Someone explain to me--like I am a 6-year old--why

[Horse with no Name]

Wes Clark would be a good candidate for POTUS?
(I love the movie Philadelphia :) )
No Clark bashing please--I want to hear about his good qualitites.
I'm seriously not familiar enough with this man.

[saltpoint]

1. Clark could stand behind a podium in a debate with ANY Republican

and pretty much make mincemeat out of the GOP foreign policy initiatives undertaken under George W. Bush.

McCain might give him a run for his money, but McCain was never a general.

THE CAT BUTCHER would look bewildered and overwhelmed, not to mention completely outclassed.

Clark also has a decent chance of carrying at least one southern state, probably more, which would crack the demographic stronghold the GOP enjoys in the South, without losing any blue state support elsewhere. Dems would be loyal to him, independents might prefer him, and even a few rogue Republicans would have to admit he is a forceful and intelligent guy.

[MuseRider]

2. I think he would

have done well here in Kansas.

[saltpoint]

5. It would be encouraging if somehow the Democrats could

make some inroads into Kansas.

I'm outright frightened by the anti-evolution talk coming out of the State school board.

Do what you can there, MuseRider. We'll all send you good vibes.

[MuseRider]

9. Thanks

Tilting at wind mills is my specialty! I never quit.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Is his service record clean?

How does he fall on the issues?
National Healthcare?
Women's Reproductive rights?
Gay rights?
What is his position on the Iraq war?
Does he have an exit plan?
What type of running mate would he need to complement his weaknesses?
Any known skeletons in his closet?

[saltpoint]

7. I'll cherry-pick the running mate question, Horse.

If it came to pass that Wes Clark is the Dems' presidential nominee, I would match him with Mark Warner or John Edwards, if either would accept the VP post. In effect, we'd be running a tried-and-true general from Arkansas with a VP who is sincere, likable, and also from a Southern state.

I'll let the Clark camp on DU handle the nitty-gritty questions.

[Horse with no Name]

8. good choices.

I really like Lloyd Doggett, but never was able to garner up much support for him. His record of fiscal responsibility is outstanding.
I am thinking we need a team that can handle fiscal and military responsibility.
Will have to study more on Warner. I caught a clip a while back but need to refresh myself with it.
I like Feingold as well. I just know that the pugs will kill him on his personal life issues. Pity.

[saltpoint]

10. Agree with you on both Doggett and Feingold.

If the Republicans bash Feingold over his private life, I tend to be drawn more strongly to the their target.

Go, Dems.

[Clark2008]

17. Clark for the head of the ticket, sure.

But Warner and Edwards are Bilderbergers and I'm just tired of them running everything (the Bilderbergers, I mean).

[saltpoint]

46. Well, I need to get on the ball with Governor Warner -- I honestly do not

know very much about him. That's not his fault, it's mine. Next time we cross paths, Clark2008, I will try to be a little more up to date.

On Edwards: I imagine his lawyerly instincts tell him that class warfare and expanded emphasis on poverty in America are not the way to go -- it isn't going to have much appeal in a consumerist world like ours.

But he is doing it anyway. That gives me a glimpse into what he might be like as a human being. He seems contemporary to me, in a way that some Southern Democrats are not (that includes you, Zell Miller!) Richard Shelby of Alabama used to be a loyal Democrat and then played turncoat and became a Republican to ride the GOP wave in the south. A smart move demographically, but where is his core?

Edwards is staying loyal to his core, and I think he will be a major player in the next round of primaries.

I hope General Clark will enter the Iowa caucus this time -- I think he may have sold himself short there last time. One possibility was that Dick Gephardt, early on, was favored to win. But Gephardt finished fourth with only 11%. I have the feeling that General Clark could easily best that total in Iowa.

[IndyOp]

15. Clark's service record is NOT clean - he was in charge of SOA -

From June 1996 to July 1997, General Clark served as Commander of the US Southern Command, where he was responsible for US military activities concerning Latin America, including the School of the Americas (SOA), now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). On Sept. 20, 1996, Pentagon officials admitted that SOA manuals used from 1982 to 1991 advocated the use of torture, extortion, and extrajudical executions against dissidents in Latin America. The New York Times wrote "an institution so clearly out of tune with American values should be shut down without further delay."

The SOA trained death squad leaders, assassins and military dictators. Its graduates were found responsible for some of the worst human rights atrocities in Latin America, including the El Mozote massacre of more than 900 civilians in El Salvador in 1980, the murder of Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998 and of Colombian Archbishop Isaías Duarte in 2002.

At almost every campaign stop, Gen. Clark is facing critical questions concerning his connection to the SOA and his continued unpopular support of the school. Asked about his continued support of the SOA during an event in Manchester, NH, on Dec. 19, 2003, Clark responded, " I’m not going to have been in charge of a school that I can’t be proud of." In reaction to a question asked in Concord, NH, about the torture manuals Clark stated: "We're teaching police procedures and human rights . . . never taught torture."

<http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-03.htm>

[Clark2008]

18. And he answered and answered this.

You just refuse to believe that he didn't.

I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.

It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.

I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent.

Common dreams, to me, is a far left meets the far right site. They refuse to listen to him, either, because he was in the military - PERIOD.

[IndyOp]

24. Clark must admit US use of military to dominate resources is wrong

I did not follow Clark's campaign and did not know of his response.

Kerry was in the military, so was Cleland, so were many, many political figures that I admire. So, no, I don't refuse to accept what people in the military have to say.

I have read a LOT about SOA, however, and the primary goal of that program is now and always has been to train people to go out and dominate by using terrorism - including torture.

Clark's statement above that "those who committed human rights abuses should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" sounds to me similar the * administration's statement that the low-level people stationed at Abu Ghraib should be prosecuted -- that is wrong, the sickness is in the chain of command.

It is not enough for me that Clark espouses (and lives) many positive liberal values. My biggest concern is the impact of US role in the world -- and the blowback that causes. The US obsession with oil does not just impact our policy in the Mideast, is impacts our policy in South America -- the destination of most SOA graduates.

