Why are Democrats afraid of their own shadows?

[inthebrain]

This is a question I find myself asking after reading some of the posts on this board. Mostly the responses come from people who call themselves "moderate" or "centrists".

This party, the democratic party, used to be a bold group of people loaded with ideas. It was never afraid to make to decisions on issues such as the 1964 civil rights act or FDR New Deal. These are some examples of bold initiatives that gays and todays working poor could really use.

Instead, we have people that are looking to nominate candidates that are "safe". Some examples of these are Wes Clark, Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh. These people remind me of my high school principle. They appear centrist and have always ran their political carreers as not to rock the boat. This thinking led us to NAFTA, WTO and welfare reform.

Nominating any of these people is sure death for this party. They will lose and lose big!!!!

I want bold candidates that arent afraid to rock the boat. Many people in this country want bold candidates that will lead this country to the changes it so desperatly needs. We dont need a bunch of tweedle dee and tweedle dum pasty bums that want to make concession to a party that wants to screw joe six sixpack.

No matter who you nominate, the press is going to hate them. Anybody studying media polarization will tell you that. Nominating candidates who dont stand for what you believe in and hoping they will see the light is stupid.

I see no reason why people in this party would even debate or not consider nominating Kucinisch in 08'. The guy is an old school progressive democrat in the mold of FDR. I never thought I would see the day when democrats would fight a guy who stands for everything they do.

[undergroundpanther]

1. kick!

[electropop]

74. Kucinich is ok, but I'm hot for Barbara Boxer.

I think she can project that presidential image a little more strongly than Kucinich.

Boxer/Conyers is my ticket.

[wli]

2. assassination threats?

[electropop]

73. I was just about to say "Anthrax."

Surely not a coincidence most of the intended recipients were Dems in Congress, and none were Pukes. Dr. Frist has connections to the kinds of medical labs where such things could be cooked up.

[wli]

83. I wonder if anyone's asked Dems if the rethugs have threatened them

[FrenchieCat]

3. You lost me when you listed Wes Clark.....

So, as far as I am concerned, your OP is flawed. :thumbsdown:

And just what did you do in the class war, Senator?
Snip
But what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that.
snip
The way the Democratic Party has been gelded by power and money can be seen in a tax break written into the Internal Revenue Code for a company incorporated here in Nevada. The code exempts from taxation much of the income of any company "which is part of an affiliated group which files a consolidated federal income tax return, the common parent of which was incorporated in Nevada on January 27, 1972 ..." There's only one company in the world that fits this description - Cantor, Fitzgerald and Company Inc., a corporation which (get this) helps other corporations avoid paying taxes. The language in the tax code was tailored specifically to benefit this one company, and a Democratic senator, Pat Moynihan, sponsored it. (We have Barlett and Steele to thank for bringing this to light. Reporters used to do such reporting all the time. Now we cover "news you can use" and dangerous Super Bowl dancers.)

Or there is the fact that the earnings of stock market shares are taxed at a 14 percent rate while the earnings of savings accounts are taxed at a 28 percent rate.

The tax code is shot through with these kinds of loopholes, thanks to the Democratic Party, which in the war on the poor has gone over to the other side, rejecting the view that money made by money should be taxed at the same rate as money made by workers.

Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

"Let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader."--George McGovern endorsing Wes Clark

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Yes. I can't understand why someone would classify Wes Clark

with Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh. I became a Clark supporter precisely because he was bold and did not come off as being afraid of his own shadow, and especially because he was not afraid to stand up for progressive principles and take "controversial" stances like standing up for Michael Moore.

I think we could use a hell of alot more Dems like Wes Clark. I have no use for Dems like Clinton and Bayh who supported the Iraq invasion because they thought it would make them look "tough" on national security.

I'd be curious where the OP got his perception of Clark. Corporate media perhaps?:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

9. Well, I'm sure he thought about what he was doing.....

The inclusion of Wes Clark's name in this OP was deliberate.....although not factual.

Tells you that the OP poster is maybe only 1/2 right, if that in his political analysis and astuteness.

1/2 right means 1/2 wrong....so this is not a good place for me to be...considering the lack of any answers to my post.

[inthebrain]

21. I did answer you

Fact is, Wes Clarke has road kill candidate written all over him. Watching him speak and answer questions from the press is painfull. I can't get a grip as to what that guy is anchored to.

Again, Clarke was a choice because he was running against Bush. Bush is not running in 08 and will get killed by anyone else who runs.

Give me five reasons why I should vote for Clark. None of them better have four star General written on them. I want issues and not character arguments either.

[FrenchieCat]

27. You answered me too slow...considering that your flamebait was

prepared with thought....

It's Clark, not Clark(e)-- and since I corrected you earlier, and you fail to respect that....I realize that I will be waging a losing battle.

Five Reasons or more....

1. Cause he had the best tax plan offered during the primaries.

2. Because he said that he would cut the pork out of the "make want" defense budget. No other said that.

3. Because he knows what he is fuck he is doing when it comes to national security and Foreign policy. and that's what we need AND what we will need.

4. Because he cared more about the Black Rwandans than any other person in Clinton's administration, and the Muslim Albanians civilians more than his job.

5. Because he testified to both houses in congress against going to war in Iraq.

6. Because he believes in Affirmative Action and wrote a brief stating WHY it works.

7. Because his Education plan offered $6,000 to each college student, who's parents made under $150,00 for each of the first two years.....not as tax credit or grants....but as CASH.

8. Because he went on CNN, and told the truth about Bush's war policy....got kicked off the Lou Dobbs show for it, and shortly thereafter his contract was canceled with CNN.

9. Because he stood up for Michael Moore's right to free speech, when he and MM was on CNN, shortly after MM's Oscar speech.

10. Because he is a strong Democrat who is proud of the word liberal and the word Democrat.

11. And yes because he is a fucking general...and a southern telegenic one at that. I ain't stupid now.

12. Because the man is self made and enriching himself has never been top priority on his agenda.

DO YOU WANT MORE? CAUSE I HAVE MORE.

Also, I can provide you with links for everything I have said here.

[July]

54. This does not answer the question of why he's (in your mind)

a "don't rock the boat" candidate.

As far as I can tell, Clark is one of the few former Democratic candidates who isn't afraid to say what he thinks, even when his view is not a popular one. I'm sure that trait served him well in the military and led to his appointment as SACEUR.

He's out of place in your category of supposed wimps.

[inthebrain]

16. I remember watching Clark

After giving a speach in New Hampshire addressing a pro life Republican. THe lady was asking him why he won't overturn Roe V Wade. Watching him carry on with this woman for 10-15 minute was absolutely painfull!!!

He's a smart a guy, I will even say I think he's a good man. Just not a guy I want running for the presidency in 08'.

He made sense in 04 if you consider running him up against a chickenhawk. Yet, I also know the reason why many Dems wanted to run him. It had nothing to do with his smarts, intellect r being able to talk to people. It was the fact that he was a four star general.

THere is nothing worse than nominating a guy just so you can appear like you are just as millitary industrial complex addicted as the Republicans. Even he ran away from Michale Moores comments calling Bush a deserter.

As a mattter of fact he wasnt the only Democrat running away from Michael Moores film. All in the name of appearing fair minded and balanced when truth reveals a reality that is anything BUT fair minded and balanced!!!

