I want to support Clark, but . . .

[RowWellandLive]

When Wes Clark entered the race I got excited. He has so much going for him. A war hero, General, Supreme Allied Commander, good looking in a "Presidential" way, highly intelligent, and a Southerner. Perfect on paper, yet I'm having trouble climbing aboard at the same time I want to.

It's not his Republican past that bothers me, people can change their opinions and we ought to welcome those who do. It's hard to put this into words but I think the problem I have is that he seems too much like a complete personal embodiment of the Democratic Party Platform. It's like he memorized it and completely embraces and spits out all it contains. This doesn't seem real.

Everyone I know holds "some" views that differ from strict party principle. I've seen many threads here where people state their views that are considered conservative. Most of us believe in some things that are to the right and others that are to the left. I myself am for drug legalization at the same time I mostly agree with the NRA. Others here who are more liberal may not believe in any "right wing" ideas, but stray from the party going further left on some issues. That's how it should be.

Does Wes Clark stand for anything at all that could be considered outside the party platform? The fact that I haven't seen anything makes me question if he truly believes in his own platform, or rather he's adopted the party line for opportunistic reasons. I always prefer people who have strongly held positions based on principle, even if I sometimes disagree, over those that say what is popular and don't mean it.

I am aware that all politicians take some stands because they feel they have to. It's the nature of the game. However, in Wes Clark's case I have no real sense of what he really cares about. I wish I did.

I hope this post does not break the forum rules. I am serious in that I would like to get some feedback on this and hope that my feelings are mistaken.

[jmaier]

1. Well

He said that he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning. Hardly a leftist stance and it got him quite a bit of heat here at DU and even on his own blog.

That's the best example I can think of at the moment.

[RowWellandLive]

5. I forgot about the flag burning amendment

Thanks, that is certainly not leftist.

[Bucky]

8. Sadly, Kucinich & Dean also support restriction on flag burning

Dean at least has the wits to not want to stop flag burning by a freakin' amendment. Unfortunately for Dean anything less than a full amendment to the Constitution will not pass constitutional muster as it clearly and intentionally restricts free expression of obnoxious political views, which is the core purpose of the 1st Amendment.

Kerry's right on the amendment question--opposing it--but even he demagogued on this issue. He said if he saw someone burning the flag he'd go "punch him in the nose." At least Dean, Clark, and Kucinich (also Gephardt) want to protect our last few remaining unburnt flags by legislation. To look tough Kerry advocated taking the law into his own hands, street vigilante-style. Such goobers one and all.

Only Edwards seems to "get it" that you have to protect flag burning to because it is speech. It's not a voting issue to me, obviously since I'm for Clark, but I do wish we could all be clear about this kind of principle.

Sigh

[tishaLA]

2. He's not exactly a lefty on gun control either.

[jmaier]

3. although

he supports the Brady Bill extension. Closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons so he's not exactly NRA approved either.

[kiahzero]

4. How so?

I know he's for the assault weapons ban... I believe he had a quote about "If you want an assault weapon, join the military. We've got 'em."

I don't know about Brady Law and other gun control laws... I seem to remember him talking about enforcement of current laws, but I could be mistaken.

[DoNotRefill]

20. Ah, yes...his Himmler paraphrase...

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler


I wonder if Wes is going to suggest American gun owners "campaign" with the Army if they want to keep their guns?

[Ms. Wonderful]

44. No

Clark is for the Brady Bill; no gun sales at those silly gun shows; assault rifle ban; BUT he is pro gun owner. He has many guns and believes others should be able to have them as well. He insists target practice is a fun sport. He supports trigger locks.

That seems pretty good to me.

Since, again, he believes ordinary American gun owners should have their guns, I see no problem.

[Syrinx]

7. I'm not really a "lefty" on gun-control

But I definitely am on the flag-burning thing. The constitution has never been amended to limit individual rights. That's more of a concern to me than the gun thing. But then, I'm big on freedom. Looks like Clark's batting .500 on those two particular issues with me.

[RowWellandLive]

11. From the posts above

it seems that Clark is a "lefty" on gun control. So far the only place he strays is on the flag burning amendment. That's not really a big issue to me. I don't like the idea but doubt it's going anywhere.