The page on Common Dreams - is a press release from School of Americas Watch (SOAW). General Wesley Clark on Defensive on School of the Americas (SOA/WHISC), Once Under His Command
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0120-03.htm>

General Clark, the School of the Americas, and U.S. Values
<http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=721>

For Clark to win me over, he must admit that US policy in regards to SOA and using US military to dominate resources must be radically altered. If he would do that he would be so, so very, very powerful. A modern-day General Smedley Butler.

:kick:

[Clark2008]

31. First, he was only technically in charge of the school for a year.

He was not directly in charge of it - ever. It's one of those military heirarchy things. He never wrote policy for the school and he wasn't Headmaster.

Secondly, he just DID, in the statement provided, say he supported the changes to the school, which include changes in scope and in policy. That policy change being that the school no longer teaches subtrofuge and terrorism.

Finally, if you'll read some of the links I provided below, you'll see that Clark has many, many, many times cautioned against the military industrial complex (ie. using the US military to dominate resources). He has been one of the few candidates - Democratic or Republican - to even talk to this subject.

[IndyOp]

33. Thanks for your response - now I am intrigued.

I still have major doubts, but will have to read more tomorrow. Must go grade statistics exams now.

:kick:

[FrenchieCat]

48. The way that I see it....

SOA is always only used against Wes Clark, but the institution has been around Since 1963. Who was President then?

Not to defend this Red Herring against "only Clark" which would have no impact on a general Election, I believe that the attrocities discussed so frequently when SOA is brought up date back to the '80 and before.

Wes Clark was in charge of the Southern Command for one short year in 1996. This was the time when the school's curriculum was changed to include human rights courses, etc...

That said, I dislike that school as much as other liberals do.

I do not, however, necessarily believe that the reasons for Clark's position are as nefarious as many here would like to believe.

Clark is certainly not the only Democrat to have defended or supported the school. I will say that every President has supported the SOA.


"if you find anything that teaches human rights abuses . . . I'll close the SOA."--Wes Clark
http://www.birddogger.org/news.php?id=150

Context is important and something Democrats always accuse the GOP of lacking when making statements against our own.

Second, by the middle of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. had started to clean up its act significantly, with even State Department officials admitting that "they had done a lot of bad stuff in South America" in the '50s-'70s. The School now has a mandatory democratic education and civil rights component. It is a military training center that helps train officers from South American countries: newsflash--by the 1990s, most of the countries in South America had become developing democracies, as opposed to the authoritarian regimes the U.S. had supported in the '50s-'70s. The SoA also went through further reform, with an external independent oversight board. It's supported by countries like Canada--OK, not ALWAYS the paragon of virtue, but hardly an enthusiastic supporter of imperialism in the contemporary era.

Here are the facts on the School (conveniently dating back to around the time Clark was CinC of Southern Command), now renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation, from a non-partisan and progressive research institute's project on South America.

People who protest that institution aren't up to date--they have a right to demand restitution for past injustices, but as far as having real impact, they should turn their attention to the secret detentions and support for anti-terrorism in Asia and so on.

Let's tar Max Cleland with the same brush...

In my opinion we should and must continue such efforts as military education for our allies through the Marshall Center in Europe, the School of the Americas, and similar programs. It has always been my belief that those who understand war, including the true costs of war, understand peace and all of its blessings. Today, we train our military in the strategy of war and the art of peace. U.S. military personnel are well schooled as students of (Karl von) Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, (Alfred Thayer) Mahan, and the best known writers of conflict and engagement. At the same time, they also receive thorough and effective training in such fundamental American principles as subordination of the military to civilian control and respect for human rights. While our foreign military education efforts have not always succeeded in instilling such values, I believe that recent reforms will eliminate any such shortcomings in the future.
KEEPING OUR PRIORITIES WHILE KEEPING THE PEACE - Senator Max Cleland

There are terrible problems in South and Central America, with the links to the drug trade, human rights abuses by rebel, government, right-wing paramilitary, and plain old criminal groups, corruption, and poverty. Any program that could be used in a positive way, should be. Human rights are certainly not going to served by leaving the worst of these militaries to their own devices.

Link to PBS article with debate-style format on SOA
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec99/sota ...
==========

A Tom Rinaldo's Response that I am taking the liberty of posting. (Hope you don't mind Tom)

If that were all it was

I don't think it would still exist, and it wouldn't have operated openly for at least the last 15 to 20 years after some of those major abuses started coming to light, if that was the sole or even major mission of that institution. Many tens of thousands have received training of all sorts there. In one instance or another, to varying degrees, everything you said though is absolutely true. And I will go further and say that under the likes of Kissenger, and Reagan's Poindexter and Ollie North crowd, covert efforts to do exactly what you said were hatched by some within its confines.

However I am just not enough of a conspiritalist, or a radical I suppose, to buy that that school existed during the Carter and Clinton years with that as it's main intent, and that both of those Democratic Presidents fully supported everything you note went on there and maintained that school for those expressed purpose. I am more likely to accept that Presidents like Nixon, who set up his own "plumbers squad", and Reagan, who gave a green light to Ollie North's covert operations, allowed those shady operatives to use the cover of working inside those institution to further their covert ends, the same way that illegal and immoral operations are conducted through every established Government institution whenever honor and decency is suspended, including the FBI, the IRS, the INS and so forth.

In short I would say that Clark backed that School when he did because he felts that there was still an appropriate mission for it to play. Reforms were already underway when he spoke. A number of people who were trained there have done some terrible things. More didn't. Clark believes that positive lessons and models for multinational military cooperation have been developed in South America for fighting Drug Lords that can be applied to our international struggle against terrorists, operating in places like Pakistan and Yeman.

I would certainly ask of Clark both now, and should he become President, that he ensure that strong curbs be placed on either that institution, or any other that replaces it and attempts to pick up whatever legitimate functions it pursued, to absolutely minimize the potential for human rights violations flowing from training done at that School. It is my limited understanding that much of the reform efforts that were undertaken focused on that problem, which was most acute in the 1980's during Reagan's anti Sandanista days.

