I am switching from Kucinich to Clark

[cryofan]

Clark is my guy, then. I still think Kucinich is easily the best candidate on theissues, but as I have shown in the "dean deception" threads, Dean appears to be firmly against a strong social safety net, and, as for his personality and spirit, well, let's just say it is not a generous one. Thus, I feel we must stop Dean.

Bush OTOH is obviously one of the worst presidents we have ever had, and he also needs to be stopped.

Clark is a competent speaker, projects a very presidential image, and could cripple Bush in the debates by bringing up his desertion from the Natl Guard. He apparently made overtures to the GOP, and from what I can see, that is the biggest knock on him. He was apparently rejected by them, and was even laughed at by them at some meeting, and that is a good sign.

Clark of course has the military way of doing things firmly embossed upon him. And having spend 6 years in the military, I can tell you that the military is run much more like the European Union (EU) welfare states, than it is the USA. That may seem strange considering the fact that the EU is far more pacifist than America. But you see the military takes care of its own. And so does the EU. And that is where we need to take America. Furthermore, the EU govts know that you should work to live, not live to work. Thus, Europeans have much more time off (about a month per year) than does the average American (about 12 days and dropping). The military is also generous with time off--everyone gets a minimum of 30 days leave a year.

I am also concerned about the outsourcing issue. In fact, it touches me personally, as I have a BS Computer Science degree and am unemployed (though by choice). From what I can see, Clark is coming up to speed on this issue, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

I still think this country needs to become a social democracy, and the best way to do that is to make the Green Party more powerful, so I will work to help the local Houston TX Green Party. But on the national level, I think we need to beat Bush and Dean, so Clark it is for me now.

What about a Clark-Kucinich ticket?

[The Magistrate]

1. Glad To Have You On Board, Sir!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Clark-Kucinich

I had never thought of that combo before now...Very interesting!

[fishguy]

3. Good for you!

[eileen_d]

4. I would love a Clark-Kucinich ticket

My two favorite candidates. I think I'll write a letter to Santa...

I am bummed that Clark made that "software in India" gaffe in a debate, but I think that comment has been blown out of proportion compared to his actual positions on job creation and retention in America.

Also, that's a very interesting point about the military "taking care of its own" and comparing it to the EU... thanks for sharing!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

I've been thinking this way for a few weeks now

n/t

[maddezmom]

5. excellent choice...

Go Clark!!! :)

[LWolf]

6. Dennis can beat Dean.

Hold your vote until you see results in early primary states.

[cryofan]

8. Well, if Kucinich surged in the early primaries.....

....then I would have to vote for him in the Texas primary. He is a once-in-a-generation candidate. But for right now, we have to stop Dean. Please see the "Dean Deception" threads for why....

Clark would make a good candidate. He has all the tools, and he is somewhat of an unknown, having no real governmental record. That means he has not spent years cozying up to all the rich investors and CEOs who are running politics. THat can only be a good thing....

[LWolf]

21. I read them.

And I understand. I'm working for the surge. ;-)

[Toucano]

7. Welcome aboard!

Conversions are rare at DU, and yours is appreciated.

As for the Clark/Kucinich ticket, I keep hoping Dennis's popularity in Ohio could spur him to run for Senate or Governor. He's the most popular Democrat in Ohio and we could really use him here.

[_NorCal_D_]

9. Welcome!

B-)

Clark/Kucinich....not a bad idea!

[cyclezealot]

18. DK is too vital to play second fidel to anyone.

He speaks unabashadely for the needs of people. He can continue to do that as Progressive Chair, if not as President. DK is too principaled to be shut up. He would give the President a stroke.But that would make him President. So that is good.]
Should Clark come around and support Single Payer and convince me he is giving more than lip service to trade issues, then and only then will I come around to Clark. Of course with those issues reslolved well then Clark / Kucinich works..
If Clark merited a running mate of the caliber of DK, could you imagine the fear Cheney would feel. Maybe then, Cheney had better not run for the sake of his health.
To be realistic, From what I see Clark is too apologetic as to Iraq.Don't think the ticket would work.Clark ,Iraq will go on for years, Kucinich we will have the UN in within 6 months.

[ErasureAcer]

10. The people of Central America thank you

for letting the School of the Americas continue, as their lives are destroyed.