[DaisyUCSB]

16. No the contitution doesn't permit banning flag burning, which is why an

amendment is needed, and the constitution does permit amendments

[Syrinx]

23. Obviously the constitution permits amendments...

But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the constitution has ever been amended to restrict individual rights.

[GiovanniC]

26. Well....... It WAS, Once

"correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the constitution has ever been amended to restrict individual rights."

There was a constitutional amendment against allowing people to get batshit drunk (prohibition), but it was repealed.

But Clark's stance on the flag-burning thing is the same as my position on the following question: "Giovanni, if you are elected president, and you're going to the bathroom and all of a sudden you shit out a basketball-sized monkey made of solid gold, would you have it displayed in the Smithsonian?" (Pardon the mental image)

Sure, but it'll never happen.

Basically Clark has said that IF the population at large wanted an amendment against flag-burning (they don't), and IF they went through the petition process (they wouldn't), and IF they would go through all of the processes revolving around getting a constitutional amendment passed (they won't), and IF all the requisite states would ratify such an amendment(they wouldn't), then yes, he would support it because at that point it becomes very obvious that it's the will of the people.

You should fear my basketball-sized golden monkey being in the Smithsonian before you should worry about Clark having to sign an anti-flag-burning amendment.

[wyldwolf]

55. Dean - A+ rating by the NRA

[Quixote1818]

6. Flag Burning Amendment

[arewethereyet]

9. he's a supply side economics guy

but you are correct to note that principle does not seem to be guiding him politically.

[RowWellandLive]

13. I don't see him as a "supply side economics guy"

I believe that he supports tax increases on the rich. How is that supple side?

[RafterMan]

14. Noooo

He's repeatedly derided supply side economics, saying no rational economist believes in it. It's the same reasoning he uses against the Bush tax cut and for minimum wage hikes -- giving money to the rich does not increase aggregate demand, giving money to the poor does.

But this is the Henry Ford/new-Democrat "helping the poor is good for business" argument, so maybe it seems more right-wing to some here.

[DaisyUCSB]

15. You really don't understand what that means if you think that

He is the rich supply siders worst nightmare

[carpetbagger]

10. Our platform is pretty mainstream.

Clark's military and diplomatic record lends evidence to support of our international priorities and positions. Hell, even the current Secretary of State supports our platform.

Our platform on economic and tax policy basically strives for the type of safety net that exists in the military. Hell, there's tons of republican politicians who stick their foot in their mouths in support of our fiscal policies, only to be taken to the woodshed. It's not radical at all, and I would imagine that Clark, with some grounding in economics (master's degree, taught it at West Point, short business career after leaving), would have no problem seeing the light.

So that leaves social policy. Here Clark seems to be naturally following his inclinations. First, he's not a fundamentalist Christian. Most Americans who are not fundamentalist Christians support abortion rights, gay rights, and the first amendment (although here Clark differs on flag-burning). As much as environmentalism is a social policy, his religious humanist views (look at his 100-year plan) lead him into the environmentalist camp. His gun positions come from his upbringing. Finally, his military service is one important source for his support of affirmative action (and before running for president, he filed an amicus curiae brief in support of aff. action).

[RowWellandLive]

22. I appreciate you, a Clark supporter, weighing in here

I've read your post several times and yet I'm still not really getting it. This is not a debate between those that are fundamentalist Christians and those that are not. I assume that almost none of us here are. There are disagreements on all major issues that you have raised between all of us that are not fundamentalists.

How do you really know where his "gut" positions come from or if he really even has any? And exactly when did he file his amicus brief in support of AA? I think he was planning to run for president before he actually announced, obviously. I would just love to hear more concrete evidence of any real "gut" positions.

[Namvet04]

12. Join many of us who do not know what he stands for

He seems to change all the time and I think you see people catching on as he starts to slip fast in the polls. If he makes it into the top 4 in NH, it will get worse when Dean, Edwards and Kerry can really get at him in debates. They will show how he is not ready for this.