I would go further and say that all abuses should be completely eliminated, and guarenteed never to occur again, but I am too realistic to ask for that about anything. The U.S. will never have full control over the actions of agents from other countries that train with our military.

[Jai4WKC08]

47. Now wait just a minute...

Did not Kerry and Cleland both vote for the SOA at some point in time? How are they not just as responsible, if not MORE so, than Clark? The SOA would not exist if Congress didn't allow it.

But I'm not going to argue the merit of the SOA. That's not what this thread is about. Go start another, if you want, but don't hi-jack this one. Whatever allegations exist about the SOA, they have NOTHING to do with Clark's military record. Your objections are about policy and that's a political issue.

The OP asks whether Clark's military record is clean. It is. No disciplinary action... fer cripes sake, he rose to the highest rank we currently have and retired with full honors. In fact, he's the most decorated officer since Eisenhower.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Let's take a closer look at this

First let me point you to a really excellent site with a complete run down on the School of the Americas (and it's successor, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) with numerous live links to source materials, that examines Clark's limited involvement with the SOA:

http://www.mediaprima.com/clark04/clark_and_soa.html


Here is some information taken from a neutral site, prepared by the Center for International Policy:

"The School of the Americas had been questioned for years, as it trained many military personnel before and during the years of the "national security doctrine" -- the dirty war years in the Southern Cone and the civil war years in Central America -- in which Latin American militaries ruled or had disproportionate government influence and committed serious human rights violations. Training manuals used at the SOA and elsewhere from the early 1980s through 1991 promoted techniques that violated human rights and democratic standards. SOA graduates continue to surface in news reports regarding both current human rights cases and new reports on past cases.

Defenders of the SOA and its successor, however, argue that they do not teach abuse, and that today the curriculum includes human rights as a component of every class. They also argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its graduates."
http://www.ciponline.org/facts/soa.htm


Here is Clark's position in a nutshell, quoting from some local coverage of his 2004 run:

"In New Hampshire and Wisconsin, Clark has defended the school to questioners. "We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

On the stump, Clark tells critics that Bruno will take them to visit the school, although he sometimes misidentifies Bruno as a board member.

"He's on the board. He'll be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said.

But if "you find nothing wrong you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position."


The thing is, I believe Clark when he says he would shut down that program if he was in authority and proof was presented of sanctioned wrong doing there. Being a life long leftist, I would just sleep better at night if I knew that school was shut down, but the program was reformed and reinstated during Clinton's Presidency, and it has received significant Democratic support for continuing. Clark did not originate the program, he never directed it, he never has been personally associated with any wrong doing by any of it's instructors or graduates, and unlike most of our elected Representatives, he never voted to fund it. Personally I say kill the son of SOA, and start completely from scratch if there is any need for any parts of the old program. But Clark's very limited involvement in it does not establish him as a bad guy in my mind. And it will not work against him in the General Election against a Republican.

[Clark2008]

20. OK... just for you

National Healthcare:

* Wes Clark's plan is the only plan that improves care while expanding coverage and making it more affordable for American families.
* Provides health insurance for 31.8 million Americans who are currently uninsured, including all 13.1 million children and college-age Americans who currently lack health insurance.
* Provides tax credits to reduce premiums for millions of Americans who currently have health insurance but are struggling to pay their premiums. In addition, Wes Clark's ground-breaking emphasis on improving quality and constraining cost growth would provide better medical outcomes at a lower cost for all Americans.
* The plan would cost a net $695 billion over the ten years from 2004-13. This conservative estimate does not include the likely savings from Wes Clark's emphasis on improved preventive care.
o $772 billion for expanding coverage and making it more affordable
o $48 billion in investments for other health care improvements
o $125 billion in savings from a series of prudent purchasing initiatives and from modernizing the health care delivery system.

http://clark04.com/issues/healthcare/

Women's Reproductive Rights:

Thirty-one years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the guarantee of liberty in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extends the right of privacy to encompass a woman's decisions related to pregnancy and child bearing. Time and again, during the last three decades, that right has been threatened. The Court's ruling has been tried and tested and affirmed - but it will be tested again. Wes Clark is committed to defending Roe v. Wade. Wes Clark will protect women's choice by protecting privacy and promoting the health of women and families.

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

Gay Rights



(Just had to use that one. I think it explains it all! :) )

Iraqi War
Just Google this one. It's his specialty. He was against it from the beginning. He felt Saddam was of no threat since he'd been effectively shut down with the No Fly Zones for years. There is tons of info on Clark's positions on this issue. Same goes for the exit plan.

The rest is speculative. I have no idea who a complimentary running mate would be - that would be for him to decide. And, as he has been married and faithful to his wife of 35 years, has been a superb father, has only right-wing and ultra left-wing complaints about his military record, I don't feel he has an skeletons in this closet, but some people - like Ramsey Clark and the anti-military faction of the far-left of the party - do.

[leesa]

36. So could nearly anyone, but the Republican would still be declared the

winner.

[saltpoint]

45. Hi, leesa. The mostly conservative media didn't give Gore credit for

his excellent debate triumphs against Dubya, and of course they cheated Kerry on that count, too.

I agree that that conservative tide greatly (and unfairly) favors Republicans.

But in 2008, I wonder if American voters might have good reason to reconsider the foreign policy Dubya has presided over, and it may be that if Clark is the nominee, he would be the beneficiary of their trust.

I'd sure like to see the media choke on a few issues and in the wake, a few good Democrats prevail.

[IndyOp]

3. I just learned a bit about him in an interview on AAR --

He speaks clearly about the Democrats having the values he respects - good old-fashioned Christian values, including caring for the poor, the sick, the elderly. The Rethugs have never been about those values according to Clark.

Not bashing - his major limitation is that while his ideas for taking care of US Citizens are much more on track than Repubs - he is still not at all clear (or honest) about the impact US government, military, corporations have on people all around the world and how that, in turn, impacts us at home.

:kick:

[Horse with no Name]

6. I really like Edwards

I still like Kerry.
I used to love Hillary but I am not sure she is the right candidate.
I was just thinking we need an "Ike".:shrug:

[Clark2008]

16. He's spent more time talking about the dangers of the military

industrial complex than any other candidate; therefore, I don't know why you feel he isn't being honest.