I like Wes Clarke, I think he's a good man.Yet,the reasons why many want to nominate him are a little disengenous. I see it as having everything to do with using Republican frame for the debate.

And yes, Wes Clarke is a moderate.

[FrenchieCat]

20. oh well, even you deserve an answer....

First his name is Wes Clark, no E.

Your first example doesn't really describe a thing. Please elaborate on this incident. What did this pro-Repug ask, and what was the gist of this "tortured answer of his" as you so describe...without writing a single utterance of his answer nor even the original question to which he was addressing?

You take great and undue liberty when you say...."I also know the reason why many Dems wanted to run him. It had nothing to do with his smarts, intellect r being able to talk to people. It was the fact that he was a four star general."

Maybe that's your conclusion....cause it makes it easy for you to discount him and all of his supporters....which is what you are aiming at doing....obvious as his name and the title of your op are at odds.

He didn't run away from Michael Moore's comments.....and he was attacked for them. Just cause he didn't repeat what Michael Moore said and adopt it as his own motto, he certainly stuck up for Michael Moore's right to say what he said (which makes him a better man than most, who decided not to vote for him BECAUSE of MM's comments). Explain how's he ran away? And when did he run away from Michael Moore's film? Please provide documentation on that LIE.

You are the one being disingeneous and you are NOT being fair minded.....

Your opinions are not supported by facts.

[inthebrain]

25. Uh, Clark gave a weak response and did a poor job of framing

"He didn't run away from Michael Moore's comments.....and he was attacked for them. Just cause he didn't repeat what Michael Moore said and adopt it as his own motto, he certainly stuck up for Michael Moore's right to say what he said (which makes him a better man than most, who decided not to vote for him BECAUSE of MM's comments). Explain how's he ran away? And when did he run away from Michael Moore's film? Please provide documentation on that LIE.

You are the one being disingeneous and you are NOT being fair minded.....

Your opinions are not supported by facts."

If he didnt say what Michale Moore said then what did he say. YOu accuse me of being disengenouse yet you fail to cite me an exact quote.

Clarke ran from the deserter comment and spun it as "I dont agree with it but Michale Moore has a right to say what he wants."

That's called running!!!!

It's called SPIN!!!!

It is the very definition of being disengenous.

And Clark's replys to the little pro lifer were......"Well..uh...because it's the law of the land"

"I...uh.....can't change the law of the land"

And more such nonsense. In reality he should have told that lady to go screw. Something along the lines of "Because I believe in a womans right to choose and have sovereignty over her own body" would ahve been nice as well.

It was a centrist nonsense response over an issue he should be taking a principled stand on. You want a guy who's afraid to give a direct response and take a firm stand?

Be my guest. You'll lose.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I disagree with your takes.....

He did not run from Michael Moore...nor did he run from Howard Dean's recent comments, nor did he run from Durbin's comments either.

Last I heard, Clark stance on Abortion was pretty clear.....
Clark: It's between a woman and her doctor.

[inthebrain]

33. He didnt run from Durbins comments

He basicly called him an idiot.

(Paraphrased) " Those who use the Nazi comment lose the debate"

What a stand up guy.

And no, Clark never said. "FUCK YEAH, Georgie porgie is a deserter!!!"

He just defended Michael Moores right to speak.

I do agree with some of his positions. I think he is a horrible candidate and doesnt offer up solutions ala a Kucinich. Clark wasnt proposing a department of the peace or avidly attacking NAFTA, WTO and the IMF.

Clark does his fair share of backing down to many Republican attacks.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You see how Disingeneous you are...don't you?

I mean, who do you think you are talking to? Youre credibility is going down the tubes via this thread pretty quickly. Too bad!

News hound. We Watch Fox so you don't have to!
Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity
Wesley Clark, new Fox News contributor, had a chance to test his debate strategies with Hannity last night on Hannity and Colmes. Clark was on to discuss Dick Durbin's comment about treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and if Hannity expected Clark to apologize for Durbin's comment, he was in for a surprise.

The segment opened with a video clip of Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Seeing the complete statement in context with Durbin's intonations and body language gave a very different impression to viewers. Durbin described a detainee chained hand to foot, naked, on the floor covered in feces and urine for 18 to 24 hours. Durbin's point was that this scenario seems more consistant with a Nazi camp or Soviet Gulag or some other mad regime.Durbin was clearly concerned and sad that this had become U.S. policy.

Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over the top, repugnant propaganda".

Clark's response to Hannity was very effective.

" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"
More....
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.phWesley

[inthebrain]

57. THis is hardly a defense of Durbin

" I'm not going to condemn Durbin. How we are percieved at Guantanamo on top of the bad press from Abu Ghraib is important. I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis but we have a policy issue here. How do we deal with it?"

Honsetly, take the fluff away from the comment and read the quote.

"I'll fight anyone who compares our soldiers to Nazis"

This sounds like an endorsement of Durbin?

[sunnystarr]

60. I agree with your take on Clark

It's is really painful watching him .. he's either not a good communicator or not well informed enough of facts and consequently has difficulty in responding. I've also watched him skirt (run from) issues and can't seem to call a spade a spade.

There's no conviction in his verbal or body language.

Hackett did well with no experience because he's a man of his convictions. When you have them you're passionate.

It's also what sunk Kerry (election fraud aside). We were all waiting with baited breath for Kerry to bury Bush with all the openings he had. He didn't do it. He got up to the line and backed away. Instead of taking a stand on his Senate vote for the war and telling the American people that his decision, based on what he was told by the administration, was just plain wrong.

Don't we have anyone of passion in the party besides Dean? Of course they buried Dean but were the Dems decrying the media tactics used to distort that so called "scream speech" to his supporters?

Our enemy is the party in power who's hell bent on it's middle east crusade. With the evidence now out there, where are the men and women of passion who will go on the offence and call them what they are?

The latest news about Bayh trashing Dems is revolting. Like Dems couldn't handle a war ... what kind of shit is this? Not only is he spreading the Rs talking points - he's obviously been sold on them. There should be an outcry with an apology demanded from that turncoat.

[mtnester]

70. Ms. Cat...you DO see how afraid the Republicans are of Clark

after all this don't you?

:)

[Crunchy Frog]

79. I certainly agree with your assessment on that score.

They pop up all the time here on DU with the seemingly sole purpose of attacking Clark. They must be very worried indeed.;)

[Crunchy Frog]

22. Yes, I watched the same scene that you did.

He seemed to me to be exhibiting compassion and understanding while standing by his own principles on that issue. Maybe it bothered you. It impressed me.

Wes Clarke may be a moderate, but I trust the judgement of George McGovern when he said that Wes Clark was a genuine progressive.

I don't know about other people's motives for supporting Clark (other than the ones that I have become well acquainted with, either online or in real life) but my own motives had nothing to do with appearing "military industrial complex addicted". Maybe you can find these people with the disingenous motives and point them out. I haven't met them myself. I'm not interested in using a Republican frame for the debate. I'm interested in completely reframing the issues of national security and foreign policy, and believe that it may take a man with Wes Clark's stature and credentials to accomplish that. Without it, I'm afraid we will be limited to "me too" Democrats like Clinton and Bayh who believe that it's necessary to adopt the Republican frame in order to look "tough".