:eyes:

[BJ]

11. Socialist U.S. military = progressive U.S. A.?

Let's me see, Dwight D. Eisenhower was approached by both parties to be a presidental candidate for the '52 elections. Eisenhower chose the Republican Party because he didn't want the United States to become a European-style socialist state. He wanted to preserve what he considered the best features of Roosevelt's New Deal but go no further. One of the major programs left unfinished by Roosevelt and Harry Truman was a "nationalized" health care system. Eisenhower's administrations effectively killed that issue.


Clark looks like a president? So did Ronald Reagan.

BTW, General Clark went directly from being an "ultimate perfumed prince" of the U.S. Army to the corporate boardroom.

Nor, will Clark "cripple" anybody in any debates as the White House has already announced that pResident George Dubya Bush is too busy conqueroring the world to deign to any debates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Ah, the "perfumed prince" line

You know where that quote came from don't you? Col David Hackworth coined it in an old hit piece (years old actually) against Clark.

For the record do you know that Hackworth has retracted those negative comments? He now realizes he was misled by disinformation from the Shelton type bunch. Here is the link to Hackworth talking about Wesley Clark now: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

Here are a few quotes from that article:

"Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, "Hack, what do you think of the general?"

For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3."

And:

" For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.

No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn...

Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince." Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong – the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time."

[catherineD]

60. Thanks for clearing that up.

Imagine a guy with high moral standards in the White House! And unlike Carter, he would come in as a person experienced with dealing with international issues!

[Donna Zen]

12. The military as "little Sweden"

Yep_Clark's take on domestic policies is that our government has a responsibilty to provide its citizens with the opportunity to be all that they can be. Many people who think of the military as "all about the guns and orders" miss the under lying social structure of the institution. They have the model early childhood program, a system based on merit, and quality healthcare for all.

The software outsourcing issue has been blown out proportion and all logic considering Clark's position. What the federal government can do is to tighten loopholes and buy American; however, beyond that, Clark's vision of where we need to go in developing the new technologies is right on. We are at the beginning of the tech revolution not the end. If we are to stay cutting edge, then we must invest in our people and research, otherwise, China and India will eat our lunch.

At first my interest in Wesley Clark was driven by a need to win with a candidate that had acceptable liberal credentials. Now everyday brings a new and welcome surprise, at just how liberal Clark really is. If we are to realize that liberal future, we will need the bucks to make the magic happen. Kucinich and Clark are both correct in assuming that those dollars are hidden in the waste, fraud and abuse of the Pentagon budget. Only Clark can put them on the table. Knowing where the bodies are buried will all the difference.

Welcome aboard and fasten your seatbelt, Wes 101 offers an amazing learning curve.

[uberotto]

13. I have to say I'm a little surprised...

All of the reasons that you decided to choose Clark are also all of the reasons that I don't like him. This is surprising given our similarity of background.

I have a BS in Computer Engineering and make my living as a Software Engineer and I too spent six years in the military.

During my years in the military, I learned that most Officers are basically worthless, and no Officer makes the rank of General if they posess the ability to think for themselves.

The military is set up to reward those who serve well the ones above them and to punish those who concern themselves with the health and well being of those below them.

What really bothered me about your post, however, is your comment about the "military takes care of it's own". I don't know what military you served in, but it obviously wasn't the U.S. Military. If you need an example of why I'm upset about that comment, look into the way the Navy handled the explosion on the U.S.S. Iowa. Need another example, how about the treatment of soldiers who speak out against the war. Doesn't look like they are "taking care of their own", it looks more like the Military is more concerned with protecting it's image. This goes along with what I experienced while in the military. This goes along with what I see today when working with military contractors.

[jonnyblitz]

20. As a 10 year navy Vet I feel the same as you about officers

That is the BIG thing that keeps me from embracing CLark. I think the military as institution is highly overrated as to how it treats its members. HIGHLY overrated. if he is the candidate chosen of course I will support and vote for him .

Your post is right on. :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Clark really isn't your average High Brass Offficer

Your typical Three Star General (at the time) wouldn't have gone over a cliff under live fire to single handedly attempt to save the lives of three French diplomats in Yugoslavia.

[jonnyblitz]

28. good for Clark. n/t

[Barbara917]

41. Your experience of the military is firsthand

“During my years in the military, I learned that most Officers are basically worthless, and no Officer makes the rank of General if they posess the ability to think for themselves.