I think Joe may pass him in NH. There is always a surprise in NH. One will be Edwards passing Clark and maybe even Joe passing him by.

[Shanty Oilish]

17. Pro-choice---with restrictions, as of yesterday

Jan 7: "I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law — not the law. You don't put the law in there."

Jan 22: Clark spokesman Jamal Simmons said the general supported the restrictions in Roe v. Wade and that he also supported giving the states the ability to impose some restrictions on abortion.

As of yesterday, Clark is ok with partial-birth abortion ban if the mother's health is acknowledged to take priority. This is very different from his previous stance (Jan 7) which is now being categorized as a rhetorical joust with a conservative newspaper (Union Leader).

What doesn't seem real to you?

[RowWellandLive]

19. This is a prime example!

What the heck is his REAL position on abortion? "Rhetorical joust" or lack of principle!! Believe in something, anything, please!!!

Still, I am having a difficult time divorcing myself completely from a war hero, General, good looking, Southern nominee. He could be so perfect if he seemed real.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. No, I think the answer is simple

His position is much like mine. Clark is Pro-Choice, women's right to chose. No one ever asked me to define my position much beyond that, and to be honest, I would probably stumble at first over efforts to do so. Unlike people who have been in politics for decades, who have been forced to vote a dozen times in Congress over specific amendments to foreign aid bills dealing with conditions for funding reproductive health programs and the like, Clark had a "regular job" (that's tongue in cheek).

He run for President was initially triggered by the mess he and others thought Bush was getting us into in the world. He is a Democrat because of his personal values such as being Pro Choice. Nuances of specific domestic issues had not been his strength, foreign affairs, and intrinsic leadership qualities were. That plus Clark's focus and determination, his sense of public service, and his brilliance that allows him to learn and master complex dynamics, a quality I sorely miss in the current White House occupant.

Clark has only been running for a matter of months. He had to assemble a staff from scratch and develop a working relationship with them, and he has had to learn the art form of politics live on camera while raising money and shaking hands afrom 6 AM to 11 PM every day, (just like all the candidates). Speaking for myself, I am not surprised that some of Clark's domestic agenda is written in broad strokes, I am dazzled by the degree of specificity Clark has managed to master in a short period of time under those circumstances. Neither am I any longer surprised that his instincts have turned out to be as Progressive as they are.

The two plus two plus two that I finally managed to add together is basic math. Clark is a brilliant man who dedicated his life to serving the nation through an institution which, given his Southern background and age group, he believed was both patriotic and essential to our nation's viability as a continuing Democracy. He could have made millions decades ago, he had all the chops and connections. Instead Clark lived on middle Class wages and moved him family every couple of years in keeping with the calling of his career choice, which did involve personal sacrifice. Simply put, Clark is a man of honor.

The military wasn't known for luxury, but it did ensure that the basic personal needs of it's members and their dependents were always seen to. That's Progressive values. The pay differential between the absolute top of the organization and it's entry positions was about 12 to one. That's Progressive values. Affirmative action is embraced and racial diversity in the work force is promoted and appreciated as an asset to the organization. That's Progressive values. The military has lagged regarding women and gays, but Clark has always been at the progressive edge of its changing attitudes toward both groups.

In personal terms, we have not had the opportunity to elect a man like Clark President since, I suppose, Jimmy Carter, who by the way also had a (briefer) military career. If he is elected I believe he will be to the early 21ast century what Teddy Roosevelt was to the 20th, a sleeper progressive who would be the catalyst for profound positive changes in our society, with the standing needed to institutionalize them.

[Ms. Wonderful]

45. Pro-Choice as of today:

http://clark04.com/issues/choose/

[DoNotRefill]

18. When you're infiltrating an organization....

It's important to memorize their beliefs, pass them off as your own, and not deviate from them in any way, at least until you gain control of the organization....

Can anybody say "False Flag"???