Michael Moore supported Clark, at least partly, because Clark stood up for him at a time when everyone else was treating him as a pariah. I did not see Clark running away from Michael Moore. Failing to agree with all of his positions is not the same thing as running away.

I don't recall any other of the Democratic candidates sharing a stage with Michael Moore like this.



You're free to support who you want for '08. I certainly won't belittle your choice, indeed if it's Kucinich, I was a delegate for him at my State Convention last year. I just don't appreciate your belittling of other people's choices. I won't even belittle those who support Bayh or Hillary, as I'm sure they believe they have legitimate reasons for their choices as well. I guess maybe I simply believe in a level of civility and respect that others don't. :shrug:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

80. You know not of what you speak

wrt Wes Clark. (no e at the end)

It is easy to see that what you write involves a lot of guessing and misremembering rather than a real familiarity with this outstanding candidate.

Wes Clark IS a liberal, Wes Clark was not supported by so many of us because he is a 4 Star.

Try listening to the man. His keen insight, wit, and sheer intelligence are abundantly clear every time.

His stands on issues are liberal.

He didn't run from Michael Moore, but stated that Moore was entitled to his opinion and added that Moore was not the only one who had called W a deserter.

So much for this topic, as I won't engage and discuss with someone who doesn't do their homework and know the facts and candidate.

[CarolNYC]

50. I like that piece...also this one....

which I just posted in another thread. The link is dead but I'll include it here anyway...

This piece about a speech Clark gave during the primaries in SC is from a much larger piece in Intervention Magazine:

"“The education you get,” Clark says, “depends on where you live.” He explains that in our country the quality of the education one receives is determined by the tax base of the town one lives in, meaning poorer children get a worse education than children in more wealthy neighborhoods. “This country cannot afford to leave students behind,” Clark emphasizes, “education is the key to the American Dream!”

The speech is delivered with strength and with passion; the general gives the impression that what he says is what he believes."
(snip)
"“We are in this together,” a theme Clark would return to several times, as he attacks Bush’s tax cut. “I’m going to put our children at the top of the list. They are going to be my first priority.”

What education is really about is money, funding education programs, funding teachers, funding the repair of school buildings. Clark is not discussing tax cuts for individuals, not the American Dream as a new SUV. For him all Americans must sacrifice for the good of this country, a good that cannot happen without our sacrifice.

“There is plenty of money; it’s just not in the right places. The wealthy need to be patriotic and to give some money back!”

For Wesley Clark, then, redistribution of income is not a dirty idea, not unpatriotic as it is for George Bush, and even for some of the skittish other Democratic candidates. For Clark it is the essence of patriotism.

Although Clark’s speech was on education in rural areas, it was also about his overall views. The candidate kept returning to the venerable liberal theme that we are a community of people and as a community all of us must contribute to the solution of our problems. The military is not an individualist institution, regardless of the "Army of One" ads, nor one that emphasizes materialism. Clark’s three decades in this institution does not have him today singing the glories of individualism and the dream of financial enrichment, he is more comfortable with sacrifice for the common good.

While the national media carries the Republican message that Howard Dean is a liberal, Wesley Clark, under the media’s radar screen, speaks like a Kennedy-Johnson -- dare I say the word? -- liberal. Dean, being slammed hard, would never talk straightforward about taxing the rich to pay for programs for the poor. Wesley Clark is doing exactly that.

It took a Cold War politician, Richard Nixon, to go to communist China. Will it take a retired military general to rehabilitate liberalism?""

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?allstories=1&catid=14&file=index&name=News&op=modload

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

4. Some people think it's important to win an election now and then. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. The man in your avatar didn't almost win the Dem nomination

by being cautious and centrist.

He did get assassinated, though, and some of the more chicken-hearted Dems may have that in mind whenever they're too tempted to do something bold.

[inthebrain]

6. Its those same people

Who lost us the house, senate, Governorships and the executive branch.

Nominating moderates or DINOS has been a losing proposition for a long time. Its even lost you election that you won (ie 2000). YOur not going to win Republican voters by doing that.

Swing voters see you as useless and wishy washy. In part, they are right!!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Bwahahahahahahaha.

Yes, clearly what they've been doing has been working like a fucking charm.

[AJH032]

7. because the general electorate is not that liberal

If the Democratic nominee starts proposing socialist (or near-socialist) ideas, the American public will reject that. We're a country driven by capitalism. I'm not saying we necessarily need a 100% centrist to win, but we need someone who is more appealing to the general electorate. There is ground between being a very liberal democrat and a moderate democrat. We need someone who is pro-business in a Democratic way.

[QC]

10. The Republicans have spent over thirty years relentlessly propagandizing

the electorate. That's why poor people will tell you, full of conviction, that giving tax cuts to the rich people jobs for the poor, and the like.

In that time, we on the Left have mostly talked among ourselves. We haven't prepared the ground for more radical ideas, which is the problem with the idea, popular on DU, that if we just nominate a Kucinich all will be well. You have to till the soil first, and we haven't been doing that.

Howard Zinn, in his book Declarations of Independence, argues that the Right controls the debate in this country by keeping the acceptable range of opinion very narrow. He's right, and we need to counter that before we can make any real changes in this country.

[CrispyQ]

18. And to the OP, may I also suggest

"Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Latkoff. It's about framing the debate, & as QC pointed out the repubs have been doing now for 30 years. It's not just about candidates, it about how we frame the issues.

We are way behind the 8-ball on this!


Other framing sources:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=252

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/

[Raiden]

11. How would you define socialist?

Communist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Marxist-Leninist, Chavezista, Labour, etc.

Socialism is a very broad label. I'm a Social Democrat, but I guess I often call myself a socialist instead. As I see it, America could use some socialism right now. A new New Deal if you will.

[AJH032]

15. I define socialism like this

being against the idea that private business should exist, where the government controls every industry. America is brainwashed into seeing that as bad, like communism. You might support some socialist ideas, but the general electorate does not.

[Armstead]

14. Buuuulshit

Try taking away "socialist" programs like Medicare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, etc. You'll find out how liberal America really is.

Why the hell do you think the GOP is afraid to show their real cards? Why are they so opposed to disclosure? Because they know something Democrat centrists seem to have forgotten. America is more liberal than anyone admits these days.

Also liberalism is NOT anti-business or anti-capitalist. In fact it is PRO business, More pro business than Corporate Republicans and Corporate democrats, in the sense of protecting such capitalistic ideas as competition, domestic industry and economic diversity.

[AJH032]

17. I don't disagree with what you said

You're right, liberalism is actually better for business than conservatism, however, when we get too far to the left, the right will label us as socialist, and that turns off a huge amount of registered voters.

[fighttheevilempire]

26. The right will label the left as socialist...

no matter what happens. You're still thinking, stop that. Repugs aren't labeling the left as a realistic assessment of policy. They do it because it's propaganda that panders to their nutty base and leads on the under-educated moderate swing voters. We need a voice who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade. I was very pro-Kerry last election, even at the primaries. However, I still wish he had been more vocal and stronger against the Rove political machine. So let's get a candidate who's strong and really pushes the RW's buttons. They're giving us issues to run on constantly. Iraq, CIA leaks, tax breaks for the rich and corporate, backdoor Creationism... I mean come on, every time * chooses a platform he goes against not just public will, but against what's really for the betterment of the country. Everybody prays, but * has conference calls on speakerphone with Cheney, Rove, and the Holy Spirit. It scares the shit out of me, and we need to stop this really soon. I see people talking about it taking 8 years, 10 years for the Dems to be able to really gain enough to be powerful again... if it does, there might not be anything left to save.