The military is set up to reward those who serve well the ones above them and to punish those who concern themselves with the health and well being of those below them.”

You experience of the military is first-hand and better than mine. BUT. Do you have first-hand experience of Clark? If you read the first hand experiences of those who have worked for and with Clark this DOES NOT describe Clark at all.

Have you read how Clark took care of Eric Massa (the man the Republicans fired for shaking Clark’s hand)? You may read about it in this article. It describes an officer who takes personal interest in the well-being of those who work under him.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/112703clark_guy_2003.shtml

Or, have you read the first hand accounts of Cris Hernandez. Here is a direct link to his Blog http://www.cris.forclark.com/ and here is a link to a very pertinent blog entry on how Clark treats his subordinates http://cris.forclark.com/story/2003/11/18/185117/66

In this WaPo article http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45166-2003Oct18¬Found=true is more evidence of how Clark takes care of those he works with.

“Scott Thompson, a colleague in the White House fellows program, is indebted to Clark for emotional support and advice when Thompson -- who was then married with children -- decided to publicly acknowledge that he was gay.
Dan Christman, a West Point friend and retired general, said that when he became very ill with spinal meningitis in the early 1980s -- before screening techniques for HIV-tainted blood were fully developed -- Clark doggedly canvassed their entire War College class to find a suitable blood donor for his friend, and he did.”

As to your point about generals no thinking for themselves. At least with respect to Clark this indicates a lack of research. Clark had to fight the Pentagon brass the whole way during the war in Kosovo. The Pentagon saw little strategic advantage to that war (no oil) and Clark had to push hard to save the lives of over a million Muslim Albanians. What do you think the source of the friction between Shelton and Clark? Surely you don’t by Shelton’s line “integrity and character” issues. It was all about their policy disputes during that war. Clark is NOT a yes-man. All evidence to the contrary he does think for himself.

[BurtWorm]

14. What if you don't stop Dean?

What if all you do is send a maimed Dean to the general election?

[eileen_d]

19. How is Dean "maimed" if he gets the nomination?

If Dean is a strong candidate and survives the primaries, I would think he could build on his strengths from there. Am I missing something?

[BurtWorm]

22. It depends how much Clark and Kerry supprorters want to stop Dean.

And how good their timing and aim are.

[eileen_d]

24. No one wants to stop the Democratic nominee more than Bush

And the majority of Clark and Kerry supporters will get behind Dean if he wins the nomination.

Color me optimistic, I guess.

[FredrickDouglass]

15. Can I Trust Wesley Clark?

Don't know if I trust Clark. The guy seems to be supersmart and able to handle himself but I can't stop thinking about Waco. It keeps making me wonder, is this guy acting, is this the real Wesley Clark? I don't know. After doing a little homework on this guy and seeing his MAJOR role in the Waco Attack, I don't know if this is a guy that I can trust in this War Of Terror age. Yeah, he knows how to kill the bad guys, but for all the rhetoric, does Wesley Clark know who the bad guys are? He seems to be intelligent and he has been said to be a serious micromanager by numerous individuals that have worked under his authority. That being said, I am compelled to believe that Clark must have known that M1A1 tanks were going to be used against civilians in Waco. The tanks used were equipment under his command. I mean, isn't a tank a pretty serious piece of equipment to be loaned out and the top guy responsible not know about it? I think so. Some hold the opinion that Clark even ran the operation at Waco as far as the military side of it went. And who was operating the tanks. Doesn't seem to me that you can just loan a tank out to the FBI or the DEA and tell em to bring it back when they're done. So were Clark's guys operating the tanks as well, and he STILL didn't know about it? I'm not buying it.
I don't mean to dredge up the past just to make him look bad, but the fact is, that it REALLY DOES look bad and the questions need to be answered. Was all that pointing tanks at civilians stuff, his idea. And even if it wasn't, why'd he go along? If anyone else knows about this topic, please add on.
About Kucicinich, he seems to be the best candidate out there. The media is pushing Dean, and they are giving Clark less, but some attention. Kucinich, even less. With his out in the open, straightforward take on the issues and where he stands, the media seems VERY, I mean EXTREMELY reluctant to give him much airtime, lest they be obligated to have the other candidates state their positions on the issues because that's all Kucinich seems to talk about, the issues facing America and where he stands on them. And not just where he stands but what he's going to do once in office. And we all know how all the others, including Clark talk about their positions in vague language and none of them, NONE, declare publicly, what they are going to do, in specifics. So I don't know if Kucinich would really fit, ideologically, as a running mate, with any of the media front-runners.
After Kucinich lambasted ABC, and the media as a whole, about their coverage, he went on CNN to talk about it. I don't remember what CNN show it was but I had to go into the next room and listen to the exchange from their because I knew it was about to get ugly and I would end up mad as all hell if I watched it. But it was Kucinich, a Republican from I don't remember what state, a TIME editor and the two CNN show talking heads. So in a discussion about a Democrat's opinion of the failure of the mainstream media, we have talking with him, a Republican and 3 agents of the mainstream media.
4 on 1
And it was. They all verbally assailed him, of course. He, being the guy many of you know him to be, articulate, courageous and feisty, held his own but 4 on 1? If only we could get those same guys to talk to Rumsfeld or Cheney or Powell in that same skeptical, critical tone....yeah, right.
Anyhow, I wonder about Clark. Like I said, I wanna like him but that Waco stuff is a stopper. I like Kucinich, what I've seen and read but I'd like to see, read and know more.