So, for the OP, read:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.clark.html

In the twilight of World War II we recognized the need for allies. We understood the need to prevent conflict, not just fight it, and we affirmed the idea that we must banish from the world what President Harry Truman, addressing the founding of the United Nations, called "the fundamental philosophy of our enemies, namely, that 'might makes right.'" Truman went on to say that we must "prove by our acts that right makes might." Since September 11, America has been in a similar position: the most powerful nation in the world, but facing a deadly enemy. The United States has the opportunity to use the power of the international institutions it established to triumph over terrorists who threaten not just the United States, but the world. What a tragedy it will be if we walk away from our own efforts, and from 60 years of post-World War II experience, to tackle the problem of terror without using fully the instruments of international law and persuasion that we ourselves created.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=articles/baltsun/2005-04-13

And there is a passionate resistance to the United States "imposing" our style of democracy to suit our purposes, even among democracy's ardent advocates. The fiery hearts of those who aspire to democracy beat just as soundly under Arab robes as they do under gray suits. Our "perfect union" may not necessarily be their perfect union. The process of creation and ownership may be more important than the form or structure, so long as we share a respect for the dignity and rights of the individual.

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=articles/newrepublic/2004-06-07

Thus far, the Bush administration has been unable to win much backing from European and Middle Eastern states, but addressing fears of U.S. hegemony and spurring the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will help dispel Arab anger and enhance U.S. credibility in the region and abroad, allowing Washington to build an international advisory and support structure that will sustain the mission in Iraq after the Iraqis regain sovereignty on June 30. This structure should be a tailor-made international organization, such as the one created to implement the Dayton Accords in Bosnia in 1995. Call it the Iraqi Development Committee. Endorsed by the United Nations, such a committee would give a decision-making role to every nation that is contributing to Iraq's political, economic, or security development. The committee would appoint a high representative to lead advisory and assistance efforts on the ground in Iraq--not an American but, rather, someone from the region or perhaps Europe--thereby establishing an alternative power center to soon-to-be Ambassador John Negroponte to which the Iraqis can appeal. Sharing decision-making power and appointing a non-American to such a significant position will make it possible to attract substantial support--troops, economic assistance, et cetera--from our major allies.

That should get you started on his global position. Lemme go get links for the other questions you raised.

[cestpaspossible]

11. Cuz he has those bright shiny stars on his shoulders and he is a nice man.

(hey, you said, to explain it like you are a six year old)

[Clark2008]

23. My 6-year-old wouldn't buy that explanation...

Just saying.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

12. only want to hear the good stuff

You only want to hear the good stuff?

Sounds like you took political science from the school of George W. Bush.

Just a jab there...

To understand a candidate, it is important to know their weaknesses as well as their positive attributes.

Here is a site which explains his stance and record on the issues:
http://www.issues2002.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[Horse with no Name]

13. I guess maybe I worded that badly

I didn't really want to hear the bashing.
He sucks, blah blah blah...my candidate (insert name) is better, yada yada yada.
Really just wanted someone to sell him to me.
The bad stuff isn't near as hard to find as the good stuff sometimes.;)

[longship]

14. No more all white, all male tickets.

At this early stage Wes Clark is my favorite.

Qualities? He's honest. He's tough as nails, but soft spoken, which is a very Presidential demeanor.

But please, no more all white, all male tickets. We need a woman on the next ticket, preferably a minority. Our top ticket must reflect the demographics of the populace.

The question is, which person for the second spot. There are many, many from whom to choose. Suggestions? Anybody?



Team Clark

[QueenOfCalifornia]

22. Must be a minority?

I think Boxer is one hell of a great woman candidate.... I would vote for almost anyone in the black caucus since they too have the balls to go the extra mile.

At this point I would vote for a retarded, blind monkey to take over the oval office --- Oops, forgot that's what we have in there now -- damn it!

Just give me an honest person, woman or man any color or mixture - I don't care. Just tell me the truth, don't put money before all else. Take care of our workers, homeless, children. Keep the constitution and the bill of rights in tact. Prosecute the people who led us into Iraq over a pack of lies. Put education first.

Care about the ecology. Don't pretend that global warming is a myth. Get the world back in our corner. Stop becoming the terrorists. Stop breeding them. Stop hate.

One Nation - One People. Keep religion out of the government. Give homosexuals the right to have a legal union. Protect the first amendment.

[longship]

25. I think I wrote

preferably a minority.

Realistically, we would have a tough road ahead no matter who we pick for the second ticket spot.

Of course, Boxer would be great. But there are many, many women in the lower tiers of government (i.e., not yet at the top of the national consciousness) who would give any ticket a boost.

The wing nuts will expect people like Hillary, Boxer, etc. We should give them somebody in the mold of Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Jordan, somebody who the wing nuts will have a very difficult time forming a strategy against.

[FrenchieCat]

49. I'd recommend

Loretta Sanchez, Hispanic woman, and congressperson from Orange County, CA.

She young; she tough; she's articulate; She's Charismatic; She's "clean"(unlike Bill Richardson); and she's on leading committees. Plus, she beat an old established incumbent Republican in a Republican district...which is what Orange County is.

With her on the ticket, you get a minority; a woman; energy; and Clean "fresh" talent.

CLARK/SANCHEZ '08!

About Loretta
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez represents the California 47th Congressional District of California, which encompasses the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Santa Ana and some of Fullerton in Orange County. She began her congressional career in November 1996, and is serving her fifth term in the House of Representatives.

Loretta is known for two things: accessibility and collaboration. Those traits have served her well, both in Washington and in Orange County.

She travels to her home district from Washington each week to do work in the community and meet with constituents. Loretta has focused much of her time on issues such as education, public safety & crime reduction, economic development, and protections for our senior citizens. Born and raised in the district she serves, she is acutely aware of the issues facing her constituency.

She has been successful at working on bi-partisan projects and helping to bring funding back to the district for many community projects. During her tenure, she has secured appropriations measures totaling more than $300 million in federal tax dollars, which was sent back home to Orange County. She has worked hard to improve the infrastructure and quality of life for this fast-growing suburban county through various transportation, education, environmental, and crime reduction projects.