[Raiden]

47. When doesn't the right label us as socialist?

I doubt that the electorate is as apprehensive of socialism as you'd think. It's only a matter of framing the debate.

I think that the electorate is pleased with the benefits of such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and their ilk (which are socialist by your definition); and frankly I think we would all be better off with more of that, like universal health care.


Also, by your definition, unions would be socialist. "Eek, commie pinkos, run away!!!"

[Armstead]

62. "Left" is a meaningless term Common sense is a better yardstick

The paranoia about going too far "left" is one of our greatest problems. This isn't about trying to recreate the SDoviet Union.

Nobody -- liberals included -- wants a stifling abusive bureaucracy telling them what to do. But people do want common sense rules and regulations. They also don't want to see the system abused and ripped off.

Is a real committment to universal affordable "too left" or is it meeting a tangible need of society and individuals? Heck, employers are among the victims of the current system, because they too are getting crushed by the skyrocketing costs of healthcare.

Democrats lose when they don't clearly defend the interests of average people against the abuses of the powerful. That's not a matter of "left."

[kodi]

12. they are unwilling to get bloody in defense of their alleged principles

there are too many well-heeled college educated "consultants" to the democratic party who never busted their asses just to make ends meet. once the going gets tough, they bail out.

over at josh marshall's site michael lind is spinning his typical bullshit on how the democrats have to be more like social conservative republicans to win.

i disagree. the only thing in the middle of the road is road kill.

so, to answer your question, too many democratic party leaders are pussies who run from a fight.

the only thing that the Right respects is strength and they laugh at and scorn those who accommodate them.

[CrispyQ]

19. Excellent framing!!!

"the only thing in the middle of the road is road kill."

Wonderful!! I'm going to remember this! :rofl:

[CrispyQ]

13. Many have fallen for the 'fear the liberal' spew,

so the last thing they want is to be seen as is liberal. What they don't realize is that people are generally more liberal than they think they are.

Liberals brought us child labor laws, 40 hour work week, weekends & holidays, health care, OSHA & safety standards, social security & on & on & on.

We need to take back the liberal label & wear it proudly. The right has ambushed this word, yet it stands for good & decent things! Liberty is based on the same root word, yet people don't fear/hate that word cuz the 'pukes have not done their spin on it.

Finally, we need to insist that our elected representatives stand for our liberal values or vote them out of office, since that is all they really care for anyway -- another term.

[FrenchieCat]

24. I agree....which is why

The OP author has pissed me off including Wes Clark in that list of "Scared Democrats".

When I see this....



or When I heard Wes Clark here, I have to disagree with the OP...totally.

MAHER: Now, you’re a Democrat. You said that last week.

CLARK: Absolutely.

MAHER: Okay. I’m just – I’m just wondering, of all the people who has the credentials to say, “liberal” is not a bad word, I’m wondering if I could get you to say that.

CLARK: Well, I’ll say it right now.

MAHER: Good for you.

CLARK: We live in a liberal democracy.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: That’s what we created in this country. That’s our—

MAHER: That’s right. Thank you.

CLARK: That’s in our Constitution. Let me follow on this, okay? I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment.

MAHER: Right.

CLARK: It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_090503.htm

As far as I am concerned OP is shitty.

[CrispyQ]

72. I think Kucinich & Clark are both fine Dems.

I would vote for either of them.

Thanks for sharing that clip of Clark & Maher & the link to the rest.

"...this country was founded on the principlas of the Enlightenment." Excellent!

[flaminbats]

23. when you insult me, you insult my shadow..

I'm not any more afraid of my shadow than my shadow is of me!!! If my shadow heard you say that, your shadow would have it's untouchable ass kicked

My shadow can follow me anywhere..but it will never kick my ass!!! There is nothing to fear but fear itself..or visa verse ;)

[LittleClarkie]

28. How is Clark safe

And how can you lump him in with folks who are "running their political careers" when he's not been a politican for that long?

And you answered your own question, I think. Even Johnson knew that in signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he was signing away Dem rule for a generation. And he's been pretty much right.

Such bold actions contain consequences.

[goodhue]

29. I agree wholeheartedly

http://www.kucinich.us /

[followthemoney]

31. The Democrats, or at least their supporters need to...

own the means of production.

It as simple as this. Democrats can't control their own image when the means of producing that image is owned by corporatist Republicans.

To take back the country you must first take back the media.

[FrenchieCat]

32. But, but, but....

Kucinich wasn't always for women's reproductive rights....was he?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has voted to impose restrictions on abortion rights during his four terms in the House, but earlier this year said his position has changed and he's a strong advocate. Kucinich voted present when the House considered a ban in July 2002
http://www.muhajabah.com/muslims4kucinich/archives/007060.php


Ohio Presidential Hopeful Pivots Over to Pro-Choice Camp
Ex-abortion foe Kucinich defends move
by Marc Sandalow
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0223-05.htm
During his eight years in the House, Kucinich voted with abortion-rights advocates barely 10 percent of the time. Twice in the past three years, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America, gave him a rating of "zero."

On the stump this past week, and in an interview with The Chronicle, Kucinich now describes himself as "pro-choice."


http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=2003111801060
Gephardt, Kucinich lean furthest right on abortion
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), another presidential candidate, has been traditionally considered an adversary of abortion rights. Throughout his terms in Congress, Kucinich has voted consistently to impose restrictions on abortion rights.

[inthebrain]

34. I agree with you on that point

But that view HAS changed. I can tolerate that.

Kucinich wasnt out to overturn Roe V Wade when he was supporting abortion restrictions. Nor was he a Pro Fetus/anti baby right-to- lifer. His response to abortion was living wage initiatives and free health care.

It wasnt fuck the baby and fuck the mother!!! Very different from the Delays and Lotts positions.

But in comparison to Clark, I would question his motives for questioning the Iraq war. He was invlolved in the Kosovo bombing that killed thousands of innocent woman and children. His history on that front is quite sketchy.

He was not exactly proposing a "department of peace"!!!

Kucinich has recieved the endorsement of Ani Difranco who aint exactly in the anti choice crowd. She is one of the more prominent feminists working today.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. He actually did propose a "Department of Peace"

or at least something with approximately the same function even though with a different name.

As far as the thousands of civilians killed in Kosovo, could you provide a link for those numbers? The numbers that I've seen cited were more in the neigborhood of 500. And Clark wanted to use lower flying aircraft and ground troops to lower civilian casualties at the expense of greater risk to our soldiers. He was overridded by the Pentagon on that.

As I said before, I have nothing against Kucinich, having been a delegate for him at my State Convention. I just don't think that you do your candidate any credit when you try to promote him by belittling someone else's candidate.

I would not ask you to support Clark, only to have a little bit of respect for the people here who do support him.

[inthebrain]

37. I dont disrespect his supporters

It's called constructive critisism.

I don't like Clark as a candidate. I'll see if I can find a link to the number of Casualties in Kosovo.