Fred D

[eileen_d]

17. Clark was not present at Waco, nor did he plan, direct or authorize it.

http://www.clarkmyths.com/myth8.html

Edit: This is not a site I made, although it was made by Clark supporters - there is supporting documentation for it, which I will provide more links to if necessary.

[copithorne]

25. Welcome aboard!

I switched from Dean to Clark myself. I still love the Doctor, but Wesley Clark has some exceptional qualities that you don't see very often. I think he is the man who can reassure America and lance the boil of fear that is sending this country down the path of fascism.

[FredrickDouglass]

32. Thanks for the link

Thanks for the source for more information. I'm learning more about what is on the record there and it does seem that Wesley Clark had no planning role in Waco but all sides seem to admit openly that he allowed use of his tanks in the Waco operation. This is oddly declared by both sides as if this is legal. It isn't. I'm still looking at this but I find it hard to buy that he didn't even know his tanks were gone. It has been documented that he was contacted about Waco. At that point he should've told them know. At West Point it is said that is the number one thing they drill into students, Posse Comitatus. And since he was first in his class he understood his lawful obligation. Can we assume that?

Posse Comitatus

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

[eileen_d]

33. I'm not validating anything you're saying without documentation

You say "all sides seem to admit openly that he (Clark) allowed the use of his tanks in the Waco operation" - prove it.

You say "it has been documented that he (Clark) was contacted about Waco" - prove it.

Thanks.

[FredrickDouglass]

38. Prove It?

Dude, I'm not trying to prove anything. And I hope you didn't post the link feeling like you had to prove anything to me. You don't. I just asked for additional info.
Clark gave tanks to Waco. The site you recommended I visit says that. So read the source you sent me and their is your proof.

From the link that you sent me,
"Clark was ordered by McClarty on behalf of the Gerson to release vehicles to the operation"

Fred D

[eileen_d]

44. Whatever, "dude"

Most people who try to associate Clark with Waco generally have an agenda against Clark. That's why I ask for proof, which is also known as "additional info." You made some broad generalizations about his involvement with Waco, and I asked you to clarify them.

Have a nice day.

[FredrickDouglass]

47. Just Read Your Link

Okay, the info is in your own source.
I even quoted it for you so that you wouldn't have to go back and read it. What are you saying without saying? Your source is no longer credible after I actually read it?
He gave em the tanks and he's lawfully obligated not to do so. How is that a broad generalization?

"Clark was ordered by McClarty on behalf of the Gerson to release vehicles to the operation"

That is what your source says. I'm sorry about the "dude" reference but it is worth looking at. Since you seem to be firmly entrenched in the Clark camp, I suggest you do more research at sites not so glowingly pro-Clark. If the pro-Clark sites, like the one you referred me to, openly admit that he broke the law, there may be more to know.

Fred D.

[eileen_d]

48. You know, I can read.

And I am not so "firmly entrenched" that I cannot make my own decisions about these things.

But I do not buy your theory that Clark broke the law. Can you at least admit that is your theory (your interpretation of the law) and not fact?