She has hosted hundreds of community events for her constituency. She has personally visited every school in her district, often with dignitaries such as former Vice President Al Gore, cabinet secretaries, astronauts and other Members of Congress. She regularly hosts "Community Office Hours," a grassroots approach to generating community interest in and accessibility to their Congressional representative.

Loretta is a businesswoman. Prior to her work in Congress, she was a financial manager at the Orange County Transportation Authority. She was an assistant vice president at Fieldman Rollap and Associates, specializing in advising clients of the firm in the area of municipal finance—a skill that serves her well in her role as Congresswoman. Loretta was an associate at Booz, Allen and Hamilton, putting financial plans together for municipalities as well as private companies. She eventually started her own consulting business in Santa Ana, assisting public agencies and private firms with financial matters, including cost-benefit analysis, strategic planning and capital acquisition. She received industry recognition when the State of California selected her to independently review the financial status of Orange County's first toll road to save about $300 million in financing costs.


Loretta attended Chapman University, in Orange, California, where she was selected in January 2002 to serve as the university’s first Latina member of the Board of Trustees. She received her bachelor’s degree in economics in 1982 (voted "Business Student of the Year"), and then entered American University in Washington, D.C. to obtain her master’s in business administration with an emphasis on finance, which she received in 1984. During the second year of her MBA program at American, Loretta spent a year in Rome, Italy, attending European Community's Market Management School.

Congresswoman Sanchez is the ranking woman of the House Armed Services Committee. Her seat on this panel helps her bring jobs to Orange County's growing high-tech industrial base. Loretta was instrumental in requiring the Department of Defense to include the City of Palmdale, California when it investigates cost alternatives for Joint Strike Fighter production. She has served on the Terrorism Panel of this Committee, where she joined other Members to investigate intelligence progress and terrorist threats to the United States. As terrorism becomes more and more of a concern for Americans, Congresswoman Sanchez is actively participating in protecting members of the Armed Services stationed around that world and on our own soil, as well as the citizens of this nation.

Congresswoman Sanchez was selected by Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to serve as the second-ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee provides oversight to the Department of Homeland Security to assure it is working effectively and quickly. The Committee has legislative jurisdiction over matters relating to the Homeland Security Act and plays a central role in fighting the war on terrorism.

While serving on the Homeland Security Committee, Congresswoman Sanchez took a leave of absence from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which oversees education and labor issues. During her tenure on the Committee, she has protected parental involvement initiatives and successfully saved national gender equity in education program. She spearheaded efforts to promote school safety, including the well-being of children walking and bicycling to and from local schools in Orange County. She is also the author of legislation to facilitate tax-free bonds to encourage school construction across the country.

Congresswoman Sanchez is a member of the Hispanic Caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, the New Democratic Coalition, and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. She also is a member of the Women's Congressional Caucus, the Older Americans Caucus, the Law Enforcement Caucus, and the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus. She serves on various boards. She is past president of the National Society of Hispanic MBAs, a member of the Los Amigos of Orange County, the Rotary Club of Anaheim, and the Anaheim Assistance League.
http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=8059&type=Home

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. OK, here we go.

He's got an exemplary military record.
He's got excellent foreign policy experience (NATO supreme commander)
He's a moderate (he can reach across to the broader coalition, electable)
He's smart.

[Clark2008]

21. Well, he's not really a moderate

But, because he spent 34 years in the military, he's perceived as one.

However, that's the kind of candidate we need. A liberal in moderate clothing (unlike Hillary, who is a moderate perceived as a liberal).

[longship]

27. I agree totally with your characterization.

n/t

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

44. Hillary's problem is not that she's a moderate, or too liberal.

Her problem is that we don't know what the hell she is. I don't hate her, and I don't obsess over her candidacy like her right-wing enemies do (I swear I'd vote for her just to spite those jokers), but there is something about her personality that just seems fake.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. One of the few that appeals to moderates and liberals

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Republicans never thought someone like Clark could come along.

First I want to start with a metaphor. After World War One and before World War II, the French correctly identified Germany as a security threat to their nation. They decided to spare no expense in developing unassailable positions and an unbeatable defense. They were well acquainted with war, Europe and France had seen more than it's share over the prior centuries. They knew where they were vulnerable, and they knew from where the Germans would inevitably attack. Knowing all that, the French built their Maginot line. And the Germans came at them from a different direction and occupied France.

Wesley Clark comes at the Republicans from a different direction, and they are ill prepared for him. The Republicans have spent decades reinforcing their preferred image of Democrats being out of touch with the mainstream; buyers of foreign cars who wince at the sight of the American flag. They go on endlessly about how Democrats are always weak on defense while Reagan won the Cold War. They portray us as embarrassed by Religion and angry at the military. They say we're stuck in Viet Nam, that we've never gotten over being protesters who associate America with everything evil while constantly being smitten with any two bit tyrant who mouthes anti American slogans. They say we are hopelessly over our heads when it comes to foreign affairs, and that America can't afford to trust our future to a Party that is more concerned with bilingual education than it is in protecting our citizens from attack, and so on and so on.

The Republicans never in their wildest nightmares expected the Democrats to ever come up with a candidate like Wesley Clark. He demolishes the Republican myths about Democrats, and makes Republicans look mean and petty in the process. Clark trumps the pro military card those chicken hawks so love to play. He takes the Viet Nam divisions off the table, with his distinguished military service both in and after Viet Nam, and with George McGovern backing him. Clark can match the most righteous right wing Christian proverb for proverb, but he beats them with Christ's own message. Clark isn't who the Republicans have trained to fight against. He takes many of their best weapons right out of their hands and turns them back against them. OK, that's for starters. I'll post more in a bit.

[NeoTraitors]

29. Wow- what Tom said!

All Patriot- No Act. I hope to goodness that Wes is our guy next time around.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Is he tough enough?

In the 04 primaries, if I'm not mistaken, he was one of the few (the only?) who **I** didn't **percieve** as bashing the other guys. When the primaries were over, he went full bore out campaigning for Kerry. Since the Kerry loss, he's still be out there, but not bashing anyone.

