I am 95% pro-Clark....convince me otherwise

[dolo amber]

I'm totally sincere here, not at all trying to provoke a flamefest.

I've been leaning Clark for quite a while now, and after MTP today, I am ready to throw my support to him 100%. I think he's more than qualified, handles himself well, is knowledgeable and a wonderful speaker. Nothing I have read or seen has convinced me otherwise. I know there are some people here who believe the General has ulterior motives, is being controlled by the DNC etc.

What I am asking for are FACTS, not rhetoric. I have grown so cynical during the past few years it's been near impossible for me to get behind any of our candidates. But the more I see and hear of Clark the more I'm feeling he's the one for me.

Also, while do consider myself a fan of Michael Moore, he plays little to no part in this decision (for the record) so there's no need to bring him or his endorsement into this.

Thanks! :hi:

[incapsulated]

1. His head is too small for his body!

<joke>

That aside, I have no doubt there are many people who would love to give you a million reasons...

[Woodstock]

45. I think he's quite attractive

He's got nothing to worry about in that dept. :)

[Ruti]

2. No disrespect,

but there was a beautiful letter about why Clark by NewJerseycoa on the Homepage; people wrote tons of responses to Skinner when he requested why Clark and there's an official Clark website. There's also Google.

[dolo amber]

11. You're right, of course

I missed the NewJerseycoa letter, and I have certainly visited the Clark site many times. However, you don't get many dissenting opinions from an offical campaign website as it turns out. I've seen a million anti-Clark sentiments around here...people armed with opinions as to why Clark is wholly unsuited to be President. I was trying to get THOSE types to respond. But thanks! :hi:

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. here's three facts that keep him from my top 2

Fact No. 1 - he has no political experience. A rookie is not what we need in the most crucial election since the 1970s.

Fact No. 2 - he commanded a mostly forgotten-about war. Kosovo was never an extremely popular war, and most Americans probably don't know why we were over there in the first place. Or what the details were in what led up to the war.

Fact No. 3 - since he has no political experience, he's essentially going to be a mouthpiece for his handlers. And whom does that remind you of? - George W. Bush.

Not to say that Clark is dumb like Bush, but politically speaking, Clark might as well be Bush for what they both know about big-time politics and running a national campaign.

That said, I'd still vote for Clark in a heartbeat if he was the nominee.

[dolo amber]

6. The *no political experience*

argument doesn't quite work...I mean, you don't get to be a 4-star General without being *political*, know what I mean? And to be honest, if that WERE the case it might be more of a benefit that a detriment.

BTW, what are you doing all the way over here, don't you have some emoticon sagas or 10 random questions to be working on? ;):D

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. lol

I'm focused on this primary now. I'll get back to the emoticons after we get a nominee. :)

But in terms of political experience. I meant in terms of running a campaign. As you've already seen, Clark's lack of experience hurt him on capitolizing on his announcement speech.

He didn't run with it and his campaign stalled. So much so he didn't even try to compete in Iowa.

[democratreformed]

16. So, what I keep hearing is that we need to choose a candidate

b/c of how well he is able to run a campaign ("play the game", if you will) and not b/c of who he is or his leadership abilities or what we believe he will be able to do for our country. Is that right?

[THUNDER HANDS]

35. well, lets look at this realistically and logically

The Republicans control congress. So ANY president, no matter which candidate it ends up being, would have a hard time just getting ANY of his adjenda passed.

A person who can play the game, both legislatively and campaign-wise, is a real advantage over someone with no experience whatsoever in either area.

But the goal is obtaining the White House, anything after that we're basically playing with house money.

[maxr4clark]

51. I'm not sure I agree

I don't think the President does all that much arm-twisting himself; he has the VP do that. Bush doesn't twist arms, Cheney and Rove do that.

[Snivi Yllom]

40. the lack of political experience does not bother me

It's his unfamiliarity with the issues and his flip flopping from when he was...lets's say affiliated away from the left, that bothers me.

[maxr4clark]

52. The flip-flopping is a MYTH

Propogated by the media, who prefer answers in sound-bites. Clark often argues in the form "A, B, C, maybe true; however D is more important, and that's what I support". The flip-flop myths come from taking A or B or C out of context. This is why you see so many defenses of Clark of the form "If you read the whole testimony/article/statement...".

Clark does not speak in sound-bites. He talks about complex issues as complex issues, which doesn't fit with the media's interest in painting issues as clear and simple.