You should also know that Clark wanted to expand that war to the Russians!!! He's a little too unstable for my tastes which is very different than making a bold choice.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Damn....you are really so badly misinformed....

But I guess that's what happens when one lands into the "I hate Clark" Hacksites that sprung up all over as a cottage industry. The right, cause, hell, they didn't want to lose....and the extreme Left,aka the "white liberals", cause although they didn't seem to care about Rwanda, and now don't seem to give a Fuck about Darfur, they'll care when they'll care and want to shake a finger at someone. It's called Intellectual Dishonesty. Yuk!

Sad, sad, sad! :shrug:

Please know that the Pristina Airport incident only demonstrates what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is.

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........

The first from that article by Elizabeth Drew (a real journalist who writes for The New York Book Review:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."
Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

Think back to Berlin in 1945. General George S. Patton urged Eisenhower to let him drive the Russian army back east across the Russian border. He understood better than the naive Eisenhower and Churchill that Russia had become the biggest threat to the west and was not about to return conquered territory back to the allies or the original governments. He also understood that Russia's army, while victorious over the depleted German army, was in no shape to resist the allies. In a very real sense we missed an opportunity to avoid the cold war entirely. Republicans, conservatives, and hawks generally agree with this hindsight assessment. It highlights the irony of political partisanship that the same people condemn General Clark for essentially the same behavior. Clark very much resembles Patton: aggressive, hard-nosed, a brilliant commander, and despised by his peers and superiors - one would think Republicans would appreciate him for that.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxville/local_editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip

More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians. When fewer than 200 lightly armed Russian peacekeepers barnstormed from Bosnia to the Pristina airport in Kosovo to upstage the arrival of NATO peacekeepers.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO,

a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya.

Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

Brig Freer was in charge of the Parachute Regiment and Gurkha soldiers who were the first, apart from special forces, to enter Kosovo, on June 12. The report, prepared for the Ministry of Defence's comprehensive "lessons learnt" exercise on the Kosovo war, and copied to Gen Jackson, is unusually strong criticism of the command structures in the operation. Because there was little or no Serb opposition to the arrival of the Nato peacekeepers, the failings identified were not fatal.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.

Macko Jacko Supported the War in Iraq
The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....

[inthebrain]

42. Can you say poor case of cause and effect.

"Please know that the Pristina Airport incident only demonstrates what an outstanding leader and commander Clark is.

here's a few of views, and please pay close attention to what PUTIN ENDED UP DOING IN CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS........"

Dare I say you are almost as bad as Republicans in your defense of this lunatic. There is no cause and effect between Putins actions in Kosovo and Putind actions in Chechenya.

Dare I say, although Michale Jackson doesnt have a clean record himself, he made the right decisions. Were you that willing to extend the war to Russia ala Clarks reccomendations?

ANd the Yugoslavian government lists civilian casualities at the highest 3000 and lowest 1200. The human rights report is not an accurate report and if you took the time to read you'd know that they admit it!!!!!!!

As far as Kucinich's stand on abortion, Clarks view at the time was much more to the right!!!!

<<<Undecided on partial-birth abortion
Q: Would you sign the partial-birth abortion bill, which is about to be passed by Congress?
CLARK: I don't know whether I'd sign that bill or not. I'm not into that detail on partial-birth abortion. In general, I'm pro-life--excuse me, I'm pro-abortion rights.

Source: CNN, Crossfire Aug 1, 2003 >>>>

<<<Partial birth ban ok if exceptions made for woman's health
Clark said he supports a woman's right to an abortion within the confines of a Supreme Court ruling that allows states to impose limited restrictions on when the procedure can occur. Clark's remarks appeared to refine those he made earlier this month, when he suggested that there should be no time limit imposed on a woman seeking an abortion. In his latest statement, Clark repeated that he supported "Roe v. Wade as modified by Casey," a reference to a 1992 ruling that allows states to impose limited restrictions. Asked when Roe v. Wade stipulates that life begins, Clark said: "I'm not going to get into a debate on viability. Viability is a standard determined by a doctor, and I'm not going to get into a specific time frame." Clark also said he would support legislation banning partial birth abortions as long as an exception is included based on the health of the woman. Earlier this month, Clark suggested that no time limit should be placed on a woman's right to an abortion.
Source:

Paul Schwartzman, Washington Post, Page A10 Jan 23, 2004>>>>

He's not very clean and clear on this issue.

He aint the poster boy you make him out to be.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Honey, I think you need some links at this point

You know.....the ones that you were looking for?

Like Clark's cleaner than Kucinich on this one. He's a man who is Pro-Choice....clearly.....whether you like it or not.

you might want to nitpick on how it articulated that....cause it suits you, but the bottomline is that nothing you read makes him anything but pro-choice....and maybe more so than some would feel was "safe" (you know...what this thread is all about to begin with?)

So what's your beef exactly? You need for Clark to be smooth talker and a perfect politician at all times? As far as I'm concerned, this is a red herring. That's the way the press reported it....and that's the way they wanted it.

I know how it works....and if you support Kucinich, you know how it does too.

And in reference to the Russian incident, Putin and Chechnya.....you just don't know much about foreign affairs, which is apparent.

Since you're ain't providing links, it makes every single thing you write from this point on, suspect.

You come to the DU boards linkless yet talking a bunch of smack. that's downright disrespectful of members that you are calling yourself debating with. lacking sources of information is a real deal breaker when one is debating issues that are factual and not so open to opinionated personal interpretation.

You see not more than 500 died due to the Kosovo bombing (and I provided a bonafide source that you just cast away without you offering any bonafide source link for verification).

I mean really.....you should at least come to DU correct and represent.

But that's not what you are doing.

Really pitiful, IMO. :shrug:

[inthebrain]

48. I know more about foreign affairs

In my little pinky than you have in your whole body.

It was Clark that critisized the bombing campaign in Kosovo leading to more acts of genocide. Funny how he could say that and continue to drop bombs. I would think a real progressive would have refused the order.

Then again, Clark also wanted to expand the war to Russia. And it wasnt Putin BTW, it was Yeltsin. Funny how you avoid that point.

And Clark has more flip flops on the abortion question than Bush has on the Iraq war. I have posted those quotes with dates and sources. Those are much more reliable than links.

I wonder if you've ever read progressive opinions on the Kosovo war? Howard Zinn cites some good information that war could have been avoided with a diplomatic solution. Chomsky even cites Clarks quote about the bombings leading to more Genocides.

I think those two are more up on foreign affairs than Clark.

Otherwise, you need to stop acting like a child and listen to constructive critisizm. Your straw man arguments and Op Ed peices are only digging you a deeper hole.

[CarolNYC]

52. hey inthebrain,

It's obvious you really know little, if anything, about Clark. As such, I can understand where you might have the deep dislike or distrust of the guy that you show. If I, an original Kucinich supporter who still loves and respects the man and a real peacenik my whole life, had not done the research I did on Gen Clark, I might feel the same way....

I was introduced to him in a salon.com interview that he did right before the Iraq War and was intrigued...but it was oh so hard for me to think I was supporting a lifelong military man, a four star General. It went SO against my nature. Yet, I was curious enough about him to do my research on him. The more I researched, the more I admired and respected him...until I became a full blown supporter.