[Clark2008]

32. Is bashing necessarily being tough, though?

Or maybe I've misunderstood your post.

I think it takes a tougher person NOT to bash than to do so.

[sendero]

35. Have you ever heard this man speak?

He is amazing. He does't let media whores put words in his mouth.

He thinks on his feet. He gives straight answers.

He articulates the progressive position and why we take that position better than any politician I've ever heard.

It would be my dream come true to have Clark win the nom in 2008. I'm as certain as anyone can be about anything politics that he could win.

[KittyWampus]

37. He Could Only Win With The Best Campaign Staff. But Same Could Be

said about any Democrat at this point.

There'd have to be a novel media strategy.

[ThomWV]

39. Why Has No One Mentioned His Other Qualifications

I have not gone totally goo goo over Clark, but as I recall he is a Graduate of West Point (1st in Class?) and went on to take his masters degree, in economics I believe, while studying as a Rhodes Scholar. He has taught at the military academy's too if I remember correctly. While serving as head of the American portion of NATO he was essentially a US ambassador but with many countries under his areas of responsibility.

This is an intelligent, well educated, world traveled man of honor. He has served his country as few men ever will and I for one hope he continues to be a voice in the Democratic Party. I would certainly vote for him should he be a future candidate - for any office at all. Folks, it really doesn't get much better than Wesley Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Yes. This is a highly competent, highly intelligent man.

Clark was first in his class at West Point. More remarkable though, he was almost always the top student in each class he took (they tracked that stuff). Clark earned Three Masters at Oxford; in Political Science, in Economics, and in Philosophy. Clark speaks Five languages; English, French, Spanish, Russian, and I think German. He was indeed an instructor at West Point, teaching Economics and Political Philosophy.

As N.A.T.O. Supreme Commander, Wesley Clark had "Head of State" status in Europe, and frequently met directly with European leaders. In winning N.A.T.O.'s only war, in Kosovo, Clark managed to do so with an oversight command structure that allowed any N.A.T.O. nation to veto any operational decision regarding the conflict. Clark's diplomatic skills were continually called upon but he kept the alliance committed to it's mission, and he delivered the victory.

As a Commanding General, with the lives of hundreds of thousand of troops and dependents falling under his authority, Clark exercised many Executive functions akin to America's Governors, with responsibilities that included Education, Health Care, and budgeting. Clark also served more than one stint of duty based in Washington D.C., where he worked extensively both with Congress and the Executive branch. Even now, several years retired from active service, Clark is regarded by many in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, as one of America's leading National Security experts, and is frequently called upon to offer expert testimony. Yet Clark has the communicative ability to break down complex sets of variables into language easily understood by virtually anyone, as he demonstrated while briefly serving as a commentator for CNN.

[FrenchieCat]

52. and further, Clark has some very "healthy" domestic views.....

"The Confederate flag flies in the face of our most deeply-held American values - diversity, equality and inclusion. I believe that the only flag we should fly is the one that brings us together - the stars and stripes - and that the Confederate flag should never, ever be flown on public buildings."

Democrats should all condemn the Confederate Flag.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7166307...
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/7732...
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1103/108751.html
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1507782

Standing when everyone else is sitting, risking your own career for your beliefs, and being willing to speak out on issues that are not "popular" is what I am talking about.

The fact that Wes Clark helped write the Amicus Brief supporting Affirmative Action in the U of Michigan case; wrote OP-eds, which appeared in Major publications in support of having all Democrats "condemm" the Confederate Flag; named African-Americans to top spots in his campaign (Rangel, Andrew Young and Jamaal--his spokesperson, as well as others); promoted Black officers consistently in great numbers during his 35 years of service as an officer; and did speak of the "stolen" 2000 election elsewhere other than Black churches or Black venues; was the only high ranking officer who made major noise about what was happening in Rwanda at the time that it was happening; and wrote extensively on subjects such as Aid relief and recently Darfur ..... are all powerful acts of combined consistency in support of Black people (not just African Americans but Black people worldwide) and issues that affect them directly.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2...
Clark discusses women's rights, affirmative action
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — The head of the federal Commission on Civil Rights and several other prominent women endorsed retired general and presidential hopeful Wesley Clark on Sunday as he restated his support for affirmative action and women's rights.
http://www.texasforclark.com/affirmative.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07...
Out of time in Darfur By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast
For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

Jesse Jackson Sr. praises Clark's AIDS plan
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/3/182120/311
Bush approach to AIDS fight wastes time, money
December 2, 2003
BY JESSE JACKSON
As Printed in the Chicago SunTime
Democrats and many Republicans have called for a larger effort. Ironically, it took a general -- Gen. Wesley Clark -- to put forth a truly bold program. Clark would double Bush's commitment and build upon World Health Organization programs rather than spurn them.

He sees this as a centerpiece of what he calls a ''preventive engagement policy'' to make America a source of hope in the world. Perhaps it takes a general, knowing the scope and the limits of our military strength, to deal aggressively with a disease of mass destruction.

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

AND....
http://clark04.com/speeches/024 /
In 2003, the African-American unemployment rate is 10.2 % -- nearly double the national average.

In 2003, 7 million African Americans don't have health insurance. The rate of African Americans without health insurance is a third higher than the national average.

In 2003, nearly a quarter of African Americans live in poverty -- twice the national average. And nearly 1 in 3 black children live in poverty - that's five million children.

And in 2003, as far as we've come, African Americans are still too often robbed of their most basic civil right: the right to vote.

That's what I want to talk about today.

In March 1965, now Congressman John Lewis led the famous voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, right over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

On Bloody Sunday, hundreds of peaceful marchers were attacked by police, and many lost their lives.

But their sacrifice brought Lyndon Johnson the support he needed to sign the Voting Rights Act.

That Spring, addressing a Joint Session of Congress, Johnson stated for all the world to hear, that it wasn't just African Americans, but all Americans, "who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice." And he promised the nation that "we shall overcome."

The sad truth is - we haven't.