[democratreformed]

8. On experience:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/19/60II/main584548.shtml
This is one of the money quotes:
People often say, "Well, you know, in the military, you could give these orders, and how would you be capable--" But in the military at the top, you really aren't giving orders. You're really working collaboratively, collegially, politically. You're persuading people to want to do what you want them to do, and you're doing it not just on military and diplomatic issues, but you're doing it on a whole range of what we call quality of life issues.

This quote goes straight at the heart of the "being a general is not at all like being an elected official" argument. Being a general isn't just about giving orders. That is a major misperception. Instead, it includes "working collaboratively, collegially, politically."

As an example of this, Clark said the following:
In Europe, I had 44,000 school children in the command, and I was responsible for their schooling, K-12. And we had schools in Britain and Spain and Germany and Italy and Turkey. And we had curriculum challenges. We had local control issues. We had parents who didn't get along and so forth. So, we changed the currency. We increased the amount of local control. I encouraged commanders to give their soldiers and airmen off when the child was in a teacher/student conference. I believed the parent should be there. And you know, in the United States Armed Forces, we can make that happen. And we did.

This prompted Rather to compare Clark's position to that of a mayor of a town. Clark responded with:
A big town. In this case, it was, you know, spread out all over. (In Britain and Spain and Germany and Italy and Turkey.... you have responsibilities as a parent and as a leader to speak up, because the higher rank you have, the more your responsibility to speak out and help others. And we always took that very, very seriously.... I had schooling issues. I had hospital issues. I had housing issues. I had spouse abuse, child abuse, suicide prevention, quality of life, spousal jobs. And when I was the commander at Fort Irwin (PH), I had the engineers on post, the commissaries, the post exchange, the chapels, the movie theatre.

To me this is more like being a governor of a small state than being a mayor of a "town," but you can be your own judge. In a separate article Elizabeth Drew quoted Ron Klain on this matter:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Ron Klain, Clark's senior policy adviser, says that as a result of Clark's military experience, "he's more like a governor than a senator. He has run bases: they have school systems, health care issues, race issues." Klain said that in briefing Clark, "it's much more a conversation you'd have with Clinton than with Gore."

On another note, many have said Clark has no experience with a budget. First, all these bases had budgets and staff and he was responsible for that. Secondly, Clark has worked as a White House Fellow in the Office of Management and Budget, which is pretty good experience I think. Thirdly, he has a masters degree in economics and political philosophy and taught economics at West Point. Fourthly, he worked in the private sector as an investment banker just prior to running for office

I actually copied this from another supporter who is much more eloquent than I am.

I am beginning to think that political experience is totally different than "leadership experience". Political experience means that you know how to play within the system and manipulate desired outcomes or perceptions. Leadership experience means having been a leader and actually achieving results in some area. Given a choice, I prefer the latter.

As far as Clark being controlled by others, that, to me, is ludicrous. Yes, he will listen to others and he will strive to learn as much as possible from different sources, but he will not be totally at the mercy of advisors. He does have experience and he does have intelligence and he does have his heart in the right place. Those three things combined lead me to believe that he will be a great POTUS.

[Frederic Bastiat]

18. Clark unlike Kerry has broad appeal with Independents

You're not going to beat Bush* in the election without a huge majority of Independents.

[Jerseycoa]

48. "mouthpiece for his handlers"

:7

That's really funny.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. His eyes are always glassy...

...does he have a painkiller habit? ;)

[Leilani]

37. He wears contact lenses

[WiseMen]

5. Why? Clark is Great. If He win, He wins. No Problem.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. What I want from you are facts

I'm pro-Dean, but when it comes down to it, I'm ABB. I like running into committed supporters of other candidates, because I know they can give me accurate information and sincere arguments on why their candidate is best.

Why do I want this? So I can be prepared if Clark wins the nomination. I belong to a group of Republicans, Independents, and Liberals who have united in wanting Bush out of the White House. We are at the point of gathering information about all the candidates-their positions, their strengths, and their weaknesses. Please PM me with links, etc, and I will be happy to share them with the group.

[seventhson]

9. Google Clark, Axciom, "Jet Blue" and the "Stephens Group"

If you can still vote for him after that try googling "depleted Uranium" and "Wesley Clark"

or "Plan Columbia" and "Wesley Clark"


or "Wesley Clark" Lobbyist and Pentagon

If you can still vote for him then...

Nothing is going to change your mind.


Dean/Edwards in 2004!!!

