Clark would be much more willing to hit back and hit hard.

One of the things that always really impressed me about him was how hard he went after Bush and the neocons. Kerry seemed far more gentlemanly about it, and seemed to have a reluctance to really get down and fight. I think his response, or lack thereoff, to the Smearboat Liars probably hurt him more than they themselves did. I don't think that Clark would let anyone get away with smearing him like that unchallenged.

Most of the stuff from his Supreme Allied Commander days is really positive and will be more of help to him than a source of problems IMHO.

[Leilani]

73. I agree

The Dem candidate will be smeared, no matter who he or she is.

We need a really tough person to run: someone who can sling all the trash right back.

And Wes Clark didn't get to where he is by being a wuss.

The really sad fact about the primaries was that Shelton, an ally of another candidate was the one who did the smearing against Clark. And then had to retract his statement.

I doubt that Wes Clark has ever had to learn anything twice. 2004 showed him what it's all about, & if he runs again, he'll be better prepared.

[cestpaspossible]

26. I don't think he'll run again.

Unless he were to run for Arkansas Gov in 06.

[Clark2008]

27. He's not running for governor of Arkansas

And he hasn't ruled out running for president in 2008.

I think this new panel that he's on, regarding the U.S.'s role in the U.N., will give him profile and keep him in the news.

[cestpaspossible]

28. Wow, what a colossal mistake.

When did he make this announcement?

[BootinUp]

29. You think you're qualified

to give him career advice?

[cestpaspossible]

46. When did he make this announcement?

Am I qualified to have an opinion? Yes.

[ArkDem]

63. Believe me he made the right choice.

[cestpaspossible]

68. Explain, please.

[ArkDem]

79. Mike Beebe, the current Attorney General, is VERY popular

and he will win. Clark wouldn't have a chance.

[ZootSuitGringo]

83. Clark isn't running and I think that it is cheap to negatively speculate

on how he would do in Dem Primaries in Arkansas. Not only is it cheap, but it's very easy.

Hope Mike Beebe wins the general election and becomes Governor though. Because the question remains; can Bebee win that?

[ArkDem]

87. The answer is YES, easily.

[cestpaspossible]

86. I just think it's too bad

that Clark seems to have ruled out any office other than President.

[ZootSuitGringo]

88. I don'tb n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. He totally holds his own in interviews and I don't think he takes

any shit from anyone. Not one single soldier died in the Kosavo deal. That says a lot.

Let's think about it. Who will he run against - makes a big difference. He'd be better against Rudy -- who is pretty light weight intellectually. A McCain match - military vs. military record might be harder.

So what will the new nominee take Rove with them??

[Jai4WKC08]

45. Frist will hire Rove

Or so it was been reported a month or two ago. Could be that Rove's price-tag has gone up considerably since his new appointment.

[Clark2008]

71. Ewww... I have to have that sleaze Rove in my state?

But, then again... it makes it easier to spy on him, now, doesn't it?
And I know LOTS of people in the gay community.
Hmmmm....

[tinfoilinfor2005]

44. Hmmm, Jeb Bush or Wes Clark?

Jeb or Clark? On the one hand, Jeb, on the other hand, Clark. Hmmm. Tough decision, I don't know...let me think. Ummm...it would have to be Clark. Twenty kagillion to nothing.

[autorank]

48. This link is total Bull Shit. It's right wing Psy Ops.

This incident was widely discussed n the pre-announcement smear campaign begun by the Bush people. This claim went no where so the Bush people got the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to say he knew 'something' really bad about Clark. Clark told the twit British to get their asses in and do something about the Russians. The issue was settled amicably and the Russians left. The issue was thoroughly vetted.

The bloggers statement belies that this material linked is right wing psy-ops: "Turns out that the Russians had several thousand elite airborne troops just waiting to go in and slaughter any NATO units that attacked the Russian soldiers at Pristina." OK, the Russians don't have several thousand troops that can fight, let alone 'elite' troops. They are unrestrained in tactics with the Chechin's (basically a country the size of a mid size county) and they can't win. Get it, they can't win. Where are the elite troops? In the psy-ops blogger's mind.

[hoi polloi]

53. Clark is history

Clark is 2005, not 2008. Why don't we keep our eyes open for the candidate that will capture the hopes of all Americans in 2008. I also like General Clarke, but I don't think he has the charisma to capture the thoughts and minds of people. Ask me who? I'm not sure at this point who might come along and capture the spirit of the American people. I can only guess.
But, if we really want to win back the White House, it has to be someone special.
I think Clinton, but I know many of you will object to her.
Is is the realiy that we have no really charismatic candidate. I wolld go "whole hog" for Dean in 2008.

[ZootSuitGringo]

56. you don't see it, but it's there.

I don't think he (Clark)has the charisma to capture the thoughts and minds of people.