In the year 2003, we are far from the fundamental ideal of "one person, one vote."

In America, your vote is your voice. That's what our democracy was built on. And our nation can't move forward if we silence the voices of any of our citizens.

We all know what happened in the 2000 election, when the only vote that George W. Bush won was the one that took place in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

It was an election marred by broken voting machines, outdated technology, and hanging chads.

It was an election where blacks and other minorities were disproportionately turned away from the polls, purged from the voting rolls, and intimidated when they showed up to vote.

And in the end, when it came to counting up the votes, the ballots cast by African Americans and other minorities were disproportionately undercounted. The victims of this debacle were people like Lavonna Lewis.

On Election Day 2000, Lavonna, an African American woman and first-time time voter, was told by a poll worker that the poll was closed.

As she turned to leave, that same poll worker allowed a white man to walk in and get in line to vote.

Sadly, Lavonna was just one of thousands of minorities who were shut out of the voting booth.

This is not what those four little girls gave their lives for.

And in many ways, the response to the election was as much of an injustice as the election itself.

After what happened in Florida, there was a whole lot of hand-wringing, but no real change.

People called for investigations, for election reform, for a complete overhaul of the voting system in America.

What did they get?

No serious investigation.

No election reform.

Nothing but a congressional bill that fewer than half the states have enforced.

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.



AND....
General Wesley Clark Op-Ed for Detroit Free Press
General (ret.) Wesley K. Clark
October 22, 2003
As Appeared in The Op-Ed section of the Detroit Free Press
http://clark04.com/articles/010 /
...In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief...
There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: it works. I know this first-hand from my thirty-four years in the United States military. Affirmative action was essential to creating the diverse officer corps we need to defend our country. Throughout my career, I have seen the benefits of seeking out qualified minority candidates for leadership positions - and I am a beneficiary of their leadership.

My commitment to affirmative action is based on my belief in all that unites mankind. But I am also committed to affirmative action because it works. Our president, on the other hand, seems unable to pull himself away from his right wing advisors long enough to examine the facts. The Bush Administration argued against affirmative action in the Michigan case. And they've done everything possible to undermine diversity, not promote it.

Conservatives say they are opposed to affirmative action "on principle." They invoke "quotas" to scare people into thinking they will lose their place at the table. But this is a pessimistic view of America's future. If we make room for everybody, there will be more room for everybody. An integrated America, where each and every American is treated with the same dignity and respect, is a better America for everyone. Until that day arrives, every day the thousand small and not-so-small judgments, discriminations, and insults that some Americans must endure is an affront to us and all we stand for. And we are not going to remedy these injustices by ignoring them.

Georgia Mayors Support Clark
Little Rock - Today, Wes Clark's presidential campaign received the support of Mayor Floyd Griffin of Milledgeville, who joined General Clark in Savannah, and Mayor Jack Ellis of Macon.
http://clark04.com/press/release/147 /

Wes Clark Welcomes Aboard Mayor Michael Coleman As Ohio State Chair
Little Rock - Today, Wes Clark proudly announced that Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman is joining the Clark campaign as a Senior Advisor and the Ohio State Chair:
http://clark04.com/press/release/140 /

Young And Rangel To Serve As First Two Co-Chairs Of Clark's National Campaign Steering Committee
Little Rock - Today in Columbia, SC, the Clark campaign announced that Ambassador Andrew Young and Representative Charles Rangel will serve as the first two Co-Chairs of Wes Clark's National Campaign Steering Committee. The committee will provide guidance on major issues involving both policy and strategy and will help organize other leaders throughout the country.
http://clark04.com/press/release/138 /

Clark Turnaround Plan to Lift Two Million Children Out of Poverty
New York - Today, in Harlem, Wes Clark was joined by Congressman Charlie Rangel as he announced the fourth part of his Turnaround Plan for America. Clark pledged to lift two million children out of poverty by 2008.

"There is no issue more important than our children's future," Clark said. "And there is no issue where the Bush White House's failure of leadership is more evident."
http://clark04.com/press/release/121 /


Wes Clark's Statement on DC Voting Rights and Home Rule
"It is fundamentally unfair that the citizens of our nation's capital have no vote in Congress. Equal and meaningful representation is what inspired our fight for national independence. Taxation without representation was unacceptable to Americans two hundred years ago. It is just as unacceptable today.
http://clark04.com/press/release/110 /

Also read his many policies and plans for urban renewal, child care, etc, etc, etc...

Native Americans and Hispanics also supported Wes clark in "droves". The Native American Times endorsed him, and many Hispanic leaders did as well.

You should read up on Wes Clark.... He is quite amazing!

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Unlike Bush, Clark actually CAN bring people together

Start with the fact that he spent a lifetime in an institution that exists to defend and protect our nation. Not the rich or the poor, the North of the South; everyone, as in all Americans. That is Clark's fundamental mind set, and it contributes to his fury at the Bush Administration, which practices divide and conquer tactics with the American electorate. Most Americans are tired of the bitter divisions in our Society, but many by now have been conditioned to distrust Democrats. I have continually been amazed at how so people I know of differing political view points can resonate with Clark's message for America.

Another thing about Clark's military career; the U.S. Army is a throw back to an era before the "I me mine" 80's and 90's. It is intrinsically far more egalitarian than the private sector. It integrated early and well. Differences in the pay scale from the lowliest soldier to the highest ranking General are laughable compared to the extremes in today's private sector. The Army reinforces the concept of team work because without team work people really die and actual battles are lost. That is part of why Clark appeals across Party lines even though his positions and values are almost without exception traditional Liberal to Progressive Democratic. He comes from the old school and even conservatives recognize something they can respect in him.

On the stump in 2004 Clark initiated the line that Kerry later only somewhat picked up on that "You can't have family values if you don't value families". From that Clark wove in health care, because if a parent can't do everything possible to heal a sick child then families have no meaning, and he wove in education, because all parents want their children to be well prepared for the future, and so on and so on. He even wove in concern for the environment, making it almost a conservative cause. One of Clark's lines is that there are two things of great value that we have to pass on to our children and their children. One is a healthy environment and the other is our Constitutionally protected form of government. Those he feels are our legacies as a nation that we must preserve for the future.