[dolo amber]

12. Thanks for that, seventhson

That's exactly the kind of thing I am looking for. :)

I'll go check it out ASAP. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

27. Do not let Google confuse you...is all I have to say

For the record, please note that this is an incorrect association and is untrue:

Stephens Group, Inc was run by Jackson T. Stephens, Sr. from 1956 to 1986. Jackson T. Stephens Sr. supported the Clinton campaign.

Jackson T. Stephens Sr's son, Warren A. Stephens has run the firm since 1986.

General Clark worked for Warren Stephens.
The Club For Growth does not list Warren Stephens as a member.

There is another son called Jackson T. Stephens, Jr. You will not find Jackson T Stephens Jr listed within the Stephens Group, Inc. management.
Please check to verify: http://www.stephens.com/stephens/leadership/
-------------------------------------
TO RECAP AS TO AVOID FUTURE CONFUSION.......PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS THREAD FOR REFERENCE NEXT TIME ANOTHER CLARK ATTACK IS UPON US.

ONCE AGAIN
Clark worked for a company who's founder Jackson T. Stephens Sr. supported Clinton.

This man had two sons (maybe more)......

Clark worked for the GOOD SON, Warren Stephens.

The BAD SON, Jackson T. Stephens Jr. belongs for the "Club for Growth" but is not listed as working for The Stephens Group, Inc.

So there may be 6 degrees of separation.....but Clark did not work for a company that supported Club for Growth.....

THE END

[dolo amber]

29. Well, I read what seventhson

recommended, and to be honest it didn't much convince me of anything. As Tom Rinaldo so eloquently points out downthread, we all do things that go against our better judgement from time to time. Basically all that means to me is that Clark is human, just like the rest of us. :)

I do however appreciate that being pointed out for me to look into.

[seventhson]

34. No - Jackson Stephens Jr is one of the owners

They are all tied in together. Its a a family-owned private enterprise. READ their website (but you have to dig for that info).

There is no good Stephens bad Stephens. Theyt are all one in the privately owned firm/ Jack Jr. is an owner but NOT in the management (although as a shareholder he undoubtedly has some degree of control of the company throughh his stock votes - but these are secret)

These guys gave $100,000 to Bush in 2001 AFTER Clark was working for them as a lobbyist of the white house AND the Stephens arranged for Shrub to get Saudi financing for Shrubya's Harken oil deal (which ties them to the Bin Ladens) back in the 1980's. They were also tied into BCCI which is one of the dirtiest deals in history and is connected to arab weapons deals, cocaine, contra deals AND Mena airport. Dirty as they come, those guys IMHO.

[BansheeBarbie]

13. OR-Google Hart Rudman Report, Gore Commission On Terrorism/AirlineSafety

and acknowledge the fact that Airline Passenger Screening now involves only Name Recognition and that this method is Insufficient.

What are any of the other candidates Policy Proposals to improve Passenger Screening?

Did any of them vote for the Patriot Act?

[chimpymustgo]

14. Tune in to C-SPAN now and see Edwards. He is rocking.

I like Clark a lot. Edwards has some serious mojo going on right now.

[maxr4clark]

53. If you want a rock star to run against Bush,

Edwards is the man. Personally, I want someone who is going to bring in Independents, and who can credibly get us out of Iraq without spending a trillion dollars to do it. Clark will be the best for the economy because he will decrease the DoD budget--the largest part of the federal budget. He is the ONLY candidate that can get the DoD budget reduced under a Republican congress, and he can't do it as Secretary of Defense or VP, he has to be President to do it. He also is the only Democrat that knows how to get us out of Iraq with honor AND the support of the rest of the world.

That's what I want to run against Bush.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I was in your place a long time ago

And I went beyond the cynical internalized voice that tears down every single person who offers real hope. If you lock yourself into a sealed room somewhere, and really think about your life, you will probably discover that you have made dozens if not hundreds of choices and decisions that run counter to your deeply held political beliefs. Such is being human. The product that you bought that you should have known was being boycotted, the job you took that you suspended disbelief for to justify. The friend you stood up for who really had been acting like a jerk. The polluter stock that is in your mutual fund. The Chinese made products you buy that are helping put American manufacturers out of work. The person who you once said good things about but later figured out that they had conned you. We pay rent to housing exploiters called landlords, we pay mortgage interest to banks that invest our money overseas. WE buy a product on sale at Walmart rather than go to the local more expensive mom and pop stores. And yet we somehow live with ourselves despite it. Every one of us could be portrayed as a self serving, narrow self interest promoting, unprincipled opportunist in league with anti democratic institutions, but the real story is always more complex, isn't it?