[FredrickDouglass]

51. Every Reading of Law Is Interpretation

Eileen d, it is my interpretation of the law. Mine and many others. I guess I'm curious as to what your interpretation of Posse Comitatus Law, is. If we can agree that General Wesley Clark gave tanks to be used at Waco, then it comes down as to whether or not one "interprets" the Posse Comitatus Law as forbidding that act.
My "interpretation", it clearly forbids it.

And the deeper issue, if I may proceed to that, is the mindset of a man that is willing to do that kind of thing. Consider the history of Posse Comitatus. It is so deeply ingrained in military officers for a very specific reason and this could be a whole other thread in itself, but the entire reason for this law,the entire reason, is so that no one can pit the Army against civilians and say "I was just following orders". So the defense that seems to be put up by supporters of Clark is in the exact spirit of which the law attempts to protect civilians.
Do you see what I mean?
This is what I mean
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baker1.html

I am a veteran and understand this somewhat, I think. Posse Comitatus was invoked to mean, and it says it clearly, that no part of the Army is to be used against civilians. The spirit of the law is in direct response to the claim of just following orders. That is always how militaries justify killing defenseless populations.
I was only following orders.
If you have access to any commissioned army personnel or former personnel, ask them. They know what the spirit of the law is about, as it was assuredly taught to them.

Fred D.

[BootinUp]

36. Question for you:Tanks

First, I think it should be clear that the Waco siege was run by the Justice Department and any military equipment decisions were made by those running the Waco operations not Clark. But I would ask you why you wouldn't want the men and women trying to arrest Koresh to have the equipment they needed to do the job? As far as I know they did not fire Tank guns as in a military action, they were used as much for their armor protection as anything. I think the ATF screwed up royally and that led to a horrible ending, but there isn't much doubt that Koresh had to be dealt with. No?

[FredrickDouglass]

39. David Koresh isn't the Point

Don't know much about Koresh. That's not the point. This is my point.

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Posse Comitatus Act

I'm wary of him for that reason only. He knowingly broke a law that it is said is one of the first things that is ingrained at West Point. You can't use the Army against us, civilians. If he did it, he did it. And it does seem that he did. Nobody's perfect, but this irrational defending of lawbreaking? I don't get it.

Fred D.

[BootinUp]

46. Ok...

But I think this Waco concern is just a bit suspect. But, I googled for you and found this:

http://www.waco93.com/washingtonpost8_27_99.htm

Washington Post

Friday, August 27, 1999; Page A01

Reno Says FBI Misled Her About Waco Arms
Thorough Probe Vowed on Use of 'Pyrotechnic' Gas

By Edward Walsh and Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writers

massive snippage to get to this final part:
.........
A report prepared after congressional hearings in 1995 sharply criticized Reno, calling her decision to approve the FBI's assault plan "premature, wrong and highly irresponsible." But the panel concluded that the military support given to both the ATF and FBI was legal.
.........
If you disagree with government actions I would suggest holding the right people accountable, Clark was not in charge of the operation in any demonstrable way.

[FredrickDouglass]

49. Clark Should Be Accountable

Also massive snippage(I did, however, read the entire thing)

FBI Agent:
"this was not a military operation and could not be assessed as such."

Not a military operation?

The only point pertinent to Clark, it seems is that he issued tanks to be used against civilians.

That is illegal.

He knew that and even if he didn't, it's still illegal. I think it's open and shut if the gave anybody tanks to use against civilians. It's open and shut. He should have disobeyed unlawful orders or at least be on record for not cooperating. It's against the law.

Fred D.

[BootinUp]

50. I give

This is silly. There is a system in our government for determining what is legal and what is not. Maybe you should cite any lawsuits or other legal actions to support your position. Anyways I am tired of talking about Waco.

nothing personal.

edit for spelling

[FredrickDouglass]

52. As You Can Prolly See

I'm new to this place, and I'm just as new to looking at WesClark, in depth, which is why I came looking for opinions and info sources and background on the guy. I didn't even know about Waco and his involvement so I have no axe to grind with the Clark candidacy besides what I'm seeing right in front of me. I'm undecided about a candidate and talking with people seems to be a good way to learn about the different Dems running.
This Waco thing seems open and shut for me.
I don't know if he planned anything. Evidence says no thus far.
I don't know if he sent his guys in. Evidence says no.
But it does seem that he gave them tanks. And as a veteran and on/off student of military organization, I know for sure that's off-limits. I posted in another above, this
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/baker1.html