[Loren645]

21. If you're seriously considering Clark RowWellandLive

Then, rather than read the slams here, you should look at the
policies he has on his website. They're very precise. They're
more progressive than anyone other than Kucinich. He focuses
on issues no one else will touch.

http://clark04.com/issues/

For example:
-His tax plan is literally progressive. Families that make under
50K/year wouldn't pay squat, and won't even have to file forms.
-He believes in grants for higher ed, not just more loans getting
more people in debt and enriching banks.
-He very strongly pro affirmative action.
-He frequently speaks out against black voter disenfranchisement
(even Gore wouldn't mention that and it was used to steal his
election), and against a racist criminal justice system that
targets poor young black men, and then strips them of voting rights
(of course they tend to vote Dem...). No other white candidate
has been willing to touch this issue.

Thanks!
And remember, those who fear smear.

[RowWellandLive]

25. Thanks for your reply Loren

I hope you do not think that I am here to smear Clark, I am not.

Personally, I do not consider myself that progressive and Kucinich is someone that I view as too far to the left. As for the positions you list above, I do not disagree with any of them. Well, except for AA strictly based on race. I'd prefer it to be based upon poverty and opportunity then strictly skin color.

Anyway, that is not the point. All those things you mentioned are not at all controversial within the Democratic party. Speaking out against black voter disenfranchisement is hardly veering from the mainstream of the Democratic Party Platform. I'm glad he has problems with the racist criminal justice system. However, I should not have to go to his website to find this out. He should be shouting this out loudly if this is important to him. If he has I missed it.

Again though, this is hardly a controversial position in our party and I'm not feeling the passion.

[Loren645]

30. Your welcome RowWellandLive, my pleasure, and Clark has shouted it

Loud and often. In many speeches, including many in the South
where he's campaigned a lot, in an amazing MLK day speech that
was nearly as poetic as the original, and even in NH.

If you watch him on CSPAN, you'll see his passion for civil
rights for all.

"Speaking out against black voter disenfranchisement is hardly veering from the mainstream of the Democratic Party Platform."

Well...Gore never once mentioned it. The Dems never followed up
on it in the three plus years since it happened. I think you're
giving them too much credit.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/politics/campaigns/30CLAR.html

THE GENERAL
In Southern Stop, Clark Promises to Enforce Voting Rights
By EDWARD WYATT

Published: December 30, 2003

IRMINGHAM, Ala., Dec. 29 — Forty years after four black girls were killed in a church bombing here, Gen. Wesley K. Clark visited the same church on Monday and said African-Americans were still in danger of having their votes go uncounted and their voices unheard.
...
He said that if he became the Democratic presidential nominee he would appoint a legal team to monitor the 2004 elections to ensure that problems reported in the contested 2000 election in Florida would not be repeated. "If anyone is intimidated or turned away from the polls illegally, we will push to prosecute the perpetrators to the full extent of the law," he said.

General Clark, who is retired from the Army, cited complaints that black voters had been disenfranchised in Florida through rejected ballots or by being turned away at the polls.
...
Despite passage of federal legislation in 2002 to overhaul the nation's voting procedures, General Clark said later in Birmingham, "The result is that today it's only one person, one vote if you live in the right county, and if you vote at the right machine and if your name happens to be on the rolls."
He urged states to change laws that prevented felons from voting. He said that felons who had served their sentence and who remained out of trouble should be allowed to apply for the right to vote."


http://clark04.com/speeches/033/

Speeches
General Wesley K. Clark
Remarks For Dr. Martin Luther King Day Rally
Columbia, SC
January 19, 2004
(As prepared for delivery)

Thank you Major Williams for that kind introduction - today, I'm proud to salute you for your service, your patriotism and your support.

And I want to thank Secretary Rodney Slater, Representative William Jefferson, and Representative Marion Berry for being with me today. The people of this country have been blessed by their service, and I consider myself blessed by their friendship.

Today, we have come together to honor Dr. Martin Luther King - a great leader of conscience with a vision that changed history. A force of love who taught us that hatred and prejudice have no place in the laws of a great nation or the souls of a great people. A preacher who showed us that the Lord God himself created us equal - no matter what your race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation - and once we opened our eyes and hearts to his will here on earth, we would all feel his glory.

Forty years ago, hundreds of thousands of Americans convened in our Capitol to march with Dr. King and hear his dream for our nation. Together, they stood - halfway between a monument to the man who granted the first measure of freedom, and the Congress of men who had yet to finish the job. And on that hot August day, citizens from across our country who yearned for justice linked arms, and pledged together in song: We Shall Overcome.