Attack politics has been refined to the point where it has become an awesome tool. Remember the old expression; statistics don't lie, statisticians do? No one can hold up under that type of scrutiny. We all live in an interwoven capitalist society where progressive social goals are managed by forces that simultaneously are in league with reactionary forces. It is impossible not to be in bed with them because the bed takes up the entire room.

So go back to your own observations and what your heart tells you. Here is what I concluded. Wesley Clark is as decent as they come, in men who are ready, able, and capable of being elected President of the United States of America.

I will make a separate post with the endorsement statement I wrote for Clark when Skinner was calling for them.

[democratreformed]

19. Great post, Tom

Thanks for putting some things in perspective.

[MidwestMomma]

28. Very thought-provoking post

It is hard to put the cynicism aside and have hope, but I find that General Clark is doing that for me.

For some reason your part about Clark being as decent as they come reminded me of the passage at the end of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.

About Scrooge he writes:

"He became as good a friend, as good a master and as good a man, as the good old city knew....Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it was well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed; and that was quite enough for him."

Thanks for listening. Peace...

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. When Opportunity Knocks, Open the Door

Wesley Clark said it best when he commented that Democrats aren't used to having Generals in our Party. Just as true it seems, Generals aren't used to being Democrats. Everyone knows by now that Clark was rather late arriving at our Party. Most V.I.P.'s show up earlier, except, sometimes, for the Guest of Honor. What has Wesley Clark ever done to earn that type of distinction?

It is a good and fair question. Too often though it's posed as a Trick Question: "What has Clark done for the Democratic Party to earn the distinction of being our Presidential nominee?" What's the trick? It's simple really. All political parties exist (or so it is claimed) to advance the greater interests of the American People, not the other way around. The election of November 2004 isn't about selecting the next Chairperson for the National Democratic Party, it is about choosing the next President of the United States, the one who will be sworn to uphold all of our interests.

Talk all you want about third party movements and Independent candidacy's; for a century or more, the successful path to the Presidency has run directly through one of two dominant parties. Democrats tend to criticize some of our leftist friends for diluting our forces, either by running as, or supporting, a Green Party Presidential candidate. Yet some now imply that Clark, a man who chose a non partisan career of service and Independent affiliations, should perhaps be running as an Independent candidate, rather than compete with longer tenured Democrats seeking our nomination, or simply not run at all. That line of thinking fails to directly address the fundamental questions. Who should Democrats be supporting to become our next President, and why? Who is best suited to serve and protect the American public? Who can most likely succeed in the quest to unseat Bush the Pretender? Not succeeding at the latter is almost too depressing to contemplate, but contemplate it we should.

Obviously Democrats hold core beliefs on the values our society must embrace, and the direction our nation should take. Without those a political party is just an expedient shell. Someone seeking our Party's support must uphold those beliefs, so what about General Clark? I think anyone capable of reading or listening knows by now that he does, in spades. Personally I agree with Michael Moore, Clark is surprisingly progressive on almost all issues. Democrats never agree on everything, but if Clark is who he says he is, the overwhelming majority of Democrats, not to mention Independents and moderate Republicans, will celebrate a Clark victory over Bush.

That's the rub for many, isn't it? Should we believe what Clark says and writes now, just what is really behind his good words? There are certainly those who reject Clark for some deeply held principles, or deeply rooted suspicions, and your decision for now is simple; back another candidate. But I'm addressing the rest of us here. Clark has proven his courage and literal selflessness on a field of real battle. That can't be faked. He stood up to the military establishment in the Pentagon, and fought hard and successfully in favor of humanitarian military missions, at the ultimate expense of his own career. That is public record. Clark comes from humble roots and is a self made man who lived for decades on middle income wages in the U.S. Army though fortunes were frequently offered him as an incentive to leave. I know enough people who I trust, who know and trust Clark's abilities, his motivation, and his sincerity, for me to trust Clark also. I've met him. I believe him.