Now, I understand there is a subset of folks who try to learn as little as possible about the man because they fear they might find something that contradicts the image of him they so hope to hold dear but I hope you're not one of them.

Here are resources to get you started on your quest for knowledge. If you ignore these and continue posting in the manner you have, then it's obvious that you just really want to dislike the guy no matter what and then that puts your posts in perspective.

Thanks...here's the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

[inthebrain]

53. Carol, what do you think of this?

Ordered attack on Russian troops in Kosovo
Wesley Clark is a little off the handle. Now Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe The Nation runs liberal.

<<On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units-an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the commander of the NATO international force K-FOR, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting WWIII for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.
After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered the American Admiral James Ellis to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply either. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians might well have been undermined.

Source: The Nation, Opionion, "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment" Sep 17, 2003>>>

Is this your example of a foreign policy genius?

Definitly not the guy I want replacing Bush. Bush is an awful and I mean god awful foreign policy analyst as well is his staff.

I dont want a guy on a Dem ticket prone to making the same decisions. Clark may not agree with Iraq but his own foreign policy designs and judgements worry me as well.

[CarolNYC]

59. Thanks for asking.

Obviously you haven't read at least the NY Review of Books article by Elizabeth Drew that I directed you to (among other things)...Here's an excerpt:

"Berger, who has not endorsed any of the presidential candidates, also speaks highly of Clark. Richard Holbrooke, under whom Clark served at the Dayton negotiations, is a friend of Clark's and supports his candidacy. Michael Gordon, the Times's able military reporter, who covered the Kosovo war, wrote of Clark in early October that "while NATO's military campaign was not perfect by any means...the general's judgment of... critical issues seems pretty solid when viewed in perspective; a humanitarian wrong was righted and NATO won its first and only war." Gordon also defended Clark's desire to try to prevent the Russians, who rushed a small troop unit to the Pristina airport after hostilities had supposedly ended, from establishing their own sector in Kosovo, completely independent of NATO. (In the end, the Russians backed down and accepted an arrangement that put them indirectly under NATO command.)

Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."

I spoke recently with retired General Walter Kross, a former four-star Air Force general under whom Clark served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs in the mid-1990s. For two years Kross worked with Clark from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night six days a week, and sometimes on Sundays. He disagrees strongly with Shelton and Cohen about Clark's abilities and character. When I asked him why Clark was disliked by some military officers, Kross replied,

He's not the army general officer from central casting. He's the extra-ordinary senior officer who can do extra-ordinary work on the entire range of challenges senior officers have to face—including Kosovo and the Dayton Accords, on which he worked himself into exhaustion. No army officer from central casting can do that work, but Wes did. He added, "Some senior officers misinterpret drive, energy, and enthusiasm for overambition...he is outside the mold and that makes some other officers uncomfortable.""

Here's a link to the whole article:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

You really should read it, along with Clark's description of the event in his book...and a lot of the other stuff I linked...really. Unless, of course, you're really dead set on making sure you don't find anything that might contradict your notion of Clark as the anti-Christ (hyperbolizing there...I know you didn't call him the anti-Christ).

As for The Nation, definitely strongly left, definitely with a strong anti-Clark spin...but they did publish this very nice endorsement of Gen Clark from Barbara Lawton, where among other things, she writes:

"There was an important subtext to my examination. I do not intend to contribute to the election of one more defensive, arrogant male. When I challenged and provoked and interrupted Clark, I closely watched the former general. His reaction was uniformly one of intellectual curiosity. The man is "scary" smart. And gracious, and respectful.

Clark comes to this contest unburdened by partisan baggage. But he stands firm on issues of importance to Democrats. He's pro-choice and pro-affirmative action; he believes in investing in public education and job creation. He'll enforce and strengthen our environmental laws. Clark is an intuitive Democrat.

Now, as we hurtle into the primary season and voters across the country sequentially suffer the cacophony of political ads and intraparty sniping, note that Clark is hoisting large ideas as the banner under which we may gather. Take two issues: healthcare and tax reform. His healthcare plan will extend insurance to 31.8 million more Americans and cover every child in America. He'll do all this by cutting costs, emphasizing preventive care and taking back the tax cuts Bush gave to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year. And Clark's Families First Tax Reform plan eliminates federal income taxes for families of four earning $50,000 or less. His plan gives a $2,250 tax credit per child to every family earning under $100,000. It pays for tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes and raising the marginal rate on income over $1 million a year. It's about time someone stood up for the hardest pressed."

You should read this whole one too....
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040202&s=lawton

Back to the Pristina thing, there is so much more information out there that vindicates Clark...I just don't have it at my fingertips and no time to hunt for it now...You can probably easily find it if you google it, though...That is, of course, if you care to find it.

Thanks for the discussion...and do considering doing a little research, OK??

Be well....

[inthebrain]

63. I find the recent endorsement disturbing

I'll read his spin on the event. I doubt I'll buy it.

The reality of the matter is that the Russians had a much better reprt with the Serbs. Wesley Clarks decision to send troops to fight them off would have ended in a large scale disaster.

I have read Zinns, Chomsky's and Huffingtons take on the affair. I find them to be quite credible individuals and I don't trust Sandy Berger.

[CarolNYC]

65. "I'll read his spin on the event. I doubt I'll buy it."

And that just about says everything one needs to know, doesn't it? You have your preconceived notions and you're sticking with them...If that's what makes you happy, I guess....

I tried...

Be well...Carol

[CarolNYC]

61. Oh, and what do you think of this? Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986572&mesg_id=1987197

[inthebrain]

64. ?

"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."

We have something like that called the IMF. It's a failure and extremely corrupt.

It would be nice to see some details. He could start with who he would select to run such a department. I would say campaign finance reform should be a top priority before we create a cabinet position devoted to aiding other countries economic affairs.

[inthebrain]

66. What do you say to this........

I am taking a principled stand against nominating this guy. I don't see how anyone could oppose the war in Iraq and nomate a fellow with so much blood on his hands.

I could live with defending Kerry. Heck the right had to make a ton of shit up to take that guy down. Nominating Clark is going to make us all look like a bunch of hypocrits. Theres no way I am going to take a principled stand against this Iraq war (I oppose war) and nominate a guy who engaged in war crimes. The right isnt going to have to work very hard to dig this up.

The only difference, this time it will be true!!!

Keep in mind that Clark also opposes an international criminal court because it puts many of our soldiers at risk.

Again, this is another Progressive source. These are not right wing talking points.


What you talkin' bout, Wes?
General Clark's Yugoslavia problem


Though Clinton is considered to be the poster boy for the "New Democrat,"historians may end up labeling him as the symbol of the Last Democrat.
By out GOP-ing the Republicans during Clinton's two terms in office, theDonkey Party is now facing an identity crisis. And the field of candidatesout there right now, with Howard Dean leading the mule pack, doesn't appear tohave enough guts or vision to appeal to the millions of disillusioned,war-weary, unemployed and underemployed would-be Democratic voters inAmerica itching for "regime change" in Washington D.C.

The notable exception is Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who presently, iftruth be told, has a slightly better chance of winning his party'snomination than actor Gary Coleman has at winning the Californiagubernatorial re-call election, thanks to a "liberal" news media who hashelped to keep the Kucinich campaign far away from the consciousness of thenews starved masses.