But as I stand before you today, forty years later, the sad fact is that we have not overcome.

When black Americans are twice as likely to be out of a job, twice as likely to live in poverty, and a third less likely to have health care - then we have not overcome.

When hundreds of thousands of black men sit behind bars and millions never finish school - then we have not overcome.

When our President has the audacity to visit the grave of Dr. King one day, then dishonor his memory the next by appointing an anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights, anti-justice, anti-American judge - then we have not overcome.

And when a political party can suppress the vote and steal a presidential election - when a man can sit in the White House when the only vote he's won took place in the U.S. Supreme Court - then my friends, we still have not overcome.

Today, 140 years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, 40 years after Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, one person, one vote is still not a reality in America.

We saw it in the election of 2000, and right here in South Carolina in 2002, when African Americans were turned away from the polls, purged from the rolls, and intimidated when they showed up to vote.

Today, all too often, it's one person one vote if you live in the right county. And if you vote at the right machine. And if your name is on the right list. And if your skin is the right color.

Well, last I checked, there was no "if" in the 15th Amendment. Last I checked, one person one vote wasn't just a slogan - it was the highest law of this land. And I'm not going to rest until every single American can cast their vote and make their voice heard.

Because I grew up in Little Rock Arkansas - and I have a duty to ensure that those nine brave boys and girls from my hometown didn't face down a mob for nothing.

Because I spent 34 years in the United States military fighting for our freedoms, and I'm not going to stop now.

Because in my heart, I'm not a politician, I'm a soldier. I'm a proud product of the most integrated institution in America. That's why I've always believed in equal opportunity and affirmative action.

For three decades, I served side by side with brave men and women of all races, creeds and religions under one flag - the American Flag. We fought for that flag. I gave my blood and buried my men under that flag.

And let me tell you, no Charles Pickering or John Ashcroft or George W. Bush is going to take that flag away from us. No Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney or Trent Lott is going to take us down the sad, hate-filled path back to that other flag over there.

Half a century ago, Dr. Martin Luther King led us in a great struggle to redeem the promise of our Constitution for all our people - to create a nation where all of us are truly judged not "by the color of skin, but by the content of character."

And today, it's up to us to continue his work.

Scripture tells us to be "confident of this very thing - that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it." My friends, Dr. Martin Luther King began a great work inside each and every one of us - and today, we must commit ourselves anew to completing it.

That's why I'm running for President of the United States - to finish the work Dr. King began, to make his daring dream a daring reality, and to bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington, DC.

And I hope that all of you will walk with me by my side in this great journey.

Thank you and God bless you.

[RowWellandLive]

34. Good quotes

Thanks for posting. I love what he has to say but these are all very recent. Do you have any examples of him speaking out on these issues before he was or considering to be a candidate? I am just curious if he expressed these heartfelt thoughts before it wasn't in his beat interest. I am looking for evidence that he is real and not simply an opportunist. Was he anywhere to be found right after the 2000 election? I understand his appeal to you but I simply question his devotion.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

24. I feel the same way

I'm not going to say that I'm right, but that is my subjective feelings on the matter.

[countmyvote4real]

27. Keep your eyes on the prize: Defeat Bush*

I’d still go with your first impressions because that’s how the swing voter will decide it. I think it’s great that you are having second thoughts and still evaluating your decision, but if this were an American Idol contest (and sadly, for many voters it is) Edwards would be the clear winner here. He’s getting a mojo on me, too.

However, I still remember how I first noticed Clark making perfect sense as a CNN commentator before the war and well before he ever declared his candidacy. He struck me as being thoughtful, rational and diplomatic. Okay, diplomatic might be a cuss word here, but he had a clear sense of the role of the US on the world’s stage today.

As far as his domestic views seeming to be too Democratic to you, I don’t see how that can be a problem. How can you be too Democratic if you’re not Republican at heart? He’s pro-choice, he wants to reform the phony “Don’t ask. Don’t tell” policy so that gays can openly serve in the military without retribution. And this is from a General on the inside. As a CNN commentator he wasn’t asked many questions about domestic policy, so if he relies on the best and brightest of the DLC, I still don’t see how that can be a problem.