I'm not here to convince people to do anything. But I know wrong when I see it. And wrongs like this are serious. Posse Comitatus has a serious history and unless Clark could clear this up or I can find something, anything to say those weren't his tanks or that they were stolen from his base, he's so completely wrong on this. And this is something that is so ingrained into commissioned officers at West Point. The whole point of the act is so that no one can say I was just following orders. I wasn't and am not trying to convince you that you should or shouldn't do something but I guess this is a place to debate the issues and law-breakage of this type is definitely an issue to be debated.

Fred D.

[Rowdyboy]

56. His commanding office, fellow officers...

and subordinate officers say he played no role in Waco. Republican Senator John Danforth who headed the senate investigation into Waco found Clark in no way involved in Waco. The Juctice departments internal; probe found Clark unconnected to Waco.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/11/29/news/nation/7371938.htm

Now I can't make you see this if you're determined that he's guilty. But if you're serious-dig just a little deeper. This is a smear that the right is attempting to use to discredit General Clark. I'm certainly not implying that this is your goal-just that this is why this issue keeps coming up-the right has nothing to hang on Clark so they keep trying to connect him to anything that could possibly hurt him. "If you throw enough mud, surely, eventually, something will start to stick!"

[xrepub]

37. waco "stuff"

Can you clarify what it is that you are talking about?

My understanding is that Clark had very little involvement in Waco. His base was asked for equipment, he had a duty to supply it. What else?

[FredrickDouglass]

40. Yeah, Waco Stuff

You hit on a very good point, thank you.

Posted by xrepub:

"was asked for equipment, he had a duty to supply it."

And that's the point right there. He had a duty to refuse it. According to the law, at least. He had a duty to refuse it because he knew it would be used against civilians.

Fred D.

[oasis]

58. "he knew it would used against civilians"according to F. Douglass.

Do you know any instances in which the military is mobilized to "protect" civilians?

[Jerseycoa]

54. MAJOR role in the Waco Attack

There was no role. This is :tinfoilhat:

Nothing more.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Do you remember when it was the far, far right talking about Waco?

I think it is horrible that so many people died at Waco. I think it was horrible that so many people died at Jonestown after REALLY drinking the Cool Aid. I know there are major differences between the two events, and that they are tragic in some different ways, but tragic is the bottom line. Representitive Ryan died at Jonestown also, and federal agents died at Waco before the siege was put into place. If extremist cults were not involved in both cases there would never have been the loss of life that occurred in both instances. Neither cult took a very flexible or reasonable position in negotiations with authorities. Both were prepared to, and did, kill representatives of the Federal government before the slaughter of innocents commenced.

Does anyone remember when it was Tom Delay who was pushing outrage over Waco, along with a fairly extreme Representative who had strong campaign ties with the Right Wing Freedom Militia movements, (whose name I can't remember)? Of course I am saddened at the loss of life at Waco, but I am mystified that David Koresh no longer is assigned a leading role in it. The government forces involved did not sneak gasoline into the compound and spread it around while those good Christian child abusers were all cuddled up in bed. Context people, context.

[revcarol]

26. You approve of all that money he got for being a "consultant"

(LOBBYIST)for a big corp that gets government contracts because of his influence? And you approve of him being on the board of a big pharma corp that is making huge profits at the expense of ordinary people?

This guy is tainted. I hope you will reconsider.Not dissing you, but, isn't it amazing how some people forget the facts that came out 2-3 months ago.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Welcome to the Clark Campaign!

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

I like Kucinich...a LOT. If not a Clark/Kucinich ticket, he should DEFINITELY be a part of his administration!

Welcome, cryofan! :toast:

[Gloria]

29. Welcome! Clark himself has said that the Army

actually runs on Democratic values, not GOP values. They embrace affirmative action and taking care of their own, just as you described.

Glad to have you on board. Now, maybe I will hand out some Clark material when Kucinich comes to town tomorrow. I was hesitant; I don't want to intrude, but at the same time, I think you pointed out some areas of commonality.