Actually, Gary Coleman's trademark question from his "Different Strokes"days is entirely appropriate to ask of Clinton's Rhodes Scholar buddy,retired General Wesley Clark -- the most recent addition to the field ofDemocratic presidential hopefuls.What you talkin' bout Wes?

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15670

** Edited by Admin. Please do not post more than four paragraphs from copyrighted sources. **

[FrenchieCat]

76. Thank.....

finally a link a paste up of an entire article.

But look, it's someone's op ed. Guess I should pretend this article is factual and well researched or something?

You are a sad, sad, sad fairy tale narrator.

[inthebrain]

78. Funny how I just backed that up with an article by Amnesty International

[FrenchieCat]

75. Yeah....what-ever

I've got what school you're coming from now! Thanks for letting us know.

[inthebrain]

77. Maybe you wanna tell that to Amnesty International

Perhaps they dont know shit about foreign affairs either.

On the issue of the legitimacy of attacking a television station in general, reference has been made to a list of categories of military objectives included in a working document produced by the ICRC in 1956, the Draft Rules for the Limitations of Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War.5 In paragraph (7) the list included “The installations of broadcasting and television stations”. However, the French text of the Draft Rules made clear that such installations must be of “fundamental military importance.”6 Also, Article 7 of the Draft Rules stated that even the listed objects cannot be considered military objectives if attacking them “offers no military advantage”.

Whatever the merit of the Draft Rules, it is doubtful that they would have supported the legitimacy of the attack on the RTS headquarters. In any case the Draft Rules were discussed at the 1957 International Conference of the Red Cross, for which they had been prepared, but in the following years the approach of drawing up lists of military objectives was abandoned in favour of the approach eventually adopted by Protocol I in Article 52.

The attack on the RTS headquarters may well have violated international humanitarian law even if the building could have been properly considered a military objective. Specifically, that attack would have violated the rule of proportionality under Article 51(5)(b) of Protocol I and may have also violated the obligations to provide effective warning under Article 57(2)(c) of the same Protocol.


Article 51(5)(b) prohibits attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life ... which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” The ICRC Commentary specified that “the expression ‘concrete and direct’ was intended to show that the advantage concerned should be substantial and relatively close, and that advantages which are hardly perceptible and those which would only appear in the long term should be disregarded.”7 NATO must have clearly anticipated that civilians in the RTS building would have been killed. In addition, it appears that NATO realized that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period. SACEUR General Wesley Clark has stated: “We knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There’s no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us”.8 In other words, NATO deliberately attacked a civilian object, killing 16 civilians, for the purpose of disrupting Serbian television broadcasts in the middle of the night for approximately three hours. It is hard to see how this can be consistent with the rule of proportionality.


Article 57(2) (c) of Protocol I requires that “Effective warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.” Official statements, issued prior to the RTS bombing, on whether NATO was targeting the media were contradictory. On 8 April, Air Commodore Wilby stated that NATO considered RTS as a “legitimate target in this campaign” because of its use as “an instrument of propaganda and repression”. He added that radio and television would only become “an acceptable instrument of public information” if President Miloševiæ provided equal time for uncensored Western news broadcasts for two periods of three hours a day.9 And on the same day, General Jean Pierre Kelche, French armed forces chief, said at a press conference, “We are going to bust their transmitters and their relay stations because these are instruments of propaganda of the Miloševiæ regime which are contributing to the war effort.”10

But at the NATO press conference on the following day (9 April), when asked by a reporter for a clarification of NATO’s policy on media in the FRY NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea said: “...whatever our feelings about Serb television, we are not going to target TV transmitters directly...in Yugoslavia military radio relay stations are often combined with TV transmitters but we attack the military target. If there is damage to the TV transmitters, it is a secondary effect but it is not the primary intention to do that.” Jamie Shea also wrote to the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists on 12 April that “Allied Force targets military targets only and television and radio towers are only struck if they are integrated into military facilities...There is no policy to strike television and radio transmitters as such.”


It appears that the statements by Wilby and Shea came after some members of the media had been alerted to the fact that an attack on the television station had already been planned. According to Eason Jordan, the President of CNN International, in early April he received a telephone call from a NATO official who told him that an attack on RTS in Belgrade was under way and that he should tell CNN’s people to get out of there. Jordan told the official that loss of life at RTS would be significant and, given the short notice, unavoidable. The official persuaded NATO to abort the mission (apparently half an hour before the plane would have reached its target). Jordan believes that NATO’s subsequent public threats against Serbian “propaganda” organs were made in order to minimize civilian casualties in a future attack.11

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NjrJN3lA5PsJ:www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/docs/natorep_all.doc+site:www.amnesty.org+site:www.amnesty.org+Wesley+Clark&hl=en&start=2

[FrenchieCat]

81. Yeah.....the incident was fully investigated

And neither Clark, Clinton or Gore were deemed war criminals. Sorry to disappoint you.

You must remember that Wes Clark submitted himself to a full investigation.....unlike other Generals. In the end the 16 people that perished in that attack were part of the 487-511 estimated civilian casualties in the 79 day war to stop the genocide. The lives saved vastly surpass the lives losts. No....none of it is pretty, but war is hell. Again, a war that even the Pope deemed as noble.

Clark reads Chombsky, you'll be glad to know. So he's aware that he's given orders that resulted in the death of innocents. It's not something that he's proud of...

Too bad that you don't take up this kind of energy at Freeper sites attacking Bush and Cheney and Powell and the entire U.S. Armed Forces! Such a waste of your energy!

You should go vote for Kucinich and call it a day. Since you obviously believe him to be the answer to your needs, that is certainly what I would recommend.

Me? I'll keep supporting Wes Clark, someone who I feel is as admirable as Kucinich, if not more so, and has a much better chance at actually changing things for the better (whether you believe or agree with it, I really don't give a damn).


foreign media representatives were apparently forewarned of the attack (Amnesty International Report, ibid). As Western journalists were reportedly warned by their employers to stay away from the television station before the attack, it would also appear that some Yugoslav officials may have expected that the building was about to be struck. Consequently, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair blamed Yugoslav officials for not evacuating the building, claiming that "hey could have moved those people out of the building. They knew it was a target and they didn’t … t was probably for … very clear propaganda reasons." (ibid, citing Moral combat – NATO at war, broadcast on BBC2 on 12 March 2000). Although knowledge on the part of Yugoslav officials of the impending attack would not divest NATO of its obligation to forewarn civilians under Article 57(2), it may nevertheless imply that the Yugoslav authorities may be partially responsible for the civilian casualties resulting from the attack and may suggest that the advance notice given by NATO may have in fact been sufficient under the circumstances.

The proportionality or otherwise of an attack should not necessarily focus exclusively on a specific incident. (See in this regard para. 52, above, referring to the need for an overall assessment of the totality of civilian victims as against the goals of the military campaign). With regard to these goals, the strategic target of these attacks was the Yugoslav command and control network. The attack on the RTS building must therefore be seen as forming part of an integrated attack against numerous objects, including transmission towers and control buildings of the Yugoslav radio relay network which were "essential to Milosevic’s ability to direct and control the repressive activities of his army and special police forces in Kosovo" (NATO press release, 1 May 1999) and which comprised "a key element in theYugoslav air-defence network" (ibid, 1 May1999).
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVB3


You are now dismissed.