But it's too much of a gamble to select Clark some say, why make it? Gambling is a better metaphor than it might initially appear. Why would anyone not bet on a relative sure thing over something, or someone, less proven? Easy, it's for the greater pay off when you ultimately win. In Clark's case, for me, the question isn't whether is Clark more or less likely to beat Bush. I think the public at large has a much easier time respecting and accepting Clark than do core Democratic voters being asked to chose between a number of attractive choices. Many of Clark's perceived weaknesses in the Primaries turn to advantages in the General Election. One quick example; men embrace Clark more quickly than most women, maybe it's that military thing. Running against Bush rather than another Democrat, Clark will do fine with women, a traditional Democratic area of strength, AND Clark will deeply encroach on Bush's hold over most white males. The arguments have all been frequently made, so I will simply state here that I believe Clark is the man best able to defeat Bush in the Fall.

For me Clark's huge upside is AFTER he gets in office. I think he will make a truly great President. I think Clark possesses greater personal skills than any President since FDR. Equally impressive, Clark is a great communicater. He knows how to speak to Democrats, that's obvious from his campaign, but he resonates with almost all Americans. Here is a man with George McGovern and Michael Moore endorsements who most Americans don't view as "one of those liberals". Clark is a Trojan Horse alright, our Trojan Horse. He can carry our message past the media and propagandist walls designed and built to keep Progressive speech out. Clark steals Republican Thunder to deliver Democratic Lightning. He will transform the political landscape in a way none of our other candidates could. He will restore the Democratic Party to majority status. And what is the downside to this gamble? We may end up with another Clinton. That is a risk I am prepared to take.

[Frederic Bastiat]

20. Well said

Clark has proven his courage and literal selflessness on a field of real battle. That can't be faked. He stood up to the military establishment in the Pentagon, and fought hard and successfully in favor of humanitarian military missions, at the ultimate expense of his own career. That is public record. Clark comes from humble roots and is a self made man who lived for decades on middle income wages in the U.S. Army though fortunes were frequently offered him as an incentive to leave. I know enough people who I trust, who know and trust Clark's abilities, his motivation, and his sincerity, for me to trust Clark also. I've met him. I believe him.


Can I borrow that?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Certainly. n/t

[democratreformed]

21. Would you also put this on that other thread?

The one about "Something I heard on?? , that I hadn't considered before". It is saying that Clark would not be in this race if not for the war. It questions the very issue this post speaks about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. OK. I'll do it now. n/t

[democratreformed]

30. Thanks, Tom n/t

[dolo amber]

26. Excellent

That sums up how I feel exactly. :)

[maxr4clark]

54. In support,

I'd like to point out that Clark was an independent. He was registered as an independent in Arkansas (like 96% of Arkansans do); he has never registered as a Republican. He did what Independents do: he voted for a Republican or a Democrat, as he saw appropriate. He hasn't voted for the Republican in the last three Presidential elections.

Why does everyone have so much trouble understanding this? HE WAS NEVER A REPUBLICAN. He was, as he has said over and over, an Independent.

[SheilaT]

22. Do you think he sincerely opposed the war in Iraq?

If he did, what was he doing on CNN in the lead up to the war? Was he saying Bush & co are lying, there are no WMD's?

Why do you think it took him so long to see the light and become a Democrat? I hate to sound like someone who doesn't appreciate converts to our cause, but isn't this a little johnny-come-lately?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Here you go

In regards to Clark being a late comer to the Party, please read when opportunity knocks, posted above.

Concerning Clark and opposition to the Iraq war, you can read this (saved from an older thread). This was written by Quixote1818, not me, though I wish I had been clever enough to do this work:


I am sure this has been put out for discussion already but it seems quite a few people on here missed it as so many of you still keep saying Clark has been inconsistent on the War. I will admit Clark says too much sometimes leaving his speeched open to all kinds of interpretations much like ancient religious documents however Richard Perle heard what Clark had to say and he understood EXACTLY what Clark was saying.

In the meeting of the House Armed Services Committee
on September 26, 2002, here is what Perle said of Clark:

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

You remember Perle don't you? One of the neocon architects for the Iraq invasion? For the whole transcript the link is found in this post by La_Serpiente:

between Richard Perle and Wesley Clark

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ

Hearing Before the
House Armed Services Committee

September 26, 2002

HUNTER: The committee will come to order.

Today, the Committee on Armed Services continues its review of United States policy toward Iraq. This morning's hearing marks the fourth in a number of planned public sessions designed to educate and inform the committee and the American people on the various issues surrounding Iraq's continued violation of numerous United Nations resolutions, its illicit development of weapons of mass destruction, and the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, the Middle East, and the international community.