[helleborient]

30. Maybe you can turn all those polls around for Clark then...

15-12 in the latest SC poll

17-12 in the Newsweek national poll

And a number of others recently that seem to indicate Clark has peaked and is following the Kerry path downward.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Time will tell but

Actually the path downward you speak of seems to be changing course. Clark, has at least stabalized (as much as the bouncing polls dance can verify)and if anyting is moving back upwards. At least his numbers seem relatively firm, frequently in second place. The main reason why Dean can't be said to have it in the bag is because, in a 9 candidate field, he only commands a relatively small plurality overall. That's still much better than anyone else, but we will have to see what happens as other candiates start falling by the wayside.

[helleborient]

42. Give us a reference to a poll turnaround for Clark, does it exist?

ARG shows him trending downward in New Hampshire during the month of December

Newsweek shows him trending downward nationally during the month of December

ARG shows him trending downward in SC during the month of December

I'd be happy to see a reference to a poll taken in the last week that shows an increase from where he was in October or November. I'm not confident there are published polls that show that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Lots of polls

with conflicting data. It is easiest to play with the numbers comparing Clark now with Clark in October and November. Because there was a drop for Clark from the early entry numbers, and that drop dropped lower in most cases than where he is polling now. I was making a general commentary post and I tdid not think I was making any claim that would require me to do research to back it up. I say that only becuase I don't have the time to go wading through the internet right now at length.

Here's one link to a NH poll from November 14th that has Clark way below 10%:

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/politics/2638619/detail.html

Here's a post from a mid December NH poll with Clark at 10%:

Dean increases lead over Kerry to 29 pts. in new NH poll
Edited on Wed Dec-17-03 03:37 PM by pruner

Dean 46
Kerry 17
Clark 10
Lieberman 7
Edwards 4
Gephardt 3
Kucinich 1
Moseley Braun 1
Sharpton 1

Dec 10-15. n=447 likely voters. MOE ± 4.5

http://www.wcnc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D7VG6LM01.html


Here's a link to a DU thread poster by a strong Dean supporter that states in it's header text "It looks like Dean gained two points, and Clark gained three. And all the rest seem to be below 6 or 7%...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=10301&mesg_id=10301

That concerns the Dec. 18th to 19th Newsweek National poll.

I have read recent SC polls that first show Clark falling behind Edwards for first after leading him, then leaping ahead of Edwards, then falling behind Dean and so forth. I find the current polls very very fluid. The old meme about Clark collapsing died in Late Novemeber. He isn't collapsing. I repeat, we shall see all see soon enough.

Disclaimer: I am not ducking anything. I don't simply have more time to put into this hunting and posting right now and the poll information we post today is outdated tommorrow anyway. Polls will be replaced by actual votes within weeks.

[texastoast]

31. Love the Ticket!

That is what I thought would be the best from the outset. Clark is the only one who has a chance to beat Shrubito coming off some kind of perceived military "victory." I would love for all America to know about Bush's covered-up, minimal spin desertion to go work for one of daddy's political cronies.

And Kucinich appears to be a Democrat of high integrity. His ideals appeal to the heart of the party.

[Jack_Dawson]

35. Welcome, My Son

To the winning team.

[Bread and Circus]

43. I would like Dennis to be on Clark's 100 year vision commission..

Specifically, we need some bold thinking about alternative
energy. I think Kucinich can have that vision.

[Terwilliger]

45. ooooooo......shocker!!

:eyes:

[LouisFC]

53. Welcome!

Welcome to the Clark campaign!!!!!!!!

[webkev]

57. you make some good points

we need to stop the pResident
Clark is the man for the job

he is so honest

where are Dean's files?
what's he hiding??

[catherineD]

61. I switched from Kucinich to Clark, too!

Of course, I did it when Clark was still Draft Clark. I had realized that the team that Kucinich put together didn't have the kind of qualifications for the national media to take them seriously. The slogan "The Progressive Choice," has always sounded like it would be much more appealing to Green voters than Democrats. I tried to push for A NEW New Deal, but no go. (I notice that Kerry is using A Real Deal now, which I remember other posters in the Kucinich group suggesting.) A New American Patriotism doesn't cede patriotism to the Right. Clark's incredible mind, coupled with his organizational familiarity with the military and his idea to plan for America's future far beyond his own time in office really excites me. I think he could be the best president we've ever had.

[Myra]

62. Well, as much as I love Kucinich, I thank you for your Clark vote

Welcome!