Most importantly, I think he can take “swing” voters away from * – especially the ones that do vote. If you’re looking for a Nader revolution, then forget about it. It’s still not going to happen with anybody in this race including Nader (who’s not in this race yet.)

The real revolution is to remove the chimp.

All of our top candidates are great people with great ideas. They would all contribute to Clark’s vision of a new America post chimp. However, I think Clark is the best person to head the ticket and save us and the world from the * plague on our country.

PS To further define the swing effect, I think Clark is the Democratic equivalent to John McCain who had surprising appeal from Democrats and Independants while he remained in the 2000 race. Bonus for us: Clark is a Democrat.

[RowWellandLive]

28. You make a lot of good points

I too appreciated Clark as a CNN commentator. The problem as I see it is that he used that role to propel his candidacy. Although it took him a long time to announce I believe that was always a goal in his mind and his middle of the road thoughtful non-offensive CNN commentary was the first calculated step. Maybe he truly believes all he said. Quite possibly. But in retrospect everything was "non controversial." There's not much he said on CNN that would rule out him running as a moderate Repub.

It's not that his domestic views are too Democratic, I am a Democrat and not a Republican at heart. It's just that they seem a bit too scripted and not genuinely felt. For a guy that was at best non Parisian, and at worst a Bush supporter not too long ago, this seems too contrived to me. He should have his own heartfelt beliefs on domestic views rather then relying on the best and the brightest of the DLC. That is not genuine.

He is a lot like McCain, but remember that McCain lost because the majority of his own party rejected him. They preferred what they perceived as the more real conservative article, Bush. Clark may have appeal to swing voters and that's what I like about him. However, I am concerned about his appeal to people that pay close attention to issues and are the ones that come out in droves for primaries. I am sure that many of them like myself question his commitment to principle. I like his electability but wonder what his true beliefs are and what he will truly crusade for if elected. That is a problem for him.

[RowWellandLive]

29. Bumping my own post

for more input from Clark supporters. Most here seem to confirm my thoughts. I was hoping for some ammo from the Clark point of view. Come on people!

[RafterMan]

31. ???

If your going to take the fact that he espouses Democratic positions as evidence that he doesn't have Democratic convictions, I don't really think there's any thing a Clark supporter could say to change your mind.

[RowWellandLive]

32. Espousing Democratic positions is one thing

but espousing ALL Democratic positions down the line with the minor exception of flag burning is another. Do you as a Democrat espouse as many of the party positions down the line as Wes Clark appears to? I don't, nor does anyone I know with true heartfelt beliefs. He has the appearance of a Democratic War Hero Southern candidate crafted to believe in all the domestic policies of his party with no past history of voicing any of them. This is a bit disturbing and lacks the ring of truth to me. It seems as I am not alone.

[Loren645]

33. Why don't you just depend on yourself instead of expecting us

to convince you? Watch his speeches, town hall meetings, Q&As.
Read his position papers. Think for yourself instead of outsourcing
it.

[RowWellandLive]

35. Um Loren, I do depend on myself

I was just searching for input in the off chance I had missed something. Apparently I have not. Your candidate seems to have some trouble selling himself and his supporters suggest "watching his town hall meetings" and reading his "position papers." Good luck getting the average voter to care enough to do all that digging.

Clark needs to sell himself better as a real person with deep felt convictions;. Getting defensive about his opportunistic demeanor and his "band wagon" mentality does not help his candidacy. Many people would love to support him but he has not provided the necessary ingredients to do so. This can be only overcome if faced head on. No more hiding your head in the sand. On his current course he's going down, sorry to say.

[RafterMan]

36. I just don't know what you're looking for

School of the Americas? Ending the Cuba embargo? Reagan's foreign policy?

He supported AA long before running for president. The Michigan case was pre-September 11 and he his army staff was chosen for diversity.

I heard he worked with Kerry to get gays integrated into the military, however imperfectly, but I haven't seen direct evidence.