I think that General Clark has "capture" plenty in the thoughs and mind of many. He has the charisma. Just because you don't see it, doesn't make you a normal person.

Maybe you should ask yourself: Why don't I see the charisma that so many others see?

[Clarkie1]

72. Funny, I never thought Dean had much charisma

Not knocking Dean, I guess people just see people different ways.

I'm glad Dean's DNC chair.

I thought Clark and Edwards had the most charisma (although Edward's charisma I recognized other people saw in him, not I).

[Springg]

54. Wes Clark would be Karl Rove's worst nightmare!!

Wes Clark is a quick study and he would follow his instincts in '08 and not the consultants that consistently lose for the democrats!!! I live in very republican part of Ohio...and many who could not support Kerry expressed admiration for Wes Clark and still do. :) I think he would really appeal to the cross over voter! And...as much as I love Hillary....there are many more who just loathe her (my husband included) and would never vote for her. Of course corporate media will continue to promote her for our ticket...because they are owned by republicans and they want dems to lose...and we would lose in '08 with Hillary. Hope she is smart enough to realize that!
Springg:)

[ZootSuitGringo]

55. No.

You are right to like General Clark. There is not much baggage from his Supreme Allied Commander days. There is a log of good stuff. If you contrast how Iraq was handled versus how Kosovo was handled, you have your answer right there. That is why the freepers want to discourage you about General Clark in 2005. They are praying they won't have to deal with him in 2008.

[Divine Discontent]

58. thank you.... clark seemed awesome to me, and I was

down when kerry got the nod, very down. i thought, "this guy who said the F word in rolling stone that's a boring senator from MASS., just like dukakis is gonna try and win some red states! ahhhhh!!!"

well, I needless to say, ended up liking john as much as I did michael, they both have a big heart, and honesty, more than daddy & son do, but ya just know when it looks bad for a candidate, and at certain points for both dukakis and kerry, I felt the empending doom (I felt gore was going to win, and was "right" vote-wise)

so, my gut about wes is solidified, he is integrity personified, as much as a regular ol human can be, and I'll back him as I think several red states will, and he will be our next president, and yes, we need to start early, not like CRAZEEE, but, still start spreading how great he is, and how this country needs his leadership.... they did it for bushbot, we can do the same!


WES CLARK FOR PRESIDENT 2008! (and some progessive, issue minded, exciting individual for his VP, and is it true GORE & KERRY are both gonna run again, some people keep saying they BOTH are keeping their doors open for a re run... yikes! it could get crowded with bayh, edwards, clinton, and a few others!)

[ZootSuitGringo]

62. FYI - I just heard that General Clark will be on CNN today

5:00 p.m. ET on Wolfticket Blitzer talking about Iran and N. Korea.

[Gloria]

64. No, he was brilliant as usual today with Wolfie....who kep trying

to weasel around. But Clark kept on message....and also didn't rule out a run

[Divine Discontent]

74. THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME

I was wondering how he did on wolfie's "show"


:)

God bless...

[Hell in a Handbasket]

67. they'll villify anyone. 2004 showed that pretty plainly.

i'd say Clark/Warner, or Hillary/Clark would both be great.

[sendero]

69. What matters...

.. is not that they smear, or how they smear (they will), what matters is the response.

I get the feeling that Clark will deliver a response that will make the smears less than effective.

[BNW]

76. I'm hoping Boxer runs in the primaries

Beyond that I'll just be waiting to see how things unfold, especially in '06.

[jswordy]

78. Yes. But don't worry...

...our next nominee will be a governor or former governor, most likely from a red state. So the point is moot.

[ZootSuitGringo]

82. You mean the best that Dems can offer according to you is

the old 1992 gameplan?

So 9/11 really never did happen? We really don't have any troups in Iraq? We really aren't rattling sabers at Iran and N. Korea?

So Democrats will cede National Security to the Repugs?

How original and innovative you are!

Scary, if this is the plan. I hate to think we will lose AGAIN, 4 years from now.

[jswordy]

84. No, your brand of personal insults will win big for us

I said none of the things you insinuate in your hyperventillated post.

[ZootSuitGringo]

85. so sorry to have offended your sensibilities jswordy, but when you say

Not to worry...our next nominee will be a governor or former governor, most likely from a red state. So the point is moot.

I think that I addressed your post spot on.

To come into a thread dealing with a particular name of someone that happens not to be a governor, to state that "the point is moot", can only be read in the spirit in which it was posted.

I've taken the liberty to set the time machine to 1992


Back to the good ol' days!


The twin towers are still there

[noonwitch]

80. You're not wrong, he's a good candidate

I voted for him last year in the caucus.

I'm more of a Hillary 08 supporter, but I like Clark, too.

[Skidmore]

81. I like Clark too, but I refuse to come out for any one

candidate this far in advance of the primary season in 08. ONe of the problems with this last election was that it was so front loaded and gamed that no ones vote ended up counting in the end.