As to the latter, Clark is a critic of the Patriot Act, he feels that many provisions were rushed into place without any systematic effort being made to justify their inclusion in the face of curtailing our fundamental liberties. Clark is passionate about the right of dissent, really passionate, defining it as a civic obligation to make one's views known, not merely a right, even if one opposes the government, and even if that government is at War.

Clark openly defends the progressive income tax. For him it is very straight forward expression of values, people who can afford to give more should give more, they have been blessed by opportunities and thus can afford to give more without enduring personal hardships. For him it is a reflection of being American to be concerned about the well being of all in our society. He is so God Damn good at making points like that without sounding like a bleeding heart tax and spend Liberal, instead framing it as being patriotic to strengthen our communities.

[cajones_II]

41. Wes Clark is qualified , but there's more.

He has international experience that required him to use both military AND diplomatic presence, and he did well.

His experience as General and Spreme Allied Commander of NATO is comparable to any gubernatorial experience, except he also ran a military operation.

He has a conscience and actual morals, which exhibit themselves often

He appeals to a vast rainbow of interests and regions.

He's an actual human being. Someone people can relate to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Clark is hard to pigeon hole. How many Generals would say this:

"It's hard to change people's minds after you've killed their relatives."

Maybe the quickest way to get a real sense of who Clark is AND how he can campaign would be to spend some time reading this thread which gathered together many of the quotes that DUers point to as their favorites:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=235&topic_id=3434&mesg_id=3434

This is Clark's current Web site: http://www.securingamerica.com/

[CarolNYC]

43. Here's a couple of things I've posted about before....

but I like them so I'll post again....

First, I liked this proposal of his from his "Winning Modern Wars" book:

"The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare."

I believe there's something similiar somewhere on the Clark04 site too but I don't know where....

Second, in an interview I saw on Paula Zahn shortly after Clark announced, a Gen. David Grange, who was not a Clark supporter, saying he wouldn't think of voting for any of the candidates from "that party", but who had worked with Clark in the military, 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.

I think we could use a problem solver like that in the White House.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Clark is not a politician...he is a leader,

and that is what this country will need after the Bush mess.

Many pols can offer great "programs", but there won't be any money in the treasury left to implement such programs. If they "dare" to call for the raising of taxes, all hell will break loose.

So will the 2008 election be about politicians talking a good game, only to get into office and be ineffectual?

Follow the money, cause that's what it will take to rebuild American social programs that we so need! But to do this, we'll have to have someone who will have the gravitas and the cojones to look at the Pentagon budget and cut the pork. No other Democrat can offer to do this....they don't have the balls as they must be on the defensive against the "Weak on defense" attacks that the Republicans would lodge against any of them that would even propose such cuts.

Many pols speak a good game....but Like Nixon going to China; Clark is the one that can go after the pentagon Budget....which is really where all of our money currently is. That in itself is a most important issue in 2008 that can not be overlooked. So when candidates start running, ask them if they are willing to cut the pentagon budget....then watch them stammer and STFU.

Also, in reference to judging a man that has never been elected to a public office, one certainly can ask....how can that be done?

Clark action on Affirmative Action
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/eclark24_20031024.htm
Success of military diversity proves affirmative action works
October 24, 2003
BY WESLEY CLARK
When I left the military and contemplated entering political life, many issues led me to find my political home in the Democratic Party. Affirmative action was one of the most important. This is an issue that Democrats both understand well and feel deeply. And, based on my experiences, I believe without hesitation that we Democrats are right in our belief that affirmative action is good for all Americans.

In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.

Does testifying against a war, when you don't have to, count? http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm

Clark action on Genocide which eventually led to his "early retirement"
b]Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons. Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001104.html
Clark was almost alone in pushing for a humanitarian intervention in Rwanda.
Pulitzer award winning Samantha Power for her book "A Problem from Hell" : America and the Age of Genocide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054164...
endorsed Wes Clark http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2003/12/redeeming_wes...
The following excerpts from Power's book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment below on Clark's pariah status in Washington:
General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi.
She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .
He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).
According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe.
She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."
"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move."

Samantha Power's comments on Wesley Clark at the December 17, 2003, press conference in Concord, New Hampshire after the General's testimony at the Hague .
"Good afternoon. It's a real honor for me to be here with General Clark, and with Edita Tahiri. My name is Samantha Power. I spent about seven years looking into American responses to genocide in the twentieth century, and discovered something that may not surprise you but that did surprise me, which was that until 1999 the United States had actually never intervened to prevent genocide in our nation's history. Successive American presidents had done an absolutely terrific job pledging never again, and remembering the holocaust, but ultimately when genocide confronted them, they weighed the costs and the benefits of intervention, and they decided that the risks of getting involved were actually far greater than the other non-costs from the standpoint of the American public, of staying uninvolved or being bystanders. That changed in the mid-1990s, and it changed in large measure because General Clark rose through the ranks of the American military.

The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing. And it was Pentagon reluctance to intervene in Rwanda, and in Bosnia, that actually made it much, much easier for political leaders to turn away. When the estimates started coming out of the Pentagon that were much more constructive, and proactive, and creative, one of the many deterrents to intervention melted away. And so I think, again, in discussing briefly the General's testimony, it's important to remember why he was able to testify at the Hague, and he testified because he decided to own something that was politically very, very unfashionable at the time."
http://www.kiddingonthesquare.com/2004/01/the_subtle_ar...

CLARK RECEIVED THESE AWARDS FOR ACTION/b]
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/awards.htm
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)
Going back when the Medal of Freedom meant something!
Jesse Jackson, Gen. Clark Awarded Medal of Freedom With 13 Others
Washington - An emotional President Bill Clinton praised the "keen intellect and loving heart" of sometime political rival Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the leadership of the iconoclastic general who disagreed with his strategy during the Kosovo air war, as he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom .....

[Texas_Kat]

51. Here are some stories from those who made the journey

Here are some stories from those who made the journey to Clark's side.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1548301#1552072

I couldn't possibly post anything more eloquent than these.