He was honored by the Audubon Society for protecting the desert tortoise and a kind of woodpecker when he ran the National Training Center.

As for speaking out about them through his career, of course you wouldn't have heard him. You noticed during the SOTU that the Joint Chiefs, sitting front and center, did not applaud once during the speech. This is not because they hate Bush, but because it is considered bad form for high-ranking officers to show any political affinities whatsoever. Doubtless you see the wisdom of this tradition.

As for "ALL" positions, it looks to me like all the candidates are in broad agreement with each other over most issues, except for the war. It just comes down to a question of who and how. I think Clark has a core belief that government is obliged protect the freedom and further the development of each individual citizen. A Democratic platform follows naturally from this belief.

I think, at the root of it, you are taking your unfamiliarity with Clark and uncounsciously spinning it into a conspiracy.

[RowWellandLive]

39. Supporting the desert tortoise

and a kind of woodpecker. That's really going out on a limb. Was anyone actually against the tortoise or woodpecker?

Wes Clark has been free from the necessary military non political support you site that the Joint Chiefs abided by in the SOTU for years. Where has he been?

If as you say the candidates are in broad agreement over most issues tnen where is the debate? Are you supporting a resume or a person?

If you persist on labeling all those who question your man as conspirasists you will fail to garner much needed further support. Good luck with that approach.

[RafterMan]

41. Sigh

Tortoise and woodpecker were threatened, and lived in his area of responsibility. He took the steps recommended by environmentalists to protect them. He could have just ignored it, but didn't.

Since retirement, he acted in the Michigan case and testified in Congress against the war.

Do you deny that the candidate's positions are broadly similar? All favor gay rights, affirmative action, repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, improved education and abortion rights. Are you voting for a person, or a Congressional bill?

Labelling Clark as a hollow shell opportunist without values just seems a little off base. Sue me.

[waldenx]

37. Clark says depleted uranium is safe

[Printer70]

38. Clark supports terrorist School of Americas

Where America actually funds latin american insurgents to overthrow their governments in the name of "freedom".

http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/soa.htm

for the truth on this organization.

[overground1]

40. I have the exact same problem with him. He wears positions like band-aids

It's all very phony. I think he has people feeding him the "party platform" which he still hasn't grasped the nuances of yet. He just wants to be popular, at any cost. He comes across like someone trying to pull one over on the voters, and that is exactly what he's doing.

He's not just trying to convince us that these are really his views, he's still trying to convince himself of it. Wait, I take that back... He doesn't really care about the issues enough to really have a position. He just wants to be the President. Which is why he's so willing and eager to say whatever it is he thinks he needs to in order to be it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. I ask you to read my post #42 above.

Sometimes posts inserted in the middle of a thread after the thread has moved on aren't seen, but I felt that post was appropriate there, and it is in reply to you also. I think my header was "No, I think the answer is simple."

[bearfartinthewoods]

53. excellent example of this here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=175195

[Turbo]

54. Didn't Clark want to run as a ....

Republican, but changed his mind when he didn't get a return call from Karl Rove, or someone else in the White House.

I think that Gen. Clark really wanted to replace Dick Cheney as Bush's choice for VP candidate, but got ticked off when he was rebuffed.

[mikehiggins]

46. Republican past

Well, that is one that you really should get past.

What Republican past is that? Votes for GOP candidates? It seems to me that every candidate Clark mentioned won (except for Gore, of course, but even he won his election). To me that would mean that Clark was pretty much right in line with the majority of people in the United States. I fail to see any fault in that.

I would also point out that the only person who COULD tell anyone what his personal voting history was, was Wesley Clark. Were he a real politician could you see him doing that?

He certainly wasn't a registered Republican and as to his being keynote speaker at GOP events, yeah, he took money to give a speech. He didn't take money to cast a vote. The irony of politicians lambasting others over how they make a living should make you gag, if not laugh out loud.

After a lifetime of service in the military, Clark had the ability to cash in bigtime. He actually made a couple of million dollars in the first few years since his retirement and while that may not seem like a lot to Kerry or Bush, to a guy who used to fix his own cars that is like winning the lottery and finding El Dorado at the same time.