The committee has received a classified briefing from the intelligence community in each of the last three weeks, which we also opened to all members of the House in the last several weeks. We also heard from former UNSCOM inspectors about Iraq's illicit weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's persistent efforts to thwart U.N. inspections and we heard from an Iraqi defector who was a leader in Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

more...

U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

31. The world is not black and white

I am obviously a Clark fan, but here are my honest answers to your questions.

I do not believe the General never saw the war as a black and white issue. I believe he knew Sadaam was a threat and that any administration would have to do more to try to "deal" with him. I believe he never would have gone to war the way Bush went to war. I believe he would have handled 9/11 very differently and focused on terrorists and not Sadaam. I believe he certainly would not have gone to war with Iraq when Bush made the decision to do so, but that he wanted America and her troops to succeed once Bush did go to war. I believe he never saw the war as something totally right or totally wrong, but instead,totally mishandled by the Administration.

As to his becoming a Democrat ...
It is obvious the General voted for Reagan and Nixon because he saw them as stronger on national security. It is also obvious that he voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore because the Republican Party moved much further to the right and Clinton/Gore shared Clark's opinions on the international affairs. Clark has always been an intellectual and intellectual's have a very hard time with the dittohead Republican line. I believe Clark never believed political parties were very important, and although he had more progressive believes especially later in his life, he never saw the need to enter the political realm. He would always vote for the candidate over the party. I believe that once Clark saw what Bush was doing to this country, he saw it as his duty to speak out, become a Democrat and run for President. Sure there is some personal gain to being President, but I do not, at all, believe he became a Democrat just for personal gain.

Consider this:
Clark NEVER had to say he voted for Nixon or Reagan. No one would have ever known who he voted for. He could have just as easily lied and said he voted for McGovern and Mondale. But he didn't lie, he told the truth when asked. He is an honorable man, and will make an amazing President.

[maxr4clark]

55. The first thing I remember about Clark

is hearing him say on CNN that he didn't think we needed to fight a war in Iraq; there was still more to be done pursuing al Qaeda. YES, he was saying Bush was wrong on CNN prior to the Iraq War.

Other than that, he was answering questions from the commentators about what the reports they were hearing about the military movements made. That was what he was paid to do, and he was very good at it. Whenever he was asked for his opinion, he spoke up in favor of pursuing al Qaeda and questioned the wisdom of attacking Iraq.

[leftist_rebel1569]

32. I've got 2 big reasons for not supporting Clark

1. He supports the SOA, which I'm completely against the mere existance of such a school, much less one that has taught some of the worst war criminals ever to be produced from latin and south america.

2. He supports the usage of depleted uranium, which is a horrible weapon and never should be used in any situation

Other than that, I don't think he's that bad of a candidate, and other than some other small things, that's all I got against him.

[Jerseycoa]

46. What are Edwards's positions on SOA & DU?

I remember him being asked about depleted uranium without clearly answering. I don't recall him speaking on SOA. What's his related experience and observation and conclusion?

[californiahippie]

33. One beef with Clark

I am undecided, but I have a few reasons I am leaning TOWARDS Clark. I am actually very liberal, and Clark is a bit conservative for my tastes, but I like alot of the things he says.
I am seduced by his speeches on "family values" and religion, and the way he holds Bush accountable for the huge gaps between his religious ideals (those taught by Christ) and his actions. It's just a bit of fresh air to me at a time when I feel both our nation and Christianity seems to hijacked by the radical right.
I like his seeming commitment to the environment, and I hope if he is elected he can back it up.
What I don't like, it's hard to look at his past actions in the same way you would a governer or senator, to see how they stood on environmental issues, ect. It's taking him a bit on faith. He has military experience but not Washington experience, that could end up being good or bad.
My biggest beef with Clark is regarding flag burning, although I have no intention of burning a flag, I don't want to hear anything at this point even suggesting constituional amendments of that sort. I understand how as a general the flag has special meaning to him, but I believe that the right to burn our flag symbolically makes it a stronger symbol of freedom. I just worry where his head is when he makes comments regarding the flag, and it seems to contridict his regard for the constitution.
Just my .02, and I wouldn't be dissapointed if he did win the primary, because I think he would be a strong contender for Bush, and a safe way to ease the extreme division in this country, as opposed to a more liberal candidate who I might prefer more. I am tired of the extent of the division these days, but that's just the peace lovin hippy talkin!