NEXT!

[mtnester]

82. Ms. Cat...

Again I say, they are scared to daggone death of Clark

[FrenchieCat]

41. self delete

see next post...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

46. You don't have to say you "hate" Wes Clark.....

it shows in your non-sourced accusations.

Hell, I went and was reading the Kucinich 2008 thread, and lo and behold! You are right in there dissing Wes Clark. What a surprise! NOT.

Hell, I don't even think you're reading what I'm writing.

Youre points are not amusing at all. They painfully smell like Intellectual Dishonesty....something that my senses don't suffer well.

Cause & effect--You launch baseless sourceless attacks, and you end up looking the less for it. That's your cause and effect. Doh!

[CarolNYC]

51. Department of International Development

Hey Crunchy, you might be thinking of this from I think pages 193-194 of the hardcover version of 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 old Clark04 site too but I don't know where....

[FrenchieCat]

36. You are wrong AGAIN....

Do you know why Clark was retired right after the Kosovo War?
Didn't think so.

Clark was retired because he kept on insisting that he wanted boots on the ground, and he wanted low flying Apache helicopter to do the bombing...not high altitude Bombers. Do you know why? Because High altitude bombers tend to kill civilians because it is harder to aim accurately at your target from way up high. Boots on the Ground was what he wanted because again, that not the US just dropping bombs from way up high...but putting soldiers lives on the line, on the terrain for a more efficient mission....IF the mission is supposed to be worth it.

Do you know why he didn't get what he wanted? Because the Clinton administration and the Republican Defense Secretary didn't want any American soldier casualties considering what had happened in Somalia, and the fact that Clinton didn't need that kind of press.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm


Further you are wrong on your statement that the Kosovo bombing killed thousands although more than should have been. Also note that the bombing saved the lives of many more than it destroyed. That's why the pope labeled Kosovo the last honorable war fought.

V Casualty Figures
53. In its report, Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign, Human Rights Watch documented some 500 civilian deaths in 90 separate incidents. It concluded: "on the basis available on these ninety incidents that as few as 488 and as many as 527 Yugoslav civilians were killed as a result of NATO bombing. Between 62 and 66 percent of the total registered civilian deaths occurred in just twelve incidents. These twelve incidents accounted for 303 to 352 civilian deaths. These were the only incidents among the ninety documented in which ten or more civilian deaths were confirmed." Ten of these twelve incidents were included among the incidents which were reviewed with considerable care by the committee (see para. 9 above) and our estimate was that between 273 and 317 civilians were killed in these ten incidents. Human Rights Watch also found the FRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia to be largely credible on the basis of its own filed research and correlation with other sources. A review of this publication indicates it provides an estimated total of approximately 495 civilians killed and 820 civilians wounded in specific documented instances. For the purposes of this report, the committee operates on the basis of the number of persons allegedly killed as found in both publications. It appears that a figure similar to both publications would be in the range of 500 civilians killed.
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm#IVA5

Further, Clark did offer to form a department of Foreign Aid that sounded similar in some ways to Kucinich's Peace Department.
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/012/

I'm starting to realize that you don't know Jack about Clark...That's what I am starting to realize. You seem to spew some stuff that you've heard, but are grossly misinformed...

You should have done some homework other than buying the extremist right and left's rendition of things. In life, one must his own homework, or suffer the possibility of sounding uninformed when it's important to be otherwise.

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/-/0060541644/qid=1114936910/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7692952-2877630?v=glance&s=books
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/index.html

[FrenchieCat]

43. I'm gonna anticipate your next post......

Since you seem to like moving the goalpost...first it's this that you don't like Clark for, then it's that....etc...

Guess your next move will be to deny that there was any Genocide going on in Kosovo, right? I mean the extreme left seem to have an affinity to Molosovic....so, if you've been hanging out at those websites, I'm sure that you will make this your next....but, Clakr didn't whine....

So let's get this one out now; YES KOSOVO WAS A WAR THAT WAS NEEDED TO INTERVENE IN A GENOCIDE THAT WAS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE.

If you don't believe me, maybe I can have Boxer speak for me.
I guess that Barbara Boxer was just full of shit during the Condi Rice SOS Hearings, when she said....
"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...

What next....Waco? Oh no...that's the extreme right.
Oh yeah, I know....a little SOA or a little DU maybe?

Lemme know.....K?

[sendero]

49. Putting Clark..

... in with that group leaves your knowledge and analysis suspect at best.

Clark is nothing like the milquetoast appeasers in the rest of your list.

[suegeo]

55. Being a member of a group of douche bags.

It must be tough to have to sit down with Republican freaks and killers and try to work out deals. I mean, I would think most of 'em would kinda of disheartened to be a crew member on a ship of tools veering for the bluffs.

They must sort of feel like I do as an American, and I look at people with W stickers on their truck, and I just go: I gotta be a part of this stuff? Lordy lordy. I a member of this group of freaks? This W. voter is the best we can do? Really?

Plus: Hate radio. Anthrax, small plane crashes. Getting tossed out of windows. Entrapped. Having their private lives and loves run through the mud.

[rhett o rick]

56. I agree. But to do that we will have to rip the control of the Demo

party away from the Big Money that runs it. They seem to be more interested in having a candidate that is friendly to them than picking a winning candidate. Hillary isn't a winning candidate. No matter how much you might like her, she will not win the Presidency in 2008. So why oh why is there so much support for her. She is buddy/buddy with the high rollers in the power circle. I don't think it is possible for the grass roots of this party to nominate a decisive candidate. The Party Powers won't let it happen. Remember if you are a rich Democrat, life isn't so bad. They aren't loosing their children in Iraq, they are also enjoying the huge Bush tax give-aways. The rich Democrats might not have it so good if the Party elected a radical reformer.
It is all about power. The grass roots members don't have any.
To repeat: They (those that fund the Demo Party) would rather have a candidate that's in their pocket than one that is a guaranteed winner.
Rhett

[CWebster]

58. To be anything else

would be demanding purity. :sarcasm:

[PATRICK]

67. For me not so much the boldness

or the left agenda as the recognition of reality and the enemy and Leading the people as they really would wish and deserve were they allowed to be properly informed in the first place. Leadership in that sense should have truthful vsion and boldness by definition. NOT having that has led us to follow toothless followers of conmen and duped mobs or illsuions of duped mobs.

A simple definition of leadership will do nicely. Then, one would think, actual quality and not wealth or celbrity stardom in a phony media circus, would be absolutely necessary for the times and the needs at hand.

We don't have hyperspeed warp drive to get from the best and brightest to Bush as "leader" of the most powerful richest nation on earth. Nor to embarassed competitors who let this trash walk in over us in the first place.

It is all too easy to propose a litmus test that much party leadership has already stained negatively with sometimes naive or apparently cowardly collaboration with lies. We are not crying out for a king or messiah, but for competence, quality and the truth. Will a real leader be cowed by lesser voices?

[dave123williams]

68. Because they're a bunch of spineless pussies? Just a thought.

At least all that serve in Congress...

[mtnester]

71. My my my...the Republicans are DAMN afraid of Clark

oh dear, look at the time, it is August 2005.

Better get started.