And he walked away from that to run for President. Do you want to list any candidate, except possibly Dennis Kuchinich, who would even consider that, let alone do it?

And, of course, if Clark had intended this run from the first, you can be sure none of this stuff would have happened. Instead he set out to make a living, the same way he set out to rehabilitate himself after being shot four times in VietNam. And he did very, very well.

Opportunistic? How opportunistic is it to walk away from millions in speakers fees and commissions and board payments to run for President in this environment? Sounds like a good deal to you?

Is there something wrong with adopting liberal political principles as your own? To me it sounds like someone who may be unpolished and tentative in finding his way in this strange new world of a Presidential campaign, but whose principles and beliefs are solid.

You don't have any idea what Clark really cares about? How many millions would you turn down to run for office? That ought to give you a clue.

[Ms. Wonderful]

47. Listen, a firm

Kerry supporter, the wife of the governor of Iowa; also voted Republican. The interviewer asked her how she could attack Clark for having done the same thing. (awkward moment)

Anyway, I have never supported a Republican and I support Democrat Wesley Clark for President.

As he's said, his entire career; as with so many military career people; he spent as a registered Independent.

He has said that when he looked around, he realized he couldn't be anything but a Democrat. He stated he cares about helping people and saw that the Democrats are the only party that does that. So, he became a Democrat.

On to the crass issue of electability: he can beat Bush. I don't know if anyone else can. His military background combined with such a good heart and you add that with the many progressives who are also supporting him...I think it says it all.

Please check his site out for specific position papers on issues:

http://clark04.com/

Thank you for considering Clark!

[hilzoy]

48. Answers:

First, he really cares about human rights. He was willing to risk his career for them by going to the mat for Kosovo. Caring about human rights is not, I know, "outside the party platform", but going into Kosovo was not the choice of Democrats everywhere, though in retrospect most of us think it was the right thing to do.
Second, he really cares about public service, which, again, is not something most Democrats are exactly opposed to, but it's not something they always stress. His proposal to create a voluntary civilian reserve is unique among the candidates, and was one of the first proposals he rolled out. (It's on his issues page, under 'service'.)
Third, there are a lot of parts of the party platform that he does care about independently. He filed a brief in the Michigan affirmative action case well before he thought about running for President. He is totally committed to strengthening international institutions like the UN and NATO, and working with other countries; again, his record makes this clear. He also cares a lot about America's moral authority in the world, which he sees as requiring that we actually do what's right. This has led him to propose the creation of a new department aimed at international development and "removing the sources of human misery", a proposal which is, again, not standard among his opponents. He really wants to lead the US in a way that would make us proud to be Americans, and he recognizes that this is not, fundamentally, about public relations but about consistently doing the right thing. He also spent his life taking care of the ordinary men and women who served under him, and cares a lot about the issues ordinary Americans face: health care, jobs, and the ability to live with dignity.

[mmonk]

49. Clark is quite impassioned

about how he thinks this country is being taken down the wrong path both domestically and in the world. What I think he needs to do is to keep going directly to the people with his message. The current way the debates are set up, the debate questioners mainly either ask questions unrelated to his positions or on security matters when he has so much more to talk about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. New American Patriotism also.

His initial campaign theme made quite a few Democrats gag, we are so used to associating the word Patriotism with Right Wing ideology. I think Clark talking about Patriotism so much and, yes, the American Flag (as opposed to the Confederate Flag though lol) was taking a real risk in the Democratic Party Primaries. After all our least favorite legislation is "the Patriot Act"

The thing is though, Clark was just saying what he believes. He is a Patriot. Back in 1776 the Patriots were the Revolutionaries. That word has changed color under Republican abuse, and Clark was going against the grain to use it prominently in his Democratic campaign. Usually it has been Conservative Southern Democrats, if any, who adopt that terminology. Clark is helping us reclaim it from the Republicans, and doing all Democrats a service by doing so, but I don't think it helped most of the activist base bond to him initially.

[mmonk]

51. Also, old habits are hard to break.

people want politicians alot of the time (someone that panders quite a bit and looks like they want).

[FreeperSlayer]

52. ABB!!