[dolo amber]

36. Is that patchouli I smell?

;)

I have issues with the flag thing as well. I mean c'mon, we REALLY have more important things to focus on.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[californiahippie]

38. Hey!

Believe it or not I have mixed feelings about patchouli oil! ;-)
I don't mind it in passing at the health food store but I have a no patchouli rule in my home!
Thanks for the welcome.

[Jerseycoa]

47. I understand

The flag-burning issue was one I had to wrap my mind around. But Clark's commitment to free speech is thorough and reliable or he would have thrown Michael Moore to the wolves first chance he got. As for the flag, I decided to give it to him. I figure he's earned it and is entitled to disagree with me on one or two points. I don't care enough about flag-burning for me to give Clark up over it.

Two things you write I do disagree with.

Clark is as liberal as any of our candidates, maybe including Kucinich. You can take his policy statements and stack them next to anyone on that level and he holds up well or better on traditional liberal issues. Each has a point or two or six not in their favor. I've been a liberal Dem all my life, voting that way for 38 years, and Wes Clark is a liberal to my mind and to people like George McGovern and Andrew Young.

He actually does have significant government experience albeit not as a legislator. He worked in the Office of Management and Budget when he was younger. He was with the Joint Chiefs as director of the Pentagon's Strategic Plans & Policy under Clinton. Both of these positions involved interacting with Congress and congressional staff on a regular basis. This does not count the many times he testified on various issues in front of Congressional committees and negotiated the needs and services of the armed forces under his command, which at times counted in the hundreds of thousands of people. As SACEUR, he reported not only to the Pentagon, but equally to the State Department and the Commander in Chief. He's been getting Washington experience throughout his entire career. Limiting Washington experience to legislative experience is something I think people tend to do automatically, but it limits the analysis greatly and when deciding on a candidate, we need to look at the entire package.

We tend to view his recent lobbying experience in controversial terms, because we all know it's a dirty business. And Clark sees it as the dirty deal it is between legislators and lobbyists and big business, which is why he is strongly advocating busting the whole thing wide open. But Clark also sees, as I do, that you can't get rid of lobbyists, because they are the experts in their fields. I worked in political action and legislation for a labor union for many years. I can tell you it's the lobbyists who essentially write the legislation in concert with legislative staff. This is actually useful, indeed unavoidable, because legislators cannot possibly be up on every last permutation of complex issues.

Clark's own, fairly brief, career as a lobbyist followed on 9/11 when he looked for a way he could contribute to national security and was denied any opportunity by the Bush Administration. For four months he did this lobbying as a free service to the nation. But even after he was a paid lobbyist, his work involved national security and privacy, military and environmental technology. Personally, I would want a lobbyist to be an expert, because the quality of legislation and government purchasing depends critically on credible advice and information. Clark was positioned to provide this kind of advice and information in critical areas as the country struggled with the aftermath of 9/11 and the opening of wartime. It makes sense to me that he would do it and it makes sense to me that somebody might pay him for his labor.

I know you didn't ask specifically about lobbying, but it is a conflict for most liberals, so I threw it in. It's never going to be acceptable for many on the left, this I understand and accept, but it is a question about him I hope will be approached critically and with an open mind as liberals come to judgment on their voting choices.

[LuminousX]

39. 95% for Clark... why do you want to be convinced otherwise?

I have only one fact: He has no legislative/executive history to get a firm reading of what his positions truly are or to see how his positions may have evolved over time. He is as Athena, bursting forth from the skull of Zeus fully formed. For many, that is fine. I'm not that trusting. You are allowed to be that trusting because ultimately, it is your decision.

[Logansquare]

42. That summarizes my feelings pretty well

He's very smart, has a distinguished military career, his issue statements mostly agree with my views, and he clearly dislikes the current regime. So, I don't hate him, in fact, I very much respect him. It's just that I want someone who can also govern, and if he does a successful turn in Congress or as a governor, I'll be for him in the *next* presidential election.

[Poseidon]

41. Clark is a fine candidate

Clark is a good man, you could do a lot worse.

[Walt Starr]

43. Since you're 95% Pro-Clark

and he's still in the race, I see no need to try and convince you otherwise at this time. I would not try to do so unless he dropped out of the race.

[Woodstock]

44. I think he'd beat Bush

So I'm not going to try to sway you away.

[maxr4clark]

49. What do I need to talk about to give you the last 5%?

I'm ready and willing.

[cthrumatrix]

50. no need....wait until several more states...then you can look..